Trump: being deliberately divisive in an unprecedented way

I’ve never seen anything like it from ANY President Elect from either party in my lifetime:

And these are only the ones from New Year’s Eve onward!!! I am not talking about his “private citizen” tweets.

This is NOT how to show that you want to be President of *all* of America. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Don’t expect much from the Republicans in Congress…their hypocrisy knows no bounds:

I’m sorry, but uniting the country starts at the top…and President Elect Trump and the Republicans in Congress are failing…Bigly.

And please spare me all of this “President Obama was divisive” bullshit. Neither he nor President Bush acted anything like this.

Americans must agree:


This is from the Gallup Presidential Approval Center.

January 13, 2017 Posted by | barback obama, political/social, politics, republicans, republicans political/social | , | 1 Comment

Not the Republicans I grew up with…

Well, in 2017, a new President of the United States will be sworn in, and not the one that I had expected.

I am having a hard time processing this election; in some ways, the result is one that perhaps we’ve been trending toward in a long time. Gone is the articulate, well spoken, intellectual and enter the “fly by the seat of his pants” “rough spoken” rabid so-called “populist” who lives…here?


And that brings me to the subject of my post: this is not your old time “Republicans vs. Democrats” any longer.

When I was young, the Republicans were regarded as people who were proud of their educations and people who insisted on proper public deportment. Public humility was expected; women were to be ladies and the spoken word was to be measured.

And NOW, this is what we get:


(note: CPI went up in November..based on October data…interesting he is taking credit for improvement under President Obama, but never mind)

And the split in the vote was NOT along economic lines (save the poorest category); it was pretty much 50-50 at most income groups. The split was along racial lines AND educational lines.




(exit data via CNN)

What an interesting country this has become; Republicans are no longer the “classical music” party; they are the “Duck Dynasty/Ted Nugent” party.


Note: I know that Trump also parts ways with traditional Republicanism on things like free trade, but is all on board with things like “tax cuts for the rich” (aka “supply side economics”).

January 1, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, Republican, republicans, republicans political/social | 3 Comments

Debate remarks: Fox News moderator, Trumps “middle finger”, Political Correctness, etc.

Debate wrap up:

Fireworks: Trump vs. Kelly

Christie vs. Paul

I disagree with this New York Times assessment. Bush did well by not screwing up and Trump did well by giving the “middle finger” to the “establishment” and to “political correctness”. Trump actually showed some political savvy. It was up to the other candidates to shine.

Kasich: maybe came across as “sensible” but this debate was really more for the GOP base. Cruz did nothing to distinguish himself. Carson was terrible, and Huckabee appeared to be interviewing for “first minister” I’d say that Rubio and Fiorina (first debate) helped themselves the most whereas Bush and Trump (and perhaps Walker) “held serve”.

Here is what struck me as odd: in previous elections, the debate seemed to be about the “establishment candidate” with some “fringe candidate” attempting to break out. Here, this debate was more centered on the fringe candidate (Trump) vs. “which one will be the not-Trump”; the fringe appears to be in control.

And notice that no one on stage paid any attention to Bernie Sanders at all, save one remark by Jindal in the JV session.

The Fox News moderators did frame the debate via current Republican orthodoxy. There wasn’t quite as much “Reagan worship” as there had been in past GOP debates (time marches on?), Benghazi wasn’t repeatedly brought up and the “repeal Obamacare” stuff appeared to be half-hearted.

I’ll talk about Trump’s attack on “political correctness” at a later time; I do think that is an issue.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | politics, republicans, republicans political/social | , | 1 Comment

I’ve alienated almost everyone….:-)

Workout notes: it was a bit sticky when I went out: 80 F, 71 percent humidity at the start, 82 F, 67 at the end. But that was better than the 98 F, 71 percent humidity that we had yesterday.

So I did my hilly 8.1 mile Cornstalk course in 1:54 (58/56)..walking.


Sadly, my slowest run of this course was about 20 minutes faster. 🙂

But it was a decent clip for such a sticky day and hilly course. And more importantly, my knees didn’t hurt afterward.

Post I’ve made some FB people angry. How?

1. Applauded the Obama administration Iran deal (yes, we need to see how it works out, but I feel that we have to try and this is a good first step).
2. Said that Hillary Clinton was not the same as the Republican candidates.
3. Wondered (asked the question) if it is appropriate for an obese person to be a personal trainer at a gym.
4. Said that I would patronize a restaurant that didn’t allow young kids.

Oh well, perhaps I’ll anger some more people. 🙂

I think that Charles Krauthammer wrote a good column.

Dick Morris attacked Jeb Bush for his “Americans should work more” remarks. Oh, he did the old “Obamacare is killing full time jobs” attack. Uh, no. But never mind.

No, it is NOT TRUE that 71 percent of Obama voters regret voting for him. Here is where that 71 percent came from:

YouGov polled about 1,000 voters over two days in early February, asking voters of Romney and Obama if they would make the same decision today that they did in November 2012. YouGov found 90 percent of Romney voters would vote for Romney again, while 79 percent of Obama voters said they would stick with Obama.

