blueollie

Forget about Impeaching Trump…for now.

If you read my twitter feed, some are under the impression that Trump will be removed from office. Nate Silver does a very detailed analysis and concludes:

All that work … and I’m still not going to give you a precise number for how likely Trump is to lose his job. That’s because this is a thought experiment and not a mathematical model. I do think I owe you a range, however. I’m pretty sure I’d sell Trump-leaves-office-early stock (whether because of removal from office or other reasons) at even money (50 percent), and I’m pretty sure I’d buy it at 3-to-1 against (25 percent). I could be convinced by almost any number within that range.

The easiest-to-imagine scenario for Trump being removed is if Republicans get clobbered in the midterms after two years of trying to defend Trump, the Republican agenda is in shambles, Democrats begin impeachment proceedings in early 2019, and just enough Republicans decide that Pence (or some fresh face with no ties to the Trump White House) gives them a better shot to avoid total annihilation in 2020.

In some sense, then, the most important indicators of Trump’s impeachment odds are the ones you’d always use to monitor the political environment: presidential approval ratings, the generic congressional ballot and (if taken with appropriate grains of salt) special election results. What makes this time a little different is that if Republicans think the ship is sinking, impeachment may give them an opportunity to throw their president overboard first.

And I’ve seen credible arguments that…Trump could well end up getting reelected in 2020! (yeah, I know…it is a Salon article, but this article strikes me as being credible).

Trump’s approval, while dismal for a new president, isn’t at historic lows (though low FOR THIS POINT in an administration). The Real Clear Politics approval average is just under 40 percent. His Gallup poll approval is at 37 percent. But it is at 84 percent among Republicans.

That might seem hard to believe, but remember that lots of Republicans do not trust the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN. This is what they are seeing:

They are much more likely to be up in arms about what some obscure liberal arts professor said than about serious issues like this one:

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.

Things like Trump’s embarrassing mathematical error in his new budget (he double counted the projected offsets to his proposed 2 trillion dollar tax cuts) will be seen as, at worst, “liberal lies” and, at best, the “he said, she said” part of partisan politics.

If that sounds incredible, well, we are not behind their propaganda wall.

Many of us simply do not associate with many (if any) Trump supporters; we are hearing different things than they are. Note how “clumpy” this precinct level map is; Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes, but, on an individual level, we are likely to interact mostly with those who see eye to eye with us. Yes, I live in a county (Peoria, IL) that barely went for Clinton; my Congressional District (IL-17) elected Cheri Bustos (Democrat) but was carried by Trump (barely); Obama won it by 17 points in 2012. (2016 by Congressional District, by County)

So, I have to disagree with her here:

Interviews with Trump supporters are the only way I come to grips with, well, how delusional the Republican rank and file is.

And these are the people who vote for all of those Republicans in Congress. And now, Trump has big money behind him (tax cuts).

But between now and 2020 lie the 2018 midterms and those are huge; the President’s party usually loses seats.

But that means flipping some “swing districts” and IN SUCH DISTRICTS, “impeachment” does not play well there.

So, I’d like us to focus on winning at least one chamber (maybe two?) in 2018, and would settle for a legislative stalemate between now and then.

Realpolitik.

Workout notes
5 treadmill miles; slow warm up (2 miles just over 22 minutes; 5.2 going up .1 every .5 miles) then 3 miles of .25 faster, .25 walk (3.7 mph); .25 segments were 6.7, 6.9, 7.0 (two reps at each level). Just enough to get sweaty (197.5 before, 194.3 after).

May 23, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, republicans, republicans politics, running, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Removal of Trump from office: yes, there is a downside

First of all, I have no training in law; I do not know (for sure) whether Trump did anything impeachable or not. It appears to me that he violated his oath of office in at least 3 areas: violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice (trying to hinder the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion with Russia during the election) and his grotesquely reckless giving “beyond top secret” information to Russia (though he DOES have the power to do so).

I have read that while the Constitution says “High crimes and misdemeanors” as the standard,

Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President’s oath of office. Questions of criminality aside, we turn to the far more significant issues: If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President.

Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.

And yes, I find this convincing.

The downside: the biggest one for me is that if Trump leaves office before his term is up (whatever reason) then:

1. He is going to be replaced by a conservative, and almost certainly, one with a lot more political skill. That is, the Republicans will still control both chambers of Congress and the executive AND have someone who is better situated in getting their agenda passed.

2. The replacement will have a good shot at reelection and

3. The Republicans in Congress can play the “we placed patriotism over party” card and probably better positioned to retain their seats.

So there are political minefields here. BUT, right now, I am worried about disaster and would trade Trump for some conservative who is more emotionally stable and rational, even if it hurts us politically.

I still see impeachment as a longshot though:

And yet, outside the inner circle of Republicans with access to the commander-in-chief, Trump’s popularity remains respectable, even solid. The conservative base is largely unaware of the constant revelations of Trump’s gross incompetence, or has been trained to ignore them as propaganda emanating from the administration’s enemies in the deep state or the liberal media. In red America, Trump remains a hero at best, and a competent, normal president at worst.

Recognizing competence is not a strength of red America. Remember that Trump was elected by people who see Trump as themselves, had they been born into money. And many of them probably sincerely believe that THEY could do a competent job as president.

Workout notes weights, 2 mile run, 3 mile walk.
weights: rotator cuff, 5 x 10 pull ups, incline presses: 10 x 135, 7 x 150, 3 x 160 (strict hips), military: 20 x 50 dumbbell (seated, supported), 2 sets of 10 x 45, rows: Hammer: 3 sets of 10 x 200. headstand.

run: 20 minutes (2.08) 10:38 mile 1, 19:16 mile 2 (6.7 at 8 minutes then up by .1 ever .25 miles)
walk: 5K Bradley Park course (easy)

May 17, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

Critiquing Trump: big deals, usual critiques and silliness

Yes, this is a big deal. In a meeting with Russian officials, Trump blurted out highly sensitive information, which we now know was obtained from Israel.

Yes, this is a big deal. Not only might this get a source killed, it might make Israel less likely to share stuff with us, and it might make our own intelligence people less likely to tell POTUS what they know.

But even worse (if that is possible), is that our Republican political leadership is unwilling to do anything about it, since they feel that they can get their precious tax cuts if DJT remains in office with at least a little bit of credibility.

Paul Krugman has a good tweetstorm on that topic:

But will this matter to the rank and file Republican? Sadly: probably not, or at least “not much”; they will see this as the usual “back and forth” that goes on with any president.

I remember that I went through something like this at the governor level: yes, I voted for Blagojevich a second time. Yes, I heard the dissension but around here, and I even backed his primary opponent to the point of giving him money. And the Republicans lie and overblow things so much that I didn’t believe them, at least at first. Then I began to have doubts, but was told by one “sort of party insider” that people were angry at him because they didn’t get the expected patronage.

It turns out that the Republicans were actually telling the truth!!! That is one vote that I wish I had back.

Happily, the Democratic legislature did the right thing and impeached him.

So what to make of Trump? Note, I am limiting myself to stuff he does AFTER becoming president; Russian interference in our election (along with possible collusion) is a different matter.

First there is the silly stuff. I don’t care how he likes his steak, how many scoops of ice cream he has, that he is fat, or that he doesn’t have a dog.

Then there is the usual partisan stuff, when he does Republican things, I am not going to like them. But elections do have consequences. I’ll speak my mind but this is the normal partisan push-back.

Next: any President has to make decisions and those will be critiqued. An example of this was Trump’s decision to bomb that Syrian airfield. I saw that as a rather futile gesture that really had no impact but I can see many Presidents doing this. But these decisions will always attract scrutiny. And some of what he tries won’t work out. Yes, Obama had a few policy misses too, but these were hardly “unfit for office” stuff, no matter how much the morons on Facebook and Twitter scream.

