Muda69

Trump Just Might Have Won the 2020 Election Today The president's speech at CPAC was a bedazzling mix of bravado, B.S., humor, and positive vision no Democrat will be able to top.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/02/trump-just-might-have-won-the-2020-elect 109 people are talking about this You can cover a huge amount of material in two-hours-plus, and Trump certainly did that. After speaking sympathetically of immigrants who want to come to the United States and saying that we need more people because the economy (well, his economy, as he takes credit for it) is doing so well, he immediately dismissed the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans traveling north in caravans across Mexico. In a bizarre display of simultaneous empathy and contempt, he talked at length about how female migrants are being systematically "raped" but also how the caravans were filled with criminals and drug dealers. It was "sad to see how stupid we've become" to think that the caravans are filled with good people. As he has been doing since his State of the Union address, he has been laying out a partial, inchoate case for a skills-based immigration program. He explained walking away from the table with North Korea even as he noted yet again that he has a great relationship with the dictator Kim Jong Un. In a long riff on trade policy, he invoked the "Great Tariff Debate of 1888" and how China "and everyone else" had been taking advantage of us until he started pushing back. He took time to talk about how no, really, the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence. All in all, it was, in the words of Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, "one of the least-hinged speeches Trump has given in a long time." It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today's speech, Trump has mostly ditched the "American Carnage" rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. "We have people in Congress right now who hate our country," he said. "We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad." At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. "We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare," he averred at one point. "Now you have a president who finally standing up for America." The future, he said "does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I've said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country." That's a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020. None of this is to suggest that this speech wasn't as fact-challenged as almost every utterance Trump has given since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination (go to Daniel Dale's Twitter thread for a running count of misstatements of fact). He hammered trade deficits in a way that will remind anyone with an undergrad economics course under their belt that he fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about. He misrepresented both NAFTA and the new trade bill he crafted with Mexico and Canada, and at the exact moment that hundreds of wearied listeners started leaving the ballroom at The Gaylord Resort and Convention Center, he claimed that not a single person had left their seat. But the 2020 presidential race is not going to be decided based on which candidate is more tightly moored to reality. It's going to be decided, like these things always are, by the relative health of the economy and the large vision of the future the different candidates put forward. As the economy continues to expand (however anemically compared to historical averages) and he continues to avoid credible charges of impeachable offenses, Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions. Trump isn't the creator of post-factual politics in America, he is merely currently its most-gifted practitioner (oddly, his ideological and demographic counterpart and fellow New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may become a challenger to him on precisely this score). Trump may have next to no credibility in profoundly disturbing ways, but American politics has been drifting away from reality for the entire 21st century, when the 2000 election was essentially decided by a coin flip, the United States entered the Iraq War under false premises, and Barack Obama took home Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award and dissembled unconvincingly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations. That Trump didn't invent the current situation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it, but if he can continue to perform the way he did today at CPAC, it remains to be seen what Democratic rival can rise to that challenge. Mr. Trump will never have get my vote, but I tend to agree with Mr. Gillespie here. Mr. Trump is doing a masterful job at solidifying his base, a base that took him to victory in 2016. And unless the other side of the uni-party finds a way to sway that conservative base or bring independents into it's fold I'm afraid 2020 is a foregone conclusion.

I can't speak for all libertarians, so no. Do you believe Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is intimidating the masses? Are progressive liberals, with their GNS, intimidating the masses?

Bill Gates on unreliable Wind and Solar energy: No, nuclear energy is still where it is at..

Disdain <> intimidation.

Portrait of an obsession, from a couple of NightHawk's favorite websites: ,

And of course the King, a position that you appear to personally covet, stays fat and happy. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Again, at what cost to personal freedom and liberty?

You are welcome. It seems that I do belong to a cult, with myself as the only member. Would you like to join? Also I have never heard of the Mr. Molyneux you refer to in #10. He appears to espouse a flavor of libertariansim that I don't personally agree with, but to each his own. Do you personally have the exact same opinions and beliefs as every other progressive liberal/democrat?

Dear NightHawk, I found a cult check list below. Please explain in detail how libertarianism fits into all of these: 1.The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. ‪2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. ‪3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). ‪4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth). ‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar of the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). ‪6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. ‪7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations). ‪8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities). ‪9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. ‪10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. ‪11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. ‪12. The group is preoccupied with making money. ‪13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. ‪14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. ‪15. The most loyal members (the true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will become a superhero in a new comic book: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-comic-book-trnd/index.html I'm sure it will be a best seller.

