Rallies = Worship Services Trump is a religion.

Rallies = Worship Services Trump is a religion. Get used to it, we're told! This is the way a North Korean-style dictatorship, so admired by Trump, begins.

#EnvironmentalPolitics
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/392052-corker-gop-becoming-cult-like-on-trump?userid=290555

Comments

  1. Remember Obama and could do no wrong? Many Trump supporters have left Trump because Trump was being anti second amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, Obama could have done better and the voters said so in 2010. I think Trump's positions are squishy, sometimes here and sometimes there. With only one exception. Trump always thinks Trump is the greatest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeff Diver Hillary ran as and Obama campaign for her has, "Obama's third term". Obama himself put his legacy on the line. Saying that the election was about what Americans thought of Obama's presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So in 2016, Americans by Obama's own words, rejected Obama.

    Hwoever my original statement was that to Obama supporters, Obama could do no wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SilverStar Heggisist Must be I was the exception, then! Many of us Obama supporters were critical of him at the time, particularly of his "red line" that was somehow never crossed in Syria. Even though it was.

    Americans by 3,000,000 votes or so preferred Clinton over Trump. There was no rejection of Obama. If Obama had run for a 3rd term, he would have won.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jeff Diver Obama ran Clinton's campaign as a 3rd term. Those were his words.

    All Trump did was not ignore the people in smaller states. Something that the electoral college was designed to do.

    Otherwise he would have campaigned in just big cities instead of small town America.

    The point of our election process is to prevent mob rule. Which is even worse then tyranny.

    Clinton also had a huge advantage in that the mainstream media was acting by their own admission as her campaign. The fact that she lost stunned even the most die hard Trump fan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SilverStar Heggisist Trump didn't actually say he was surprised, but he sure acted that way!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jeff Diver I don't think He would admit to ever being surprised about about his awesomeness. Personally I think more people need this opinion about themselves. Would greatly reduce depression.

    One note here is that Trump is what people have been claiming to want. People hate politicians. And now they got a non politician in office. Personally I was for Cruz more because he's more of a absolutist on the Constitution.

    One benefit of having Trump is that I don't have to rush out and buy more guns Everytime some idiot shoots up a place.






    ReplyDelete
  9. SilverStar Heggisist The NRA is not pleased with your decision. Evidently you are not scared enough! You definitely need to go out and buy lots more guns. Because the sun shines. No? Any excuse will do. Just so long as you keep buying guns. This plea was brought to you by the NRA, which is solely responsible for its consequences. (Ha!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jeff Diver I am not a member of the NRA because the NRA isn't pro gun enough. I believe that any gun law placed against civilians must also be placed against the government as well no exceptions.

    The NRA doesn't care who buys guns or how many. What they care about is that people have the ability to do so. And there are two basic reasons why.

    1. To protect against tyranny. And if the government has gotten too big for civilians to fight, then this means the government is too big.

    2. For self defense. The police can not protect you. They are there to draw the chalk circle around you after the fact. Crimes simply happen far too fast for police to respond. And in some cases the police simply don't respond.

    Also on this note, it has been proven again and again, that vehicle are far more deadly then guns. Both in mass murder (see France) and in daily use. More people per year are killed by vehicles then are killed by guns. Even though, guns far out number vehicles and people in America.


    What mass shootings have in common is they happen in gun free zones.


    What criminals have in common is they get guns anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SilverStar Heggisist The NRA doesn't care who buys guns. Agreed.
    The NRA wants people to be able to buy guns. Agreed.

    Guns do not protect against tyranny. Nuclear bombs do not protect against tyranny. You will never be able to own enough arms to protect you against your country's military. There are things that can protect against tyranny. The guns you own will not do the job.

    The police do not protect all citizens equally. Fortunately for me they do a fine job where I live. (I am, after all, just down the street from their HQ.) Police response times here are great. I don't know about their chalk supply.

    Vehicles and guns are both deadly. They should be licensed and sold to individuals under similar rules and regulations. Rules, laws and regulations do not prevent illegal operation, operation under the influence, etc., but they help. Vehicles are constantly updated with safety improvements. The same cannot be said for guns.

    Cite sources for your statistics. It has not been proven that vehicles are deadlier than guns, either in mass murder or daily use. Not even in France, whose gun and vehicle laws are different than ours anyway.

    More people per year? Where? Here? There? Guns "far outnumber" vehicles in America? Where did you get that idea? How many of those guns are in daily use like cars? Not many.

    Mass shootings happen everywhere, not just "gun free zones" like country music festivals. Heavily armed military bases are not immune to gun violence.
    en.wikipedia.org - Nidal Hasan - Wikipedia

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeff Diver again, that isn't a reason to not have guns. That is a reason to drastically shrink the government (I'd like to see a pre WWII model)

    I worked down the street from the state police. Their response time was horrid. But even with the fastest response times, the police are not fast enough. It takes seconds to kill a man. Nothing makes the bad guy run like a home owner with a gun. Where I live, criminals don't dare break in when the people are home. They wait till you're gone because otherwise it's suicidal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jeff Diver actually military bases have been for decades gun free zones. Soldiers are not allowed to be armed while on base in America. Thank Clinton for that.

    The musical festival was a gun free zone. However the shooter shot from across the street.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jeff Diver FBI crime stats.

    Guns on average kill roughly 8-9 thousand a year (I'm not counting suicide because suicide happens with or without guns (see Asia)). However after eliminating defensive use and police use the number drops much lower.

    Various studies including the CDC when they were ordered to study it under Obama found the number of defensive use of fire arms to far out strip criminal use. With the most conservative numbers in the above a 1/4 million times a year. The reason estimates are needed is that most cases go in reported. Because the vast vast majority of gun defensive uses involve little more then the gun being displayed.

    My best friend a few months ago had such an incident. A man in a road range incident tried to open his car door. He put his pistol on the dash and the man fled in a hurry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeff Diver in America in Florida a man with a sig 556 walked into a crowded night club. Had three hours to gun down people before he was stopped. He killed just shy of 50 people.

    In France a few weeks later. A man took a truck. Drove it into a crowd of people in less then 5 minutes 89 people were dead.

    Guns are ideal for combat. Not mass murder. There are far safer and easier ways to mass murder. The most deadly and easiest tends to be fire.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jeff Diver you can look up the FBI crime stats for numbers on gun deaths. It will also break down murder by type of weapon.

    In the US according to the FBI. You are more likely to be beaten to death then you are to be killed by any long gun (including an AR)

    You're something like twice as likely to be killed by a blunt object and if memory serves me correctly you're 3 times more likely to be stabbed to death.

    ReplyDelete
  17. SilverStar Heggisist "Shrinking the government" means weakening the federal Union, the services such as the Post Office and other federal ties that bind the states together. I support the federal Union and its agencies.

    Opponents of the Union are hiding behind meaningless phrases like "shrinking" and "deep state," etc. Such mealy-mouthed cowardice is noticeable.

    Pre-WWII America? Let me see now. That was when women "knew their place." When white people hung black people for amusement. We'll just have to rip up all those interstate highways that Eisenhower's high taxes on the rich built just after WWII!

    WWII was a time when Americans united to preserve the Union. We came together to defend democracy. We enacted programs like Social Security that promised some measure of national unity and economic prosperity. What is it about our Union that frightens you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jeff Diver we don't need the post office. UPS, FEDEX and other private companies do it just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeff Diver you don't have to not support the union to not support big government.

    Government needs to be as small as possible. Because anything the government does, private people can do better.

    Also government requires taxation to run. Which basically is theft at gun point. Because the government is not self sustaining. Government is little more then a bunch of people who think they have a right to rule over others.





    ReplyDelete
  20. Jeff Diver when I refer to pre WWII I am talking about our military. Before WWII the US did not maintain a large military force. The US would have a very small military that basically was a for rapid reaction and for training a larger military when war was declared.

    After WWII the government liked the power so never got rid of their massive military like they were supposed to do.

    We need to disband most of our military. It isn't needed and costs a fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  21. SilverStar Heggisist Agreed. We are hugely involved all over the place. We seem to keep trying to find excuses for getting involved militarily here and there and over there, too. Good for the armaments industry, but bad for everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  22. SilverStar Heggisist The Post Office does not just deliver mail. In small rural communities such as the one I lived in for 35 years, the Post Office was a social gathering place where notices of community events were posted and face-to-face interactions with neighbors were important. UPS and FEDEX are more expensive. Most of the eBay merchants deliver via the cheaper, but just as fast Post Office. If Congress stopped messing around with their retirement fund, they would be profitable without raising rates.

    The Post Office is just one example of government agencies under attack from within. The EPA, Education, National Parks, Veterans Administration, etc. are all withering in different ways, tearing the fabric of the Union apart.

    Government taxation is fine with me. So long as the government uses the money to provide services I need and taxes the people (and corporations) that have the money, not so much the rest of us. More and more it's those of us at the bottom of the income scale that are paying the bills.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jeff Diver the postal system is loosing money and costing money. Just because you want a gathering place, doesn't entitle you to steal my money at gun point.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jeff Diver as I've already explained to someone else.

    The postal service isn't less expensive. It only seems that way because they get "free" money from the government. If FedEx got a billion dollars a year from the government, they too could charge less.

    The difference is, that I have to pay for the postal service whether or not I actually use it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeff Diver education can be done better with private education rather then public. In a private setting the school must perform or die. However with public system there is little incentive to do better.

    Also public schools cost people money who don't use it. Such as private school children and home schoolers. As well as the elderly or people like me with no kids at all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jeff Diver the top 1% pays 45% of the taxes.... The top 20% pays 84% of taxes.

    I have a better idea. Pay for exactly what you use and nothing more.

    There is no difference between the government taking my money a armed thug taking my money. Both are using violence to forcibly steal what is not theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. SilverStar Heggisist Have you ever lived in a small town with its own PO? My former little town fought the closing of our PO vigorously. Not having a PO meant loss of funding for our Community Center building where it was located. We finally ended up with a part-time facility. It just wasn't the same as having a Postmaster.

    Yes, and you have to "pay" for the roads, too, whether you ever drive on them or not! Under your "privatize everything" regimen, how much toll would you be willing to pay a private company to drive around the block? One nice thing about private roads is they could raise the tolls without you having any voice in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  28. SilverStar Heggisist Free-for-the-student Public Education was a tough battle from the beginning. Universal education is a foundation of democracy. Dumb people usually make stupid decisions. I share your pain with school property taxes straining my budget, too. I'm all for public education, but think there might be a better way to fund it. Private education too often means indoctrination with a particular religious view.

    ReplyDelete
  29. SilverStar Heggisist The difference between a democratic government "taking" your money and an armed thug doing the same thing is that, presumably, you didn't have a chance to select your armed thug! That's a big difference to me.

    With the consent of the governed, government can be a good force in our lives. My ancestors said taxation without representation stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jeff Diver so let's say we use tolls. Now we eliminating the fuel tax (used to pay for roads) vehicle registration (used to pay for roads) and licencing fees (which also go towards roads. We also eliminate the Federal taxes that went to roads...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jeff Diver in my view. If you want your community center/post office. That's fine. Then you and people who want and use it can pay for it. Not me who will never use it.

    The current method is like making me pay for a car that I don't want or use.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jeff Diver public schools often come with indoctrination of different sorts as well.

    With a privatized system, if you don't like how a school is teaching your kids, then either open your own. Or go to a different one.

    Also public schools tend to do very poorly. There is a reason why parents who can afford it, go to private schools.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jeff Diver oh I get it now... So it's ok for the armed thug to take my money. Just so long as I got to vote for which armed thug took my money.

    ReplyDelete
  34. SilverStar Heggisist Hopefully, you won't be voting for an armed thug! It sounds from your posts that you prefer anarchy to government anyway and, while "supporting" this or that candidate, you may not bother to register and vote at all. (After all, like it or not, the act of voting enlists you as a participant in the armed thuggery you claim you oppose.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. SilverStar Heggisist Public schools are inclusive. They cannot choose their students. Everybody is equally welcome. What a horrible "indoctrination!"

    Private schools are exclusive, weeding out poor families who cannot afford them and those with the "wrong" religion, race, etc. In other words, they are for snobs who are "better" than you or me. Or think they are. Public money should support only public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jeff Diver I do vote. Because if you're living in a representative republic, and don't vote, you've no right to complain about what the government does. Governments are armed thugs no matter who's running it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jeff Diver I personally am more a fan of homeschooling. Because it puts education where it should be, the parents. Schools even the best private schools tend to be assembly lines designed to make obedient lil worker bees. And while I don't have a problem with work, I do have a problem with the cookie cutter method of schools.

    Today, private schools fill a small niche role. However if we didn't have public schools, everyone would have more money to spend on private schools. And if you didn't like the current private school, you can simply make your own and do better.

    Also public schools aren't really cheaper then private schools. Where I grew up I for a year went to a $5000 a year Catholic school (which at the time I didn't like because it wasn't Christian enough, I'm mostly atheist now). However our school taxes were just around the same amount.

    Also the public school system helps keep people in poverty because poor people can not afford to move to a better school district. Which is a reason that in a public school world, I support the next best thing, school voucher programs. Because such programs give a public school an ultimatum, do better or die.

    ReplyDelete
  38. SilverStar Heggisist Homeschooling and private schools are options only for those who can afford these alternatives, I agree. While I recognize the benefit of schooling, as a disobedient adolescent I can remember looking at school buildings as prisons. The inspiring teacher was there, but rare. It appeared to me I was being taught material which was irrelevant, while ignoring real learning opportunities.

    I was there, learned something, but didn't like it very much. I was very ready to leave my home town for college, which went better for me. With some luck, I got through both disciplinary and academic probation to earn a degree. Private, public, homeschooled, does any child really like school? I wonder if there is a better alternative to all we have discussed.

    Thanks for your comments. They do make me think. I may be a bit less engaging in the future, as I have some followers that need attention in some of my other (non-political) Google+ Collections.
    plus.google.com - Jeff Diver - Google+

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jeff Diver you most likely were.

    Removing government taxes makes alot of things become affordable. I worked at a gas station. Before taxes I made good money. After taxes I was left with much much less. Taxes that then go to pay for things I don't need nor want.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jeff Diver I rather liked going to UTI for heavy diesel. I was studying something that interested me.

    I rather enjoyed my history lesson when I was homeschooled. Because since I had an interest there I could study more or less what I wanted. Which made history far more interesting. As a note to me the names of people and places are of little importance. The event is far more so. For instance I don't care about who ran the US forces on D-Day. But I am interested in the tactics and weapons that made it possible.

    Schools however kill learning desire by trying to stuff things down your throat that don't interest you and have absolutely zero bearing on anything you will actually do. The reason they have to is standardization. They have to have a way to compare students to each other. And that becomes difficult when one student can't rattle off the specs of a Sherman Firefly and the other can list the names of all of the world leaders duirng the revolutionary war.

    The internet making alot of what schools teach (besides the very basics of reading, writing and math) pointless. There's no reason for me to memorize the names of the States, when I can look them up anytime I want anywhere I am. And if I can not, a apocalypse happened so bad that I won't care by that point.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jeff Diver you're welcome. I do not believe that we would ever have a zero government society.

    However what my base point has been is, what ever government does, private people do better (except burn money) so whenever possible privatize it. And my second is similar, if we must have government, let it be as small and hands off as humanly possible.

    The problem we have today is a government that has been running for over 200 years making laws non stop and getting ever bigger and bigger. I would like to see our government scrap every law, and then review each law we will have and any we do have, to write it in simple plane text. Also make every spending item an itemized thing. None of this huge laws that have all kinds of stuff mixed in.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for commenting! Your comments will appear here after a short delay.

Popular Posts