Then there is the “he isn’t behaving in a Presidential manner” stuff. I think that this is important, but not to the degree “we have reason to remove this man from office” important. I do not like the way he criticizes private citizens; I think that he sets a very poor example in this area. No president in my memory did anything like this. This is ugly, but, well, a large minority of people (not even a plurality!) voted for this or at least did not see it as disqualifying.

Finally, there is the “unfit for office” stuff: these are his sneering at the emoluments clause (profiting from his office), his nepotism and now, this impulsive giving out highly sensitive intelligence because he wants to show off, and his attempts to interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation. Yes, I see Trump as unfit for office.

May 16, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, republicans, republicans politics, social/political | | Leave a comment

Trump, Comey, and all the rest…

(from Real Clear Politics) President Obama was in the high 50’s, low 60’s by comparison.

So, what does this mean? (note: the numbers were taken mostly before the Comey firing)

This is probably very cynical of me, but Trump’s presidency really isn’t in peril until the Republican Congress turns against him, and Trump isn’t at Nixon levels of disapproval as yet, at least among Republicans.

And Trump is angering liberals, which, well, is a big part of modern Republican politics. It is the old: “if he makes liberals angry, he must be doing something right” sort of thing.

As far as firing Comey: THAT, in and of itself doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that he appeared to fire Comey either in retaliation for, or to hinder an FBI investigation into Russian involvement with our election, and as to whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians. That Russia interfered (via hacking the DNC, release of fake news, fake accounts, etc.) is beyond question. The issue is “did they interfere with the help of the Trump campaign, or was there any collusion?. And THAT, is very troubling. I hope the Republicans realize that President Trump could potentially turn on any one of them at a given moment.

But, sadly, the problem remains political rather than ethical.

May 13, 2017 Posted by | political/social, republicans, social/political | , , | Leave a comment

Ok, Obamacare repeal passes the House..what next? Malthus lives on…

Here are a couple of good articles which explain what must happen for this bill to become law: it needs a CBO score, then it needs to be determined if this bill meets the rules for reconciliation AND it can even get 50 Republican votes. (Washington Post, Scientific American)

My guess: House moderate Republicans changed their minds because, unlike the ACA, this is unlikely to become law in its current form. So, while the ACA passage cost the Democrats many, many seats, this bill, if it dies or becomes unrecognizable, might not cost the Republicans nearly as much.

Besides, the biggest threat to many Republicans is a primary challenge, NOT the general election.

My guess: the Senate will have to make some tweaks to both get to 50 votes AND to meet reconciliation rules, and that tweaked bill might not survive a second round in the House. I’ll be watching carefully.

Oh, my feed is full of “those heartless Republicans” but these pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears. The elite Republicans have always had a bit of a social Darwinist element to their reasoning.

You see life is hard, it is risky and many do not make it. If you are one of those, well, that is sad, and perhaps a charity might help you out. But that is NOT “our problem”.

This sentiment is expressed by former US Representative Joe Walsh:

Republicans in office cannot say this directly, but he can. Believe me, many of the wealthy Republicans think this way.

There are assets and debits. If you cannot contribute due to either age or disability AND aren’t wealthy, well, you are a debit, not a credit. So society is better off not supporting you. Reverend Malthus would be proud.

Workout notes:
rotator cuff, pull ups (ugly got 10-10-10-10-(5-5), incline presses (10 x 135, 5 x 135, 4 x 135, strict hips), military: 20 x 50 (dumbbell) seated, supported, 2 sets of 10 x 45 standing (dumbbell), 3 sets of 10 x 110 row machine.

2 mile run: 10:36/19:14 via 8 minutes of 2-2-2-2, then 6.7 until mile 1, 6.8-7.1 and 7.2 for the last 46 seconds.

Then goblet squats (100 meter walk recoveries) 50-45-50-60-50-65 (5 reps). Took two sets to get to the proper depth.

Now: onward to see my daughter graduate and finish final exams.

May 4, 2017 Posted by | health care, Personal Issues, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, running, social/political, weight training | Leave a comment

Zakaria is right: avoid “Trump derangement syndrome”

It is a sign of the times that I feel the need to state this: yes, I feel that Trump is grossly unqualified to be President of the United States on many levels: experience, deportment, attitude, maturity, humility, intellectual honesty, knowledge, etc. I completely agree with this assessment on Trump’s breathtaking ignorance.

And I am disgusted that so many (if not a plurality) voted for him. Yes, some of his voters are reasonably well off; many have done difficult to do things (run a successful business, be medical doctors, lawyers, military officers, etc.) But as far as this group: I feel that many of these people, while smart, spend most of their intellectual energy at their job and become intellectually lazy outside their job. I wonder if they would hire or promote someone who did not bother to learn the details of the job that they are doing it…and came in thinking that they could just “wing it”, as Trump appears to be doing.

But, I think that too many of Trump’s critics have gone too far. From Fareed Zakaria:

I didn’t really believe that there was such a thing as Trump Derangement Syndrome — hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment. It’s not that I didn’t notice the harsh, unyielding language against him — I’ve said a few tough things myself — but that throughout the campaign, Trump seemed to do things that justified it. Once elected, instead of calming down and acting presidential, he continued the stream of petty attacks, exaggerations and lies. His administration seemed marked by chaos and incompetence.

And then came the strike against Syria. On that issue, Trump appears to have listened carefully to his senior national security professionals, reversed his earlier positions, chosen a calibrated response and acted swiftly. I supported the strike and pointed out — in print and on air — that Trump was finally being presidential because the action “seems to reflect a belated recognition from Trump that he cannot simply put America first — that the president of the United States must act on behalf of broader interests and ideals.” On the whole, though, I was critical of Trump’s larger Syria policy, describing it as “incoherent.” My Post column was titled, “One missile strike is not a strategy.”

From the response on the left, you would have thought I had just endorsed Trump for pope. Otherwise thoughtful columnists described my views as “nonsense” and a sign that the media has “bent over backward” to support Trump. (Really?) One journalist declared on television, “If that guy could have sex with this cruise missile attack, I think he would do it.” A gaggle of former Obama speechwriters discussed how my comments were perhaps “the stupidest” of any given on the subject.

And I agree with him here, sort of. When I first learned of the Trump missile attack, I thought “this sure feels familiar; I could see most any President in my lifetime (except perhaps Jimmy Carter) doing something that at least appeared to be similar, at least superficially. Yes, Trump’s lack of deportment took away the benefit of the doubt that I gave to other Presidents (including Republicans). And I still wonder exactly what we did…it appears that the airfield was still operational, etc.

And oh my, when the generals (perhaps without seeking Trump’s approval) used that 21,000 lb. blast bomb which, to me, was a mere “weapons choice”. Comparing it to a small nuclear device was absurd.

And I’ll say this, just in case. IF Trump decides to seek a universal health care option (say, Medicaid for all) or IF Trump decides to embark on a genuine, conventionally financed infrastructure repair plan (unlikely to be an honest plan, IMHO, but IF), I’d want my members of Congress to work on a deal.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d be very surprised if it happens. Very surprised. But IF…

And let’s talk about that election. Yes, there was collusion with Russia and Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, though no hacking of the actual voting machines. And the Comey letter hurt; Clinton would have probably pulled it out without it.

But that isn’t ALL. First, the Clinton campaign was a disaster; they neglected key states. She is not good “from the podium” (she admitted to not being the natural politician that her husband is). She has a Gore like “Velcro” persona; EVERYTHING sticks to her, whether fair or not. So, IMHO, she screwed up.

And, in the interest of accuracy, fairness and planning: give The Devil his Due. Trump is an excellent con man and his get out the vote operation, armed by sophisticated data mining, was excellent. They knew who to target and how to target them.

But sadly, giving Trump even this much credit is taboo in some circles.

I like to think of it this way: suppose there is a football game where a team wins on a series of very bad calls by the officials. BUT, along the way, the losing team missed easy field goals and fumbled the ball away multiple times AND the other team came in very, very prepared. ALL of those factors (bad officiating, bad play by the losing team, superb play by the winning team) can ALL be true at the same time.

And I believe that an honest assessment on what Trump did *right* in the campaign is a necessary part of winning the next campaign.

April 16, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, republicans, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

One problem with being utterly cocksure…

This article about Mitch McConnell is quite good. Yeah, he is a shrewd politician:

ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis, author of a McConnell biography, “The Cynic,” reports former Republican senator Robert Bennett’s account of what McConnell told fellow Republicans after Obama’s election: “Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that.’ ”

And that’s what he did. By 2013, for example, 79 of Obama’s nominees had been blocked by filibusters, compared with 68 in the entire previous history of the Republic.

After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was confirmed last year, it took McConnell less than an hour to say that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. He called keeping Obama’s nominee off the court “one of my proudest moments.”

He is also a loathsome scumbag and embodies much of what is wrong with our political system. He is about “power for us first and foremost”..presumably because he is so sure that what HE thinks is, well, must be what is best for the country. And in a country where one of our legislative bodies, in theory, can be controlled by the will of a small percentage of the population, that can be terrible.

I much prefer the pragmatists that see “country over party”. He is NOT one of those.

Workout notes: weights then 2 miles of running on the treadmill:

weights: rotator cuff
pullups (5 sets of 10: not that bad)
dumbbell bench press: 10 x 70, 9 x 80 (ran out of gas)
inline bench press: 2 sets of 10 x 135
military press (dumbbell, standing) 10 x 50, 10 x 45, 10 x 45
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110
Hammer Machine incline: 2 sets of 10 x 140
abs: 2 sets of 12 crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, 10 moving bridges

Run: “every 2”: 5.2-5.4 first 10, 6.7-7.1 second 10. 10:56/8:40 and made it to 2.04 miles

I noted, with amusement, the young man who handled way more than he was capable by…only going 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down. Not sure if that was intentional (only working prior to the sticking point?)

April 13, 2017 Posted by | republicans, republicans politics, running, social/political, weight training | | Leave a comment

Why your CEO approves of Trump

Yes, Trump’s approval ratings are in the high 30’s to mid 40’s; Gallup at 38.

It has dropped some.

But if you talk to many CEOs: well, Trump is doing great! Why? In their world, government regulations and overreach is keeping them from being as profitable as they think that they could be. So, fewer regulations, fewer worries about pollution controls (who cares about a bunch of stupid frogs and snails?)…and lower that tax rate!

Oh, you have things like this: Caterpillar might be in serious trouble for violating tax laws AND economic sanctions. But you see, Caterpillar has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders and if that means setting up some shady shell corporation in Switzerland to avoid those high US taxes, so be it. And if that corporation does business with a country that we have economic sanctions against, well….it is not against the letter of the law, unless…some of those US labeled parts gets mixed in with that Swiss batch…ooops! If we just got the government off of the backs of US corporations!!!

So Trump is doing great! Oh those safety net programs? Well, think of those that you actually know (not read about); those who grew up with you. Many of those who ended up on those safety net programs…really did make a bunch of dreadfully bad life decisions. So what are you going to do…continue to enable them?

Anyhow, they are just fine with Trump; they much prefer him to Obama. Oh…yeah, Trump might not know what he is doing and he might well tank the economy, start a war, etc. But that is long term; the in thing is to think short term.

This is what really matters at the moment:

April 4, 2017 Posted by | republicans, social/political | | Leave a comment

Understanding different types of Trump supporters

Yes, I admit that there are some Trump supporters that do fall into the “basket of deplorables”; there is no denying that. No, it isn’t half of them but it is certainly some of them.

I’ll focus on the more mainstream ones.

One group includes the poorly educated, “lower middle class to poor” Trump supporters. Yes, Trumpcare and many of Trump’s proposed economic policies will hurt them more than most. So what is going on? This appears to be the best explanation I’ve read.

This is my summary of the article: yes, the repeal of Obamacare and the cutting of safety-nets (including Medicaid) hurts them. Cutting “Meals on Wheels” hurts the elderly in the region as well.

