Since the reality for the common man is, and always has been,
everywhere, and at all times, that we're pissants and have to find ways
to survive/prosper thru all regimes, it's beneficial to periodically
examine the state of the nation and the regime in control.
Or, alternatively, you can just choose a side, and then *trust* them...
There's an odd thing about Trump 2, and that's his great haste in
addressing what he considers problems. Stepping back, and considering
his actions objectively, without considering who it is on a personal level--because let's face it; Trump is so divisive that those who
dislike him are pretty much worthless at analyzing his regime--the way
he is behaving could plausibly be explained as:
a) a man who accepts that he has at most four years (two while he has majority support in congress, then afterward, who knows?) to accomplish
his goals; or
b) a man who does not expect to relinquish power, at all.
In neither case does he care, at all, about public opinion, and this is underscored by the fact that while he is using executive authority more forcefully that any president since FDR, he seldom even offers any
rebuttals to criticism for these actions. He ignores them and plows
forward. He seems to feel no need or obligation to make an explanation.
He does *not* act like a man seeking re-election. This is very, very clear.
Now, if the first case, "a", is true, this might be explained by a goal
to reboot the US political system, no matter what the personal cost to himself. It might also be explained as he being a man who has a terminal illness.
For the second case, "b", he could being planning to retain power in
either a quasi-legal manner (attempting to change the 22nd amendment,
which limits him to 2 terms), or to unlawfully retain power in some more direct fashion. The latter would require the aid of the military almost certainly.
So we have to try to guess the direction so as to make our survival/
success more assured. We must look for indicators.
One indication that he may not relinquish power would be ignoring court orders. He is doing this, or at the minimum, he is finessing each
situation for long enough that the action under court order is
completed--a fait accompli. A done deal, so what?
Another indication would be enhancing his current relationship with the military. He has installed a secretary of defense who personally owes
him, and who seems well-connected to the more macho and traditionalist elements of the military--which is itself one of the most macho and traditionalist segments of the US society.
He has also replaced the sitting chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
with a person of his own own choosing, which if track records mean
anything, he is a Trump loyalist.
So from my perspective all of this is really up in the air. Personally,
I favor much of what he seems to be doing--although the entire tariff
thingie seems pointlessly risky to me, in an economic sense, and so I
wish it would go away. But forcefully announcing an end to favoritism
based on whether one is a member of an officially recognized oppressed identity group--which list has grown by the month--and to the complete
idiocy of self-selecting one's sex--not sexual identity, mind you, but
making a claim to the sex, itself, however grotesque and clumsy--and expecting everyone else in society to play along with this ruse, is just plain *good* policy, as I see it.
I think he'll push pretty hard to make the tax laws of 2017 permanent,
and this is a significant benefit to anyone with a pass-thru single
member LLC. I consider that as a plus.
He does indeed seem to be interested, personally, in securing something closer to "peace" between foreign powers than the status quo. However,
he reserves the right to use force to benefit the US, as he sees it.
See? This is very, very disorienting, and it's why I like processes to
follow clearly defined courses, not ad hoc actions. To come to a decent understanding of what personal actions to take to give me the best
chance of continued success is very taxing and worrisome. But then, as a counter-balance, I *am* getting a lot of what I have wanted, which in a nutshell is a cultural re-set, so it's tricky times, indeed.
On 3/19/25 3:47 PM, Scall5 wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:12 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Scall5 <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r
On 3/18/2025 11:32 AM, Sawfish wrote:> Since the reality for the
common man is, and always has been, > everywhere, and at all times,
that we're pissants and have to find ways > to survive/prosper thru
all regimes, it's beneficial to periodically > examine the state of
the nation and the regime in control.> > Or, alternatively, you can
just choose a side, and then *trust* them...> > There's an odd thing
about Trump 2, and that's his great haste in > addressing what he
considers problems. Stepping back, and considering > his actions
objectively, without considering who it is on a personal > level--
because let's face it; Trump is so divisive that those who > dislike
him are pretty much worthless at analyzing his regime--the way > he
is behaving could plausibly be explained as:> > a) a man who accepts
that he has at most four years (two while he has > majority support
in congress, then afterward, who knows?) to accomplish > his goals;
In neither case does he care, at all, about public opinion, and thisb) a man who does not expect to relinquish power, at all.> >
is > underscored by the fact that while he is using executive
authority more > forcefully that any president since FDR, he seldom
even offers any > rebuttals to criticism for these actions. He
ignores them and plows > forward. He seems to feel no need or
obligation to make an explanation.> > He does *not* act like a man
seeking re-election. This is very, very clear.> > Now, if the first
case, "a", is true, this might be explained by a goal > to reboot
the US political system, no matter what the personal cost to >
himself. It might also be explained as he being a man who has a
terminal > illness.> > For the second case, "b", he could being
planning to retain power in > either a quasi-legal manner
(attempting to change the 22nd amendment, > which limits him to 2
terms), or to unlawfully retain power in some more > direct fashion.
The latter would require the aid of the military almost >
certainly.> > So we have to try to guess the direction so as to make
our survival/ > success more assured. We must look for indicators.>
One indication that he may not relinquish power would be ignoringcourt > orders. He is doing this, or at the minimum, he is finessing
each > situation for long enough that the action under court order
is > completed--a fait accompli. A done deal, so what?> > Another
indication would be enhancing his current relationship with the >
military. He has installed a secretary of defense who personally
owes > him, and who seems well-connected to the more macho and
traditionalist > elements of the military--which is itself one of
the most macho and > traditionalist segments of the US society.> >
He has also replaced the sitting chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff > with a person of his own own choosing, which if track
records mean > anything, he is a Trump loyalist.> > So from my
perspective all of this is really up in the air. Personally, > I
favor much of what he seems to be doing--although the entire tariff
thingie seems pointlessly risky to me, in an economic sense, andso I > wish it would go away. But forcefully announcing an end to
favoritism > based on whether one is a member of an officially
recognized oppressed > identity group--which list has grown by the
month--and to the complete > idiocy of self-selecting one's sex--not
sexual identity, mind you, but > making a claim to the sex, itself,
however grotesque and clumsy--and > expecting everyone else in
society to play along with this ruse, is just > plain *good* policy,
as I see it.> > I think he'll push pretty hard to make the tax laws
of 2017 permanent, > and this is a significant benefit to anyone
with a pass-thru single > member LLC. I consider that as a plus.> >
He does indeed seem to be interested, personally, in securing
something > closer to "peace" between foreign powers than the status
quo. However, > he reserves the right to use force to benefit the
US, as he sees it.> > See? This is very, very disorienting, and it's
why I like processes to > follow clearly defined courses, not ad hoc
actions. To come to a decent > understanding of what personal
actions to take to give me the best > chance of continued success is
very taxing and worrisome. But then, as a > counter-balance, I *am*
getting a lot of what I have wanted, which in a > nutshell is a
cultural re-set, so it's tricky times, indeed.Valid points, all. I
do like the idea of DOGE, but I think they are being way too hasty
about it. I think tariffs should only be used, in a *much* more
calculated manner, when leveling the playing field with other
nations. I appreciate him doing something about the boarder, the USA
has made many enemies since 1945 and hence need secure borders.Trump
is a person I never liked because his threats and refusal to admit
incorrect or totally wrong statements. Nor do I agree with his
governmental style; bull in a china shop. I think his handling of
COVID when early on he was on-board with Fauci regarding shutting
everything down in March of 2020 was very poor. Worse, he did not
push for things to return to normal during the rest of his term
although he did start speaking out against Fauci and the WHO/CDC.His
behavior on January 6, 2021 was despicable. But as one co-worker
said to me, Europe around 2005 or so started to have some elected
leaders who act similar to Trump. So they implied that this may
become the new 'normal'. That is point worth pondering further...--
---------------Scall5
Is this really you Scall5? I am surprised to be honest.
