Marketing for people still in the reality distortion field where these policies are coherent, constructive, or ultimately beneficial to our country.
These policies are cargo cult echos of what would have worked in the 1990's. Perot was right. But you can't simply put the toothpaste back in the tube, right? In the reality of the 2020's, these policies merely bring economic destruction and subsequent consolidation. It's the same exact class that ran the "free trade" con of the past thirty years, now on to their next ruse.
There is a reason Grump is called "nation builder" in China - that is where the creative part of creative destruction is happening.
This merely sounds like a way of absolving yourself of responsibility. It is also not the least bit constructive, if you actually care about our country.
And it is not really applicable to the crux of my point! The corporate class championed some actions, which are now resulting in more "consequences" that continue to benefit themselves? Who would have thought?!
And also, why is the refrain always "Obama, Obama, Obama" ? I didn't vote for that guy either.
You are stating an opinion. My point is that the administration is doing exactly what they were elected to do. This is what the people want.
This is better than the alternative: Kakala was promising you to protect the workers all the while being asleep at the wheel with millions of illegals across the border.
So your opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant. (Mine is too, FWIW). You just disagree with the electorate.
"You just disagree with the electorate" isn't a particularly novel insight when the overall point is that the electorate has made a large unforced error based on a siren song of feel good emotional populism. And while we can kind of detach and go "that's a herd of idiots for ya!", lifting that dynamic into the intellectual realm of discussion merely so you can continue gloating about the destruction isn't actually a logical argument, right?
I'm not particularly interested in engaging with your "Kakala ... illegals" security blanket. Harris was at least going to continue flying the plane (regardless of my not liking its destination), rather than being the gremlin on the wing bringing it down. That so many people voted gremlin just shows how out of touch and entitled we've become. Surprise, it's a long way down - enjoy the Chinese century that you're enthusiastically ushering in, I guess.
As the old saying goes: Don't blame me, I voted conservative.
Why would he suddenly act in any way that wasn't self interest when has yet to do so? Sorry but this guy is hands-down the most corrupt official in American history. The notion that we should assume he's ever doing anything for any reason besides his own corrupt benefit is total nonsense.
You still haven’t answered why you think the job of the President of the United States is protecting jobs for foreigners instead of protecting jobs for American workers.
> Haven’t tried getting a gun in California. How bad is it? How could it be improved?
You have to pass a basic knowledge test, have a clean background, prove residency in the state, be 21 (or 18 for hunting rifles, IIRC) and then wait 10 days.
Which is to say that it’s a very burdensome process if you think you should be able to go to Walmart, exchange cash for goods, and walk out with a gun, but pretty simple by the standards of regulated goods. The basic knowledge test is very basic, so the pain points are just that sometimes background checks are incorrect, the waiting period can be inconvenient, and just the general annoyances of government bureaucracy.
Yes, we define crimes based on what you say. For example, libel or yelling “fire” at a movie theater.
But you are allowed to say whatever you want. If what you say is reflected as an offense, then you get some consequence (I am not speaking of UK where you can post something about immigrants in Facebook and get arrested; I’m speaking only of USA).
There are gun regulations too. Most are reasonable, but many are not. Liberals think that they can simply restrict the right to guns unconstitutionally because “guns are scary.” That is clearly not a sufficient basis to deny a right.
In the case of LA County, they just settled with the Feds because they had approved 2 concealed carry permits out of thousands of applications. That clearly shows the government was simply curtailing your right.
It depends on the county. Some Sheriffs think it’s them who gives you your RIGHT to own a gun or a concealed weapon license. They don’t understand they are servants.
LA just settled the Fed lawsuit over their terrible practices:
Gun owner enters the conversation. In high trust societies, armed people are very polite people. I don’t want the bad guys out there being the only ones with guns. Besides I like to shoot just like you like (whatever you like to do that is legal).
Replace “gun” with anything and you will see how your comment falls apart.
What’s next? A registry for food purchases? Your beer gut is starting to show.
If you mean high-trust societies like maybe Switzerland, I agree that it can work, but the US has lots of guns and doesn’t seem very polite, so how we’re doing it doesn’t seem to be working very well.
We do have lots of food safety regulation, which has more to do with selling food.
Nothing that some other person has to give you can be a right.
A right is not something the government gives you. In the US, the Bill of Rights does not actually give you rights. You are born with rights. The Bill of Rights simply clarifies that the government CANNOT RESTRICT YOUR RIGHTS.
The original claim was:
> in high trust societies, armed people are very polite people
In my experience, there was no connection between being armed and being polite.
> Or just visit your local gun range
Went to one many times when I lived in Texas, I think I've inhaled enough lead to last me the rest of my life.
"An armed society is a polite society" was originally said by Heinlein, who for all his faults would have had something to say about outsourcing your thinking to a machine.
Andrew Ross Sorkin gushes over Trump's new America. gov website on live TV while Joe Kernen sits there stunned.
Sorkin is not a Trump fan, and he lets that be known. But the moment he said the word "credit," Kernen nearly fell out of his chair.
SORKIN: “I want to be clear. I am actually not critical of the president in this instance at all, because I actually think it was great to bring everybody together.”
“For 29,000 websites, the ability to get a passport, the ability to get your medicare. I mean, the it was like being at a product. It was like being at an Apple product announcement. And when they went through what they did and the president was there in the morning and walked through what they were doing, and Marco Rubio was there, Scott Bessent was there, the whole cabinet was there. It was one of those moments where you actually thought the government was working for you, really? And Gebbia deserves an extraordinary amount of praise for it.”
KERNEN: “Do you feel great? Are you have the warmest fuzziest feeling right now listening.”
SORKIN: “And by the way, the president deserves credit for that."
KERNEN: "Oh my God!"
SORKIN: "Credit for putting you in that role. And Jeb and his team putting it all together.”
KERNEN: “So now I'm getting hot flashes. Wow. So this is just amazing.”
If people are really that excited about my identity go for it. I was just trying to be respectful and diminish my criticisms by making them pseudo anonymous.
