Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

[commenter]

Except in my opinion he does have it. He won by the rules, period, end of argument. He flipped not one, not two, but THREE solidly Democratic states in one election. That counts as a mandate in my book.

Clinton certainly has no claim to a popular mandate, because the power brokers predetermined that she would get the nomination. When other plausible potential candidates saw that she would get the superdelegates and backing of the DNC, they chose not to run. Incredibly, her token opposition, a 74 year old socialist, did very well only because he was the non-Clinton in the primary.

Given that the nomination was mostly rigged, Stein and her wealthy backers should have filed litigation prior to the nomination of Clinton, and demanded an open primary and convention.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Depends on what you mean by common ground. Let’s remember what Obama said - “we won.” But it sounds like Trump is already doing what you suggest

Trump does appear to be trying for unity, but that may turn out to be beyond his capability, much like Mickey couldn’t stop the mops and buckets in Fantasia. Turning off devisiveness is much harder than turning it on.

 

[YADA]

Clinton certainly has no claim to a popular mandate, because the power brokers predetermined that she would get the nomination. When other plausible potential candidates saw that she would get the superdelegates and backing of the DNC, they chose not to run. Incredibly, her token opposition, a 74 year old socialist, did very well only because he was the non-Clinton in the primary.

Given that the nomination was mostly rigged, Stein and her wealthy backers should have filed litigation prior to the nomination of Clinton, and demanded an open primary and convention.

You make some good points …however the Financial backers for this recount are most probably Clinton supporters …the high dollar donors at any rate …

Stein has gotten more donations for the recount than her campaign …and more interest and coverage by the press …not because they are covering her …but to keep the controversy alive and to promote Clinton over Trump …

The entire farce is sad …

 

[commenter]

Trump does appear to be trying for unity, but that may turn out to be beyond his capability, much like Mickey couldn’t stop the mops and buckets in Fantasia. Turning off devisiveness is much harder than turning it on.

Unity is nice, but it shouldn’t be our highest goal. A good society is one that encourages people to be good. Sometimes a society can be fairly unified, but mostly evil.

What people call “Divisiveness” is frustrating, but it isn’t the biggest problem a society can have. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “divisive”. So be it. Do the right thing anyway.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Unity is nice, but it shouldn’t be our highest goal. A good society is one that encourages people to be good. Sometimes a society can be fairly unified, but mostly evil.

What people call “Divisiveness” is frustrating, but it isn’t the biggest problem a society can have. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “divisive”. So be it. Do the right thing anyway.

It is also a big danger when people take their prudential judgement about things like tax policy and expenditures and raise them to the level of absolutes, as is evident by your use of the phrase “doing the right thing.” It is often arrogance that leads one to believe that his idea of “the right thing” is not subject to compromise, and that does lead to fruitless devisiveness. Now there are a few issues for which no compromise is morally possible. But there are many other issues for which compromise is an appropriate option. It is in those issues that we see tremendous polarization that cannot be defended on grounds of the absolute good.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Unity is nice, but it shouldn’t be our highest goal. A good society is one that encourages people to be good. Sometimes a society can be fairly unified, but mostly evil.

What people call “Divisiveness” is frustrating, but it isn’t the biggest problem a society can have. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “divisive”. So be it. Do the right thing anyway.

It is also a big danger when people take their prudential judgement about things like tax policy and expenditures and raise them to the level of absolutes, as is evident by your use of the phrase “doing the right thing.” It is often arrogance that leads one to believe that his idea of “the right thing” is not subject to compromise, and that does lead to fruitless devisiveness. Now there are a few issues for which no compromise is morally possible. But there are many other issues for which compromise is an appropriate option. It is in those issues that we see tremendous polarization that cannot be defended on grounds of the absolute good.

I certainly wasn’t thinking about tax policy, I was thinking about abortion. The Democrats in politics and ****MEDIA **** were unifying the country, with much success. They exclude anyone who is prolife from having a voice, and were gradually shutting down dissenters such as Catholic hospitals and social service agencies. That is “unification”.

Prolifers are labelled as divisive. So be it. Republicans are not perfect, many of them are also products of the “unified” secular culture. Many prolifers who don’t especially like Trump, don’t agree with all his stands or personality, recognize that he is at least outside the “unity”. So prolife has at least some chance for limited victories here and there.

With Clinton there would be no prolife victories, there would be continued crackdown on nurses who refuse to assist at abortion, continued crackdown on Catholic child welfare agencies that don’t do abortion referrals. There would be a kind of “unity” in that the federal government would make all the decisions, limiting options by states, local governments, churches, and families.

 

[JonNC]

Trump does appear to be trying for unity, but that may turn out to be beyond his capability, much like Mickey couldn’t stop the mops and buckets in Fantasia. Turning off devisiveness is much harder than turning it on.

Yes, it is, which is why the current administration and its progressive operatives in Congress have failed so miserably to unite.

 

[JonNC]

It is also a big danger when people take their prudential judgement about things like tax policy and expenditures and raise them to the level of absolutes, as is evident by your use of the phrase “doing the right thing.” It is often arrogance that leads one to believe that his idea of “the right thing” is not subject to compromise, and that does lead to fruitless devisiveness. Now there are a few issues for which no compromise is morally possible. But there are many other issues for which compromise is an appropriate option. It is in those issues that we see tremendous polarization that cannot be defended on grounds of the absolute good.

There may not be unity on which issues compromise is morally possible, and on which issues it is not.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, it is, which is why the current administration and its progressive operatives in Congress have failed so miserably to unite.

I seem to think the 6-yr old gridlock might not have been such a bad thing after all. Stock market rose as investor and consumer confidence was restored, the dollar is still the world’s default currency, the military is second to none, housing market has recovered, unemployment in private sector has been reduced, abortion rates are declining, low inflation, and so on?

But I guess things weren’t spectacular enough.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Unity is nice, but it shouldn’t be our highest goal. A good society is one that encourages people to be good. Sometimes a society can be fairly unified, but mostly evil.

What people call “Divisiveness” is frustrating, but it isn’t the biggest problem a society can have. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “divisive”. So be it. Do the right thing anyway.

I certainly wasn’t thinking about tax policy, I was thinking about abortion. The Democrats in politics and ****MEDIA **** were unifying the country, with much success. They exclude anyone who is prolife from having a voice, and were gradually shutting down dissenters such as Catholic hospitals and social service agencies. That is “unification”.

Prolifers are labelled as divisive. So be it. Republicans are not perfect, many of them are also products of the “unified” secular culture. Many prolifers who don’t especially like Trump, don’t agree with all his stands or personality, recognize that he is at least outside the “unity”. So prolife has at least some chance for limited victories here and there.

With Clinton there would be no prolife victories, there would be continued crackdown on nurses who refuse to assist at abortion, continued crackdown on Catholic child welfare agencies that don’t do abortion referrals. There would be a kind of “unity” in that the federal government would make all the decisions, limiting options by states, local governments, churches, and families.

That may be what you were thinking of, but it is not the only or even the main source of division in our nation today. If you look at Trump’s campaign speeches and rallies and Clinton’s campaign speeches and rallies, neither one of them talked that much about abortion. Clinton did not lose Michigan or win New York over abortion. Trump did not win Pennsylvania or lose California over abortion. Using abortion now to explain the divide in this country distracts from the fact that what was on the voter’s minds and what is still on the people’s minds is jobs, security, and views on what the government should or should not be doing. We could stand firm on abortion, and still compromise on tax policy. We could stand firm on abortion and still compromise on environmental policy. We could compromise on minimum wage, on gun control, on immigration, on spending. These are the issues that also divide the nation, and it need not be so.

 

[meltzerboy]

That may be what you were thinking of, but it is not the only or even the main source of division in our nation today. If you look at Trump’s campaign speeches and rallies and Clinton’s campaign speeches and rallies, neither one of them talked that much about abortion. Clinton did not lose Michigan or win New York over abortion. Trump did not win Pennsylvania or lose California over abortion. Using abortion now to explain the divide in this country distracts from the fact that what was on the voter’s minds and what is still on the people’s minds is jobs, security, and views on what the government should or should not be doing. We could stand firm on abortion, and still compromise on tax policy. We could stand firm on abortion and still compromise on environmental policy. We could compromise on minimum wage, on gun control, on immigration, on spending. These are the issues that also divide the nation, and it need not be so.

I agree with everything you say here.

 

[JonNC]

I seem to think the 6-yr old gridlock might not have been such a bad thing after all. Stock market rose as investor and consumer confidence was restored, the dollar is still the world’s default currency, the military is second to none, housing market has recovered, unemployment in private sector has been reduced, abortion rates are declining, low inflation, and so on?

But I guess things weren’t spectacular enough.

What is spectacular is a doubling of the budget debt, the lowest workforce participation rate in 40 years, not a single year of GDP growth over 3%, huge increases of dependency on government, skyrocketing health care costs, a breathtaking decline in military readiness.

It seems his pen and phone didn’t do particularly well.

 

[JonNC]

That may be what you were thinking of, but it is not the only or even the main source of division in our nation today. If you look at Trump’s campaign speeches and rallies and Clinton’s campaign speeches and rallies, neither one of them talked that much about abortion. Clinton did not lose Michigan or win New York over abortion. Trump did not win Pennsylvania or lose California over abortion. Using abortion now to explain the divide in this country distracts from the fact that what was on the voter’s minds and what is still on the people’s minds is jobs, security, and views on what the government should or should not be doing. We could stand firm on abortion, and still compromise on tax policy. We could stand firm on abortion and still compromise on environmental policy. We could compromise on minimum wage, on gun control, on immigration, on spending. These are the issues that also divide the nation, and it need not be so.

Abortion may have played a role, considering her blatant support for late term abortion. This turns off even the mildly pro-choice crowd.