You shouldn't be surprised; as I have voted Libertarian since 1996 and
have been a $ supporting member of the Libertarian Party since 200(?).
I have used this nick on rst since the middle 1990's, if not earlier.
Like I have stated NUMEROUS times on rst, I will NOT vote for a GOP or
Demo Presidential candidate until I feel that the political duopoly is
willing to reduce the federal deficit. Still waiting for that to happen! >>
Not sure why you have pigeon holed me into something else than that.
Ah, Scall, shame on you.
RST is *all about* pigeon-holing people so as to make them better targets.
Straw-manning and pigeon-holing, yep.
;^)
On 3/18/25 4:35 PM, Scall5 wrote:
On 3/18/2025 11:32 AM, Sawfish wrote:
Since the reality for the common man is, and always has been,
everywhere, and at all times, that we're pissants and have to find
ways to survive/prosper thru all regimes, it's beneficial to
periodically examine the state of the nation and the regime in control.
Or, alternatively, you can just choose a side, and then *trust* them...
There's an odd thing about Trump 2, and that's his great haste in
addressing what he considers problems. Stepping back, and
considering his actions objectively, without considering who it is on
a personal level--because let's face it; Trump is so divisive that
those who dislike him are pretty much worthless at analyzing his
regime--the way he is behaving could plausibly be explained as:
a) a man who accepts that he has at most four years (two while he has
majority support in congress, then afterward, who knows?) to
accomplish his goals; or
b) a man who does not expect to relinquish power, at all.
In neither case does he care, at all, about public opinion, and this
is underscored by the fact that while he is using executive authority
more forcefully that any president since FDR, he seldom even offers
any rebuttals to criticism for these actions. He ignores them and
plows forward. He seems to feel no need or obligation to make an
explanation.
He does *not* act like a man seeking re-election. This is very, very
clear.
Now, if the first case, "a", is true, this might be explained by a
goal to reboot the US political system, no matter what the personal
cost to himself. It might also be explained as he being a man who has
a terminal illness.
For the second case, "b", he could being planning to retain power in
either a quasi-legal manner (attempting to change the 22nd amendment,
which limits him to 2 terms), or to unlawfully retain power in some
more direct fashion. The latter would require the aid of the military
almost certainly.
So we have to try to guess the direction so as to make our survival/
success more assured. We must look for indicators.
One indication that he may not relinquish power would be ignoring
court orders. He is doing this, or at the minimum, he is finessing
each situation for long enough that the action under court order is
completed--a fait accompli. A done deal, so what?
Another indication would be enhancing his current relationship with
the military. He has installed a secretary of defense who personally
owes him, and who seems well-connected to the more macho and
traditionalist elements of the military--which is itself one of the
most macho and traditionalist segments of the US society.
He has also replaced the sitting chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff with a person of his own own choosing, which if track records
mean anything, he is a Trump loyalist.
So from my perspective all of this is really up in the air.
Personally, I favor much of what he seems to be doing--although the
entire tariff thingie seems pointlessly risky to me, in an economic
sense, and so I wish it would go away. But forcefully announcing an
end to favoritism based on whether one is a member of an officially
recognized oppressed identity group--which list has grown by the
month--and to the complete idiocy of self-selecting one's sex--not
sexual identity, mind you, but making a claim to the sex, itself,
however grotesque and clumsy--and expecting everyone else in society
to play along with this ruse, is just plain *good* policy, as I see it.
I think he'll push pretty hard to make the tax laws of 2017
permanent, and this is a significant benefit to anyone with a pass-
thru single member LLC. I consider that as a plus.
He does indeed seem to be interested, personally, in securing
something closer to "peace" between foreign powers than the status
quo. However, he reserves the right to use force to benefit the US,
as he sees it.