I don't believe quantity, or in this case longevity, always equals "effectiveness". Sure, empires and monarchies have existed for centuries, but at what cost to personal freedom and liberty? IMHO that kind of 'effectiveness' is never worth the cost paid for it.

Ok. Now define "effectiveness".

Using exactly what measurements of "success"?

Mr. T's Driving School in Frankfort seems to be raking in the cash since I don't believe any Clinton County school offers DE anymore. The course is around $400. I would assume the liability insurance these driving schools have to maintain is a pretty big expense, however.

You mean this? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/329071-alex-jones-playing-a-character-says-lawyer He did spend about the first 20 minutes of the Rogan podcast backpedaling on this statements concerning Sandy Hook and "crisis actors".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2019/02/28/alex-jones-and-joe-rogan-made-peace-with-a-bizarre-podcast/#1da937ea7da3 I don't usually listen to Mr. Rogan's podcast, and I only hear Mr. Jones's rants in snippets, but I decided to give this podcast episode a try. To be honest after only the first hour I felt exhausted, I literally couldn't keep up with the shear amount of Mr. Jone's lunacy. He is like the Robin Williams of conspiracy theorists. Good for a short laugh or eye-roll here and there, but that is about it.

Ocasio-Cortez Threatens Democrats, If You Vote With Republicans You'll Be Put On A List: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44107/report-ocasio-cortez-threatens-democrats-if-you-hank-berrien

https://www.cato.org/blog/john-dingell-death-institutional-pride-congress I generally agree. Congress is a weak shell of what it used to be.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/health/pop-warner-bans-three-point-stance-bn/index.html So, how long until the 3-point stance, the only stance I was every taught as a HS lineman way back in the stone age btw, is outlawed across the board?

I remember taking Driver's Ed as just another course. I had it during the spring semester. During one of the actual driving sessions (the car was donated by a local Chevy dealership, btw) I got to drive the varsity boy's basketball coach to his doctor's appointment. Another time drove the JV basketball/Golf coach to the local golf course so he could talk to them about something or another.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/28/the-fdas-fixation-on-nut-milk-labeling-i This is largely nonsense. No nutrient that humans require to live and thrive is found exclusively in dairy products. Vitamin D is added to milk through fortification (in July 2016, the FDA approved vitamin D fortification in—you guessed it!—nut milks). Calcium and vitamin B can be found in a range of plants, nuts, grains, and legumes, some combination of which is likely consumed in sufficient amounts by vegetarians and vegans. For those who miss the mark, there are vitamin supplements. This is to say nothing of the many places around the world where adult human beings are thriving despite consuming essentially no dairy products, due to lactose intolerance. The idea that dairy is essential to a balanced diet is a marketing myth advanced by people who make their living off cows. It's right up there with the idea that drinking orange juice—nature's Coca-Cola—is the optimal way to get vitamin C. These claims are not true. They have been advanced by agricultural lobbies to protect their members' market share. And that's OK! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cheese and milk and yogurt sellers of the world trying to convince the rest of us that their products are excellent sources of protein and dietary fats and various micronutrients. I love a good aged gouda—the more crystals the better!—and I put half-and-half in my coffee. But I do most of my chugging with almond milk because too much dairy makes me fart and even whole milk has way too much sugar for my liking. I am not being misled, nor is anyone else buying nut milk or vegan cheese or eggless mayo or meatless burgers. Likewise, the FDA is not wading into this debate for the sake of consumers; it is doing it for the lobbies that represent animal products manufacturers, which have deep pockets and continue to wield immense influence over legislators. Legislators, at least, have been honest about their motives. As Reason columnist Baylen Linnekin noted in 2017, Rep. Peter Welch (D–Vt.), pushed the FDA to act against almond milk and similar products in order "to protect Vermont's dairy farmers." As Linnekin also noted, protecting ranchers and farmers is not the FDA's job. If Gottlieb wants to do it anyway, he and his agency shouldn't pretend they're doing it for consumers. Yet another reason why an unconstitutional agency like the FDA needs to be abolished. It's become nothing more than a lobbyist-run enforcement agency.

Yep. If the Amish get to opt out why can't all of us?

I don't where to find such statistics, but the denial of federal student aid, job training, and jobs would be fairly straightforward, I suspect it has happened numerous times. Arrested, charged, then imprisoned/fined is another matter. I heard on a recent podcast that only six individuals have every been charged as such, but can find no proof of that statement. Here is an interesting WAPO article from 2014: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/16/america-may-never-have-a-draft-again-but-were-still-punishing-low-income-men-for-not-registering/?utm_term=.c5a634463783 FTA: