[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Trump is probably too ignorant to know the Taiwan implications. If the president of Taiwan (or any other country) calls to congratulate, he’d be like “oh, ok. Put him through”.

Taiwan played him. There is no protocol and few gatekeepers to reach a president-elect.[/quote]
Wrong – I have seen some of the Defense contracts between Taiwan and China. The act tends to put more of an honest face to what has really been going on behind the scenes. By the way, what aircraft (fighters) does Taiwan fly? Who provides their training? (for me, this question is rhetorical – but the answers are kind of revealing).

China has been getting pushy with the Spratly Islands, the US has been tip-toe’ing around that too much.

[ucodegen]

This almost seems to be taken from the North Korea playbook. Kind of Orwellian too.

[ucodegen]

[quote=givdrvr]Another interesting movement to get Electoral College Electors to abandon their state mandate and vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/500-000-people-sign-petition-203109567.html%5B/quote%5D

Start position is with respect to Trump. A lot more on the total video about Hillary – on the entire video. Are you sure you want the nation to go down this path? At which point, if the Electoral College decides to vote different than ‘assigned’, how long do you think the Electoral College will last? How could you trust the Electoral College in the future – particularly if ‘your choice’ has not been selected.

PS: Rich T., I think the server for Piggington.com is missing a patch relative to Daylight Savings time. It is not switching at the correct times.

[ucodegen]

[quote=livinincali]I think people are just pushing back against that elitist tone even if some of those policies proposed by the elitists would benefit them. [/quote]

This last sentence described why it happened, particularly the last portion ‘even if some of those policies proposed by the elitists would benefit them’.

How are the elitists to know what is best for them? They are too far disconnected from the lives these people live. If one of these supposedly good policies turns out bad for them.. who takes the hit? They do, while the elitist might ignore the result because it runs in the face of what they want to believe or they might just say ‘my bad’ and turn back to their latte’. These so called ‘deplorables’ still have to deal with the very real consequences.

[quote=livinincali]We honestly just don’t understand how these people think or what concerns they have.[/quote]
Exactly. The other item you may want to consider, is that a liberal progressive policy that you may be proposing; may be neither liberal nor progressive. Any time a policy removes or restricts existing rights – it actually is repressive – controlling. The base form of ‘liberal’ is same as to ‘liberate’ or free. But controlling and restricting is not freeing.

One thing that these ‘deplorables’ don’t like, is arrogance directed towards or against them. Calling them ‘deplorables’ is definitely one way to demonstrate the arrogance. Sounds almost like the concept of the ‘untouchables’ in India – coming from the mouths of so called progressive liberals. So are progressive liberals really believers in a caste system?

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Is it possible to teach knowledge without being elistist? [/quote] Yes. Stop assuming that you know everything. Help when help is asked for but do not impose.

[quote=FlyerInHi]
How can children aspire to improve when they their parents disparage universities and higher learning?[/quote]
And back into the soup…
They don’t always disparage universities. Sometimes what they need to learn is not in a University, but in a trade school. Sometimes neither a trade school or a University has what they need to learn. What they do disparage is a green University graduate telling them how to do something that they know is wrong because they already tried it 30 years ago. But the University graduate, flush with a new degree – is certain they know more than the person who has been practicing their trade for over 30 years.

[quote=FlyerInHi]
How is it that people who want to “tell it like it” are so sensitive about being looked down upon? Own your condition and try to change it. Isn’t that what pulling up by the boostraps is?[/quote] Look at my segment above. Why is the display of arrogance, of superiority considered appropriate and ‘telling it like it is’? Acting superior is not telling it like it is, it is closing your ears and acting.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Livin’, if voters can’t recognize or reject policies that would benefit them, then screw them. Blue collar democrats voted for Reagan who deregulated.[/quote]
NAFTA and deregulation are not the same thing. Don’t mix them. NAFTA was not under Reagan. Bush started, Clinton signed it.

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=ucodegen][quote=scaredyclassic]im even sad about legal weed. the country is a bummer. i dont even wanna get high in a country with such bad vibes.

im just gonna,drink.[/quote]
Maybe some magic mushrooms – helps when you feel real small..

The Hookah Smoking Caterpillar[/quote]

pretty sure trump will. shut down legal weed anyway…

or giuliani will. no, these times call for plain old booze[/quote]
What I have found about the current version of weed, it is not like the ’60s and ’70s weed. It is around 10 times stronger and can cause onset schizophrenia. I have been dealing with someone has in the past become addicted to weed. We’ve gotten the person clean, finally. Now that it is legal, we are now worried about what will now happen. In the past, this person has shown no ability to moderate use.

If this was the ’60s and ’70s weed, I would not have a problem with people using it. This stuff today is a different matter all together. Colorado’s warning are worth noting.

[ucodegen]

I don’t think it is Trump’s move yet. There are cards on Obama/Clinton’s side yet to be played out.

According to the statute on handling classified media, Clinton did clearly violate the law. According to the statute, Negligence is not an excuse.