 

[commenter]

That may be what you were thinking of, but it is not the only or even the main source of division in our nation today. If you look at Trump’s campaign speeches and rallies and Clinton’s campaign speeches and rallies, neither one of them talked that much about abortion. Clinton did not lose Michigan or win New York over abortion. Trump did not win Pennsylvania or lose California over abortion. Using abortion now to explain the divide in this country distracts from the fact that what was on the voter’s minds and what is still on the people’s minds is jobs, security, and views on what the government should or should not be doing. We could stand firm on abortion, and still compromise on tax policy. We could stand firm on abortion and still compromise on environmental policy. We could compromise on minimum wage, on gun control, on immigration, on spending. These are the issues that also divide the nation, and it need not be so.

Suppose Trump had been solidly prochoice, and all his other positions were the same; and suppose Clinton had been solidly prolife, and all her other positions the same.

The media would have backed Trump.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems his pen and phone didn’t do particularly well.

Depends on how you look at the numbers.

Opinion: Here’s the verdict on that ‘terrible’ Obama economy

The Obama Economy

.............Third-quarter 2008 	........Third-quarter 2016 .....	Verdict

Gross domestic product (2009 dollars) $14.892 trillion $16.713 trillion Up 12%
30-year mortgage loan rate 6.46% 3.54% Nearly halved
Nonfarm payrolls 136.3 million 145.0 million Up 8.7 million
Uninsured (health) 45 million 27 million Down 18 million
Exports (2009 dollars) $1.766 trillion $2.163 trillion Up 22%
Un- and under-employed rate (U6) 11.8% 9.5% Down 20%
Median household income $50,303 $57,929 Up 15%
Manufacturing output per worker (2009 dollars) $382,977 $436,776 Up 14%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 9,319 18,332 Nearly doubled

 

[ProVobis]

Prolifers are labelled as divisive. So be it. Republicans are not perfect, many of them are also products of the “unified” secular culture. Many prolifers who don’t especially like Trump, don’t agree with all his stands or personality, recognize that he is at least outside the “unity”. So prolife has at least some chance for limited victories here and there.

Honest question and I don’t want to put you on the spot but…

Seeing that abortion rates are declining (and who doesn’t like that?), would you be in agreement with Trump’s position to make birth control available without prescription?

 

[commenter]

Honest question and I don’t want to put you on the spot but…

Seeing that abortion rates are declining (and who doesn’t like that?), would you be in agreement with Trump’s position to make birth control available without prescription?

no

 

[Jeanne_S]

Depends on how you look at the numbers.

Opinion: Here’s the verdict on that ‘terrible’ Obama economy

The Obama Economy

.............Third-quarter 2008 	........Third-quarter 2016 .....	Verdict

Gross domestic product (2009 dollars) $14.892 trillion $16.713 trillion Up 12%
30-year mortgage loan rate 6.46% 3.54% Nearly halved
Nonfarm payrolls 136.3 million 145.0 million Up 8.7 million
Uninsured (health) 45 million 27 million Down 18 million
Exports (2009 dollars) $1.766 trillion $2.163 trillion Up 22%
Un- and under-employed rate (U6) 11.8% 9.5% Down 20%
Median household income $50,303 $57,929 Up 15%
Manufacturing output per worker (2009 dollars) $382,977 $436,776 Up 14%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 9,319 18,332 Nearly doubled

By golly,let’s just give the guy a third term,he is so awesome!

 

[JonNC]

Depends on how you look at the numbers.

Opinion: Here’s the verdict on that ‘terrible’ Obama economy

The Obama Economy

.............Third-quarter 2008 	........Third-quarter 2016 .....	Verdict

Gross domestic product (2009 dollars) $14.892 trillion $16.713 trillion Up 12%
30-year mortgage loan rate 6.46% 3.54% Nearly halved
Nonfarm payrolls 136.3 million 145.0 million Up 8.7 million
Uninsured (health) 45 million 27 million Down 18 million
Exports (2009 dollars) $1.766 trillion $2.163 trillion Up 22%
Un- and under-employed rate (U6) 11.8% 9.5% Down 20%
Median household income $50,303 $57,929 Up 15%
Manufacturing output per worker (2009 dollars) $382,977 $436,776 Up 14%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 9,319 18,332 Nearly doubled

Yep. Depends on how you look at the numbers. But when you pump over a trillion dollars of borrowed money per year into the economy, one should expect the economy to be sizzling, not limping along.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yep. Depends on how you look at the numbers. But when you pump over a trillion dollars of borrowed money per year into the economy, one should expect the economy to be sizzling, not limping along.

Part of the problem is that the effect of borrowed money on economic growth is not a settled issue in economics. It can have a stimulative effect, but there is no guarantee that it will have a stimulative effect. For example, in the last year of the Bush administration they borrowed money to give everyone a tax rebate. Now there is a con if there ever was one, give people a tax rebate that their children will have to pay for. Show you how much we really care about our children. Anyway, the tax rebate had almost no effect on the economy because it was mostly used to pay off debt.