But: what these people really want is for the long lost jobs to return; jobs with health insurance and retirement plans (both indirectly subsidized by the government in terms of tax breaks). Government run safety nets…those are yucky programs that “other people” rely on:

Why are economically struggling blue collar voters rejecting a party that offers to expand public safety net programs? The reality is that the bulk of needy white voters are not interested in the public safety net. They want to restore their access to an older safety net, one much more generous, dignified, and stable than the public system – the one most well-employed voters still enjoy. […]

ike most of my neighbors I have a good job in the private sector. Ask my neighbors about the cost of the welfare programs they enjoy and you will be greeted by baffled stares. All that we have is “earned” and we perceive no need for government support. Nevertheless, taxpayers fund our retirement saving, health insurance, primary, secondary, and advanced education, daycare, commuter costs, and even our mortgages at a staggering public cost. Socialism for white people is all-enveloping, benevolent, invisible, and insulated by the nasty, deceptive notion that we have earned our benefits by our own hand.

My family’s generous health insurance costs about $20,000 a year, of which we pay only $4,000 in premiums. The rest is subsidized by taxpayers. You read that right. Like virtually everyone else on my block who isn’t old enough for Medicare or employed by the government, my family is covered by private health insurance subsidized by taxpayers at a stupendous public cost. Well over 90% of white households earning over the white median income (about $75,000) carried health insurance even before the Affordable Care Act. White socialism is nice if you can get it.

The article also describes the tax breaks we get for our pension plans.

When Democrats respond to job losses with an offer to expand the public safety net, blue collar voters cringe and rebel. They are not remotely interested in sharing the public social safety net experienced by minority groups and the poorest white families. Meanwhile well-employed and affluent voters, ensconced in their system of white socialism, leverage all the power at their disposal to block any dilution of their expensive public welfare benefits. Something has to break.

And so, Bernie like populism will flop with that group.

The business CEOs
I remember my days in the submarine Navy. Both the officers and the enlisted men came from the top of their respective groups, at least in terms of intelligence. As far as the officers I worked with: typically A engineering students in college who has done well in Nuclear Power school They were very hard workers (16-18 hours a day at sea, 12 or more in port) were typical, and they knew the technology (e. g. nuclear power plant) inside and out.

But with those hours and that focus…let’s just say there wasn’t time to focus on the finer points of social policy or macro economics; whatever matched their intuition sounded good.

Business CEOs are probably similar: very smart people who know their business and their industry inside and out…but probably not that interested in this that don’t directly relate to their business in the short term. Hence, to them, Trump indicates and end to the “class warfare” that Obama waged..finally…lower taxes and fewer regulations! So attitudes like this are probably common.

Oh, there are long term problems. For example, if income inequality gets to be so great that few people have disposable income left, who is going to buy their stuff? If regulations made businesses so unprofitable, why did CEO pay rise so steeply? What will happen if/when Trump either gets us in a war or a trade war?

But lots of 14-18 hour days doesn’t give one a lot of time to ponder things beyond their own narrow interest.

March 18, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, republicans, social/political | , | 1 Comment

They lie and get away with it…healthcare, wire taps, etc.

First, here is Trump’s claim that President Obama released 122 prisoners from GITMO who returned to the battlefield. Uh, 113 of these were released by President Bush:

But none of this will matter to a Trump supporter.

What about Trump’s claim that he was “wiretapped by Obama”? Well, here is what they find convincing. I actually agree that an impartial investigation is called for; let’s see the evidence used for the relevant FISA warrants. But this article does have a useful list of good article about intercepted intelligence between Trump campaign officials and the Russians.

Here is a more thoughtful article about KremlinGate and what happened. Upshot: you don’t have right to privacy when discussing things with potential spies.

And we move to healthcare. Yes, the Republicans want to give the wealthiest another tax cut and repeal some of the unpopular things from Obamacare..but things that were necessary to make it work. And they want to allow companies to charge older people 5 times more (rather than just 3) and end out of pocked subsidies. My guess: Senate will filibuster and the Republicans will say “we tried” (while breathing a sigh of relief).

March 7, 2017 Posted by | health care, politics, politics/social, republicans, tax cuts | | Leave a comment