ThinkerX

Members
  • Content count

    4,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ThinkerX

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 04/25/1963

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alaska

Recent Profile Visitors

3,644 profile views
  1. Not that anybody here cares, but this bit of 'news' seems to be gaining traction on the Right. I find the source dubious (putting it kindly) but it *might* have credible support, though its also partly a rehash of the discredited 'Killary sold Uranium to Russia.' I also find it kind of sad that even though her political career is toast, attacking Clinton is still a major priority for the Right. Anyhow: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-is-real-involves-hillary-clinton/
  2. Ax these programs, no. Highly aggressive and possibly race based 'reform' to 'set matters straight,' maybe. But there, they run into immediate logical/emotional problems, so they'd settle for 'less aggressive reform.'
  3. I see comments by disillusioned conservatives like her (and others where I work) on various political articles fairly frequently. There are multiple variations, but it usually runs along the lines of - 1 - Obummer was an evil demoncrat out to destroy the country. 2 - Killary would be Obummer 2.0 3 - Therefore, I supported/voted for Trump to undo Obummers evil plots and 'Make America Great Again.' 4 - However, impossibly, Trump is worse than Obummer. And that is as far as they can go on that line of reasoning. It's like they run into a mental wall. A couple conservative posters in these threads, most recently 'Mother Cacanuts' (sp?) also displayed reasoning of this sort - going to immense lengths to NOT think through the implications of their beliefs. These people would NEVER vote democrat, but they do consider certain programs - SS, Medicaid, Medicare, a couple others - as sacrosanct - notions apparently lost on much of the republican party. Properly presented - suitable conservative moralistic slant - they might go for other 'entitlements' as well. My prediction is that unless the republican leadership realizes just how sacrosanct the majority of their base views things like SS and Medicaid, they will pay very, very dearly at the polls - regardless of gerrymandering and voter suppression. These people won't vote democrat (democrats are automatically EVIL), but they could either stay away in droves or cast their votes for candidates utterly unacceptable to the power brokers.
  4. I saw a bit of this at work the other day. Gal came into a minor windfall and said the bulk of it was going to pay off bills - especially two medical bills. She wanted them settled before 'Trump really screwed up the healthcare system.' She supported, and voted for the Donald, and loathes democrats on general principles. Others at the office share her sentiments; there was one youngish vet who used to loudly say 'give Trump a chance,' but refuses to discuss him anymore. Others are concerned about Trump either tripping off an economic meltdown, or getting the US involved in a major war by accident.
  5. Imagine said moles second or third report to Trump: 'You will be indicted.' Then imagine Trumps response on Twitter - and elsewhere.
  6. Somebody forgot to mention that the bikers jackets would be adorned with confederate flags and they'd all have swastikas on their helmets. Plus, they'd be carrying spiked chains with which to flay those on the sidelines - especially lamestream media reporters. .
  7. Coal is effectively dying and this stunt won't save it. Throwing red meat to Trumps base is what it comes down to.
  8. Elon Musk proposes to 'go solar' big time with Puerto Rico. Expected to cut fossil fuel demand in half by 2019. I can see this putting Musk and Trump on a collision course. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/07/puerto-rico-electric-grid-solar/743129001/
  9. Saw a pic or two of Trump in profile rather than from the front earlier this week. Got me to thinking: way overweight. Age/Height/Weight bit by itself (from the pic) practically screams 'heart attack waiting to happen.' Clinton jogged. Bush II split wood once in a while. Obama played basketball. But Trump doesn't seem to exercise. So.... Suppose Trump had a heart attack? 1 - If Trump died of heart failure, what becomes of the investigation into his campaign? 2 - Suppose he didn't die, but was incapacitated and his staff tried to keep it secret - wheeling him out only for 'must show' appearances. Tried running things behind the scenes in Trumps name otherwise. How long could this situation persist before Trumps ouster? Could they keep it going for the remainder of his term? Got to thinking about Roosevelt and the lengths he went to conceal his infirmities. 3 - Trump survives heart attack, but uses it as an excuse to resign office. But - on his way out fires Mueller and grants himself and staff a blanket pardon, loudly insisting this shields him from all misdeeds, federal and state. Yes, it wouldn't wash and creates a constitutional crisis, but this is Trump. How to unravel such a fiasco in this era of a divided congress and court? I find myself wondering if the divisions are so steep Trump might not actually pull off such a stunt. Plus, if he did pull it off, it would set precedent.
  10. From second hand experience: My Father helped found and participated in the local volunteer fire department for over twenty years. Suicides by firearm were such a major issue, the fire department was 'encouraged' to reclassify many of them as 'firearm accidents.' Otherwise, the numbers were just too scary. Then again, this is small town Alaska.
  11. I have been reading the comments to various articles on the disaster in Puerto Rico. The more conservative types see those on the island as whiners. They quote Trump verbatim. They repeat claims that vast amounts of food, fuel and other material are reaching the island, but if pressed blame the lack of truck drivers for proper distribution. Many insist the islanders are lazy, citing Puerto Rico's previous disastrous finances as proof. The Mayor who contradicted Trump catches a lot of flack. Mini-testimonials, all unsupported and sometimes directly contradictory, keep cropping up in these comments. With great reluctance, I submit the information at this point is incomplete, and drawing conclusions premature. This is not a defense of Trump, simply a note of caution.
  12. As of late, in light of the recent computer hacks and sheer incompetence demonstrated by the Trump crew, I have been wondering... ...what would the effects be if the 'Real Donald Trump' account was hacked by, say, Anonymous or some other tech savvy group, and either permanently deleted outright, or just plain taken over by them? Not real likely, but given the number of places hacked that should have had excellent security, not altogether impossible, either.
  13. Kind of stating the obvious at this point. I do wonder, though, isn't the behavior of these GOP lawmakers skirting dangerously close to 'bribery,' even with todays lax restrictions? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-gop-cant-quit-obamacare-repeal-because-of-their-donors/ar-AAss4i5?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580
  14. The emphasis is different. You approach this - and apparently much else - from a hard ideological position. My father - and quite a few other conservatives - are practical sorts, placing the emphasis on 'what works in the real world.' This is how Trump won their vote - Trump presented himself as an outsider who knew how to fix things, and they fell for the deception. However, the 'practicality' aspect of their psych remains. Here, your 'one stroke fits all' ideology comes to the fore. 'Conservative,' contrary to the ideology you present, does not automatically mean 'racist' or 'Nazi.' Nor does it mean automatically demonization of those with different sexual orientations - apart from the zealots, religious and otherwise, most conservatives do not care about such things. No few conservatives, again, a majority or nearly so, loathe the current batch of Nazi's. A majority, though, probably are racist to some degree or another. So, if you don't wish to speak with Spencer, then don't. His views are in the minority among conservatives anyhow. A small minority. You probably could find multiple points of agreement or compromise with the other conservatives if you tried. Full agreement can wait. One step at a time. Did you read the article I linked to? Given their distribution and the way representative politics work, conservatives would still have a good shot at a Senate majority. As to making the racist rallies illegal, I strongly sympathize, yet I also acknowledge that suppression ultimately fails in the long term. Witness the breakup of the USSR, which also suppressed dissident movements and provinces, only to have them assert bloody independence when binding communist authority collapsed.