Possible sequence to follow:
1. The AG has Clinton charged.
2. She admits guilt gets sentenced.
3. Obama commutes the sentence and pardon’s her as he leaves office.

I think that could happen in the remaining month an half. She needs to admit guilt so that real data which could be worse, doesn’t get presented in court. Once sentenced and then pardoned, she would not be able to be retried due to double jeopardy. At this point Hillary should be free and clear of the problems with her Email, probably forever.

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]im even sad about legal weed. the country is a bummer. i dont even wanna get high in a country with such bad vibes.

im just gonna,drink.[/quote]
Maybe some magic mushrooms – helps when you feel real small..

The Hookah Smoking Caterpillar

[ucodegen]

For those that like metrics…

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Updates continually, can select by county or State. Hovering over state gives specifics – need JavaScript running. They seem to be a bit ahead of the broadcast news.

[ucodegen]

[quote=AN][quote=ltsdd]Get ready for double-digit unemployment and inflation. It’s going to be the fvcked up 1980s again. I am going to put off buying that next investment property for the next few years.[/quote]
That would be fucking AWESOME if we see double digit inflation :-D.

As for double digit unemployment, do you think we’ll see another great Recession? If so, will we also see dirt cheap housing again? Doesn’t sound too bad to me.[/quote]
Humm high inflation.

OK to Good for stock investors – since price will at a min track inflation.
Good for debtors – pay off with inflated dollars
Bad for cash – worth much less
Bad for fixed income, bonds – inflation wiping out interest payments.

House prices will probably remain same with everything else rising to meet the house prices.

[ucodegen]

You mean 726pts, umm 756pts… dive dive dive…

[ucodegen]

One prediction I can give on the election, is that voter turnout will be higher than normal. I saw the election rolls of voters and there were many mail-ins listed on the rolls, many many many more than I have ever seen. The polls where I went to before lunch were not that busy, particularly when compared to the registrar’s lines.

As for accuracy of polls – it should be interesting. A group of voters that normally doesn’t participate seems to be voting. Which group that is – I can’t tell. It may split evenly along party lines — or not.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ucodegen]
Or maybe that Trump supporters think that the huge bailouts that corporate America gets may end under Trump, or that maybe special interest money that fuels certain industries may get redirected to other special interest groups.
[/quote]

And what Trump proposals made his supporters think that?

Also I believe that Trump supporters will be in a for surprise when the lame duck republican congress passes TPP at the behest of big business.[/quote]
You are forgetting that Obama would have to sign it. ‘can’t completely point to the Republicans here. BTW, the TPP is one of the goals of the Obama administration – so you may want to fact check. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/trade

[ucodegen]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Seems really counter intuitive, but don’t argue with the technical indicators. I’d verify with reading goat entrails, but having problems getting a permit.[/quote]
You might be able to get a permit out in Ramona – since it is still semi rural and there is still some farming. Be careful though – some might call you out for witchcraft.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu][quote=ucodegen][quote=flu]Well, I guess the average person doesn’t understand when wall street stops investing in main street….Main street businesses go under, and then that 4-5% unemployment ends up being much worse… And for those folks that think things can’t possibly get worse, obviously they haven’t been financially decimated enough to understand.[/quote]
These days, wall street doesn’t invest, it speculates. It might be better if wall street left main street to the individual investors – your dividends might get juicier because the share price wouldn’t be priced so tight against yield.[/quote]

Not completely true. For example, plenty of investment capital chasing startups and new tech, and yes jobs…So long as the economy is in a growth mindset. That, however, would change, if folks get their wish and the system collapses. [/quote]
I have to put ‘not completely true’ on your ‘not completely true’. Wall street has not been the sole financier of startups. The big problem with the current venture capital is that a very quick to market and profit is demanded, to the point that the originators of the idea lose the control of the very thing they invented/created – effectively coining the term vulture capital. When the newly minted company is put on the market/offers common shares – it is so completely ‘priced to perfection’, that the common shareholder will not see any gains for a long time if ever, and take upon themselves considerable risk – to the profit of the vultures exiting the company.

Some attempts to get around the vultures have been tried, including trying to end-run firms that initiate public offerings (for a considerable amount of profit to themselves) – yet another slice away from the creators of the company.

Remember that the original exchanges consisted of more than NASDAQ and NYSE – ever remember the Pacific Stock Exchange? American Stock Exchange? Owning stock was not completely a wall street idea, however wall street has taken actions to try to possess, control, or be the intermediary to tax (transaction fees) all such transactions. Remember how wall street fought having prices go to smaller fractions instead of 1/8ths or 1/4s?

As for your comments about the ‘alt-right’ – really flu. Those statements are for one, uncalled for considering my statements and are non-sequitur to the statements I made, they are also inflammatory because they are using ad hominem attack logic and are a clear example of how and why the current discourse had degraded to name calling instead of dealing with the facts — ‘alt-right’ — really?

[Author]

Posts