Of the remaining 2012 Obama voters, 10 percent said they would not vote for him again, and 11 percent said they were unsure.

The 10 percent who would not vote for him again got a follow-up question: Do you regret voting for Obama?

Of 35 people in that group, 25 said yes. That’s 71 percent.

So of the people who voted for Obama, 396, 6 percent said they had regrets.

Note: some of those regrets come from the left.

Cranks Dinesh D’Souza is one of the biggest. Yes, that D’Souza. Well, as part of his sentence, he has to get psychological counseling:

“I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him,” Judge Berman said. “A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.”

He continued: “That Mr. D’Souza committed this crime involves a colossal failure of insight and introspection. The case notes also say Mr. D’Souza has weaknesses in controlling his own impulses and that he is prone to anger in reaction to criticism.”

July 15, 2015 Posted by | 2016, republicans political/social, social/political, walking | , , | Leave a comment

Mike Huckabee: please go to North Korea

He really said this:

Not content to make just one questionable quote in the last 24 hours, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee decided Saturday to suggest that North Koreans living under an oppressive regime might have more freedom at times than Americans.

According to reporters at the New Hampshire conservative summit where Huckabee spoke, the potential 2016 candidate cited airport security measures by the Transportation Safety Administration as proof.

Screen shot 2014-04-13 at 1.46.33 PM

Please go there and try it out.

April 13, 2014 Posted by | republicans political/social, republicans politics, social/political | Leave a comment

Dueling Hipsters (political)

Ok, I admit: I’ve talked about nothing of substance lately. So, I’ll mention something about some new ads the Republicans are running:

Ok, so this says NOTHING about demand on how “trickle down” has never worked. But this is a hipster. And let’s turn to a simplistic ad about energy:

Uh, there are environmental impacts, costs, potential, waste storage, etc. But hey, it is a hipster.

Now for the spoofs:

(hat tip: Hunter at Daily Kos, and Pareene at Salon)

March 23, 2014 Posted by | Political Ad, political humor, republicans political/social, republicans politics | , | Leave a comment

Facts and the Republicans

Oh noes! President Obama issued…gasp…executive orders! And…


But you’d never know this if you listened to Fox News.

Oh, the Republicans lie about the CBO report about Obamacare too. Sure, fewer people choosing to work has some impact, but it is minimal. So, no, the Affordable Care Act won’t cut millions of jobs.

But not funding the extra unemployment might well have a negative impact:

First, it’s still at near-record levels. Historically, the long-term unemployed — those out of work for 27 weeks or more — have usually been between 10 and 20 percent of total unemployment. Today the number is 35.8 percent. Yet extended unemployment benefits, which went into effect in 2008, have now been allowed to lapse. As a result, few of the long-term unemployed are receiving any kind of support.

Second, if you think the typical long-term unemployed American is one of Those People — nonwhite, poorly educated, etc. — you’re wrong, according to research by the Urban Institute’s Josh Mitchell. Half of the long-term unemployed are non-Hispanic whites. College graduates are less likely to lose their jobs than workers with less education, but once they do they are actually a bit more likely than others to join the ranks of the long-term unemployed. And workers over 45 are especially likely to spend a long time unemployed.

Third, in a weak job market long-term unemployment tends to be self-perpetuating, because employers in effect discriminate against the jobless. Many people have suspected that this was the case, and last year Rand Ghayad of Northeastern University provided a dramatic confirmation. He sent out thousands of fictitious résumés in response to job ads, and found that potential employers were drastically less likely to respond if the fictitious applicant had been out of work more than six months, even if he or she was better qualified than other applicants.

What all of this suggests is that the long-term unemployed are mainly victims of circumstances — ordinary American workers who had the bad luck to lose their jobs (which can happen to anyone) at a time of extraordinary labor market weakness, with three times as many people seeking jobs as there are job openings. Once that happened, the very fact of their unemployment made it very hard to find a new job.

So how can politicians justify cutting off modest financial aid to their unlucky fellow citizens?

Some Republicans justified last week’s filibuster with the tired old argument that we can’t afford to increase the deficit. Actually, Democrats paired the benefits extension with measures to increase tax receipts. But in any case this is a bizarre objection at a time when federal deficits are not just falling, but clearly falling too fast, holding back economic recovery.

For the most part, however, Republicans justify refusal to help the unemployed by asserting that we have so much long-term unemployment because people aren’t trying hard enough to find jobs, and that extended benefits are part of the reason for that lack of effort.

But, ironically, this won’t hurt them at the polls, at least too much as the mainstream Republicans will be mostly challenged from the RIGHT in primaries. Good…let the primary voters nominate kookier and kookier candidates.

February 11, 2014 Posted by | 2014 midterm, economics, economy, political/social, republicans political/social, republicans politics | Leave a comment

If you want to know why many Republican Representatives are such kooks…

Just look at who they represent:

This Horsey cartoon really isn’t much of an exaggeration, at all.

Screen shot 2013-10-12 at 3.37.51 PM

Remember that sitting GOP representatives are usually safe in the general election; their main worry is a challenge from the right in the GOP primary.

February 3, 2014 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social | Leave a comment

Perhaps the Christie Bridge Scandal wasn’t about payback for a “no endorsement”

Rachel Maddow has offered and interesting conjecture as to why Gov. Christie’s office closed all but one lane of the George Washington Bridge.

First: though the Mayor of Fort Lee did NOT offer Gov. Christie his endorsement during the governor’s race, many other Democrats didn’t either; only a minority of them did. The Mayor said he didn’t feel pressured to endorse and Gov. Christie said that the Mayor’s endorsement wasn’t a big target for his campaign anyway.

Second: there WAS an ongoing political fight between the Governor’s office and the State Senate Democrats. The fight was over the state Supreme Court.

In New Jersey, the justices get a 7 year term and then the governor can make their term “lifetime, until 70 years of age” post. That has ALWAYS been done until Gov. Christie denied such an appointment to a sitting Democratic judge. This was the first time this happened in New Jersey history.

Third: the Senate Democrats retaliated, blocking some of the Governor’s appointments. Then, they decided to give a sitting Republican judge a full hearing; she had served 7 years and was up for the “lifetime appointment”. She is the wife of a personal friend of the governor and has worked with him personally.

Gov. Christie withdrew her nomination rather than have her face a tough hearing.

Third: it was soon after the withdrawal that the bridge closure occurred, and Fort Lee (the affected city) is the home city of one of the State Senate “ringleaders” of this judicial retaliation.

You can read more here.

Is this what happened? Though I am not yet “convinced”, I do see this conjecture as “plausible”; worthy of investigation. But a conjecture it remains and there may be facts that debunk this conjecture that I am unaware of.

January 11, 2014 Posted by | politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social | , | Leave a comment

Tea Party people: more scientifically literate than average? Yes…not a surprise….

This blogger seems surprised that an honest analysis of data showed that:

Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.

That doesn’t surprise me at all. Of course I’d dispute this claim:

When composing histograms of the scientific inference abilities of liberals and conservatives, he discovered that those who described themselves as tea party supporters came out pretty well, [..]

The shift to the right on the gray columns represents a positive correlation between tea party members and generally higher scientific test scores. The r=0.05 is not a drastically higher score, but the findings are statistically significant to p=.05. In other words, tea party members appear to be slightly, but solidly more scientifically literate than non-tea party members.

In fact, tea party members tend to be more scientifically literate than other self-described conservatives, who have slightly negative scores, overall. These findings should give both liberal and GOP establishment types pause over their caricatures of tea party constituents.


Let me explain by an analogy: I’ve often scoffed at the photos of overweight tea party members. But, statistically speaking, they are probably less overweight than Americans as a whole. Why? Well, obesity has a negative correlation with affluence and Tea Party types are a bit wealthier and better educated THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Think about it. Imagine a rural white businessman attending one of those huge red brick churches. Yeah, he might sincerely believe in supernatural creation of the earth and deny that global warming exists. But he is apt to be better educated than the average American (all it takes is an undergraduate business degree from the local “directional” state university to meet that criteria) and probably knows more than the average American.

That doesn’t mean that he is informed; that is more of a reflection of the country that he lives in. Remember that only 4 out of 5 Americans knows that the earth goes around the sun:

Four out of Five Americans Know Earth Revolves Around Sun
Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: “As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?” In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn’t know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn’t know.

So, being slightly better than average is nothing to crow about; my beef with the Tea Party types is that they think that they know far more than they actually do.

Also, liberals tend to overestimate their own scientific literacy. Liberal have the same nasty habit of rejecting science that makes them uncomfortable (think: GMO research):

The left’s war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.

There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left’s sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It’s the only way to feed billions of people.

Or another example: conservatives in churches might believe that a human literally died and was made alive again and magically was taken into some “place” called heaven, but you’ll see woo-woo that is at least that ridiculous being discussed in Unitarian churches.

And yes, Barack Obama, as much as I like him, got elected with the help of some rather….”uninformed” voters:

As much as conservatives disgust me and as much as the “we are entitled” attitudes of some of the better educated conservatives repulse me(*), stupidity and ignorance is one of the things that is bipartisan.

And, I’d much rather talk to a smart, informed conservative than an overconfident, uninformed but unaware of it liberal.

(*) Last week, Barbara and I went to a Rams football game. Barbara needs a wheelchair to go anything resembling a distance (though maybe not for much longer!) and so we had handicapped access seating. After the game, we took the 4’th floor elevator (we were in the upper deck handicap access, since our tickets were up there) to the ground floor. On the 4’th floor, they had a sign saying that the elevator was reserved for the handicapped; there were ramps and escalators for everyone else.

But one of the elevators stopped on the 2’nd floor where, evidently, the “handicapped only” rule didn’t exist or the “club level” people didn’t think that it applied to them. You see, asking a club level patron to take a ramp or escalator was, well…too much.

And so they got on…all healthy and able bodied. One had some leftovers from their club suite…said the food was good but he couldn’t finish it. Another said “hey, give it to some of the homeless..they’d love it” while smirking.

Those people are who I thought they were.

December 18, 2013 Posted by | republicans, republicans political/social, science, social/political | Leave a comment