See? This is very, very disorienting, and it's why I like processes
to follow clearly defined courses, not ad hoc actions. To come to a
decent understanding of what personal actions to take to give me the
best chance of continued success is very taxing and worrisome. But
then, as a counter-balance, I *am* getting a lot of what I have
wanted, which in a nutshell is a cultural re-set, so it's tricky
times, indeed.
Valid points, all. I do like the idea of DOGE, but I think they are
being way too hasty about it. I think tariffs should only be used, in
a *much* more calculated manner, when leveling the playing field with
other nations. I appreciate him doing something about the boarder, the
USA has made many enemies since 1945 and hence need secure borders.
Trump is a person I never liked because his threats and refusal to
admit incorrect or totally wrong statements. Nor do I agree with his
governmental style; bull in a china shop. I think his handling of
COVID when early on he was on-board with Fauci regarding shutting
everything down in March of 2020 was very poor. Worse, he did not push
for things to return to normal during the rest of his term although he
did start speaking out against Fauci and the WHO/CDC.
His behavior on January 6, 2021 was despicable. But as one co-worker
said to me, Europe around 2005 or so started to have some elected
leaders who act similar to Trump. So they implied that this may become
the new 'normal'. That is point worth pondering further...
Good points concerning Trump's personality and what he did in the past.
Good point about tariffs.
But what I'm really interested is in where does this go? To what degree
do I need to *really* plan? Can I coast thru it, or do I need to
rearrange stuff? Hard to do because things are working pretty well as
is, so...
Weird times, hey, Scall? Have you ever seen anything like it, yourself?
Not me; all new shit now...
On 3/19/25 4:55 PM, Scall5 wrote:
On 3/19/2025 6:20 PM, Sawfish wrote:
On 3/19/25 3:47 PM, Scall5 wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:12 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Scall5 <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r
On 3/18/2025 11:32 AM, Sawfish wrote:> Since the reality for the
common man is, and always has been, > everywhere, and at all
times, that we're pissants and have to find ways > to survive/
prosper thru all regimes, it's beneficial to periodically >
examine the state of the nation and the regime in control.> > Or,
alternatively, you can just choose a side, and then *trust*
them...> > There's an odd thing about Trump 2, and that's his
great haste in > addressing what he considers problems. Stepping >>>>>> back, and considering > his actions objectively, without
considering who it is on a personal > level-- because let's face
it; Trump is so divisive that those who > dislike him are pretty
much worthless at analyzing his regime--the way > he is behaving
could plausibly be explained as:> > a) a man who accepts that he
has at most four years (two while he has > majority support in
congress, then afterward, who knows?) to accomplish > his goals; >>>>>> or> > b) a man who does not expect to relinquish power, at all.> > >>>>>> In neither case does he care, at all, about public opinion, and
this is > underscored by the fact that while he is using executive >>>>>> authority more > forcefully that any president since FDR, he
seldom even offers any > rebuttals to criticism for these actions. >>>>>> He ignores them and plows > forward. He seems to feel no need or
obligation to make an explanation.> > He does *not* act like a man >>>>>> seeking re-election. This is very, very clear.> > Now, if the
first case, "a", is true, this might be explained by a goal > to
reboot the US political system, no matter what the personal cost
to > himself. It might also be explained as he being a man who has >>>>>> a terminal > illness.> > For the second case, "b", he could being
planning to retain power in > either a quasi-legal manner
(attempting to change the 22nd amendment, > which limits him to 2
terms), or to unlawfully retain power in some more > direct
fashion. The latter would require the aid of the military almost > >>>>>> certainly.> > So we have to try to guess the direction so as to
make our survival/ > success more assured. We must look for
indicators.> > One indication that he may not relinquish power
would be ignoring court > orders. He is doing this, or at the
minimum, he is finessing each > situation for long enough that the >>>>>> action under court order is > completed--a fait accompli. A done
deal, so what?> > Another indication would be enhancing his
current relationship with the > military. He has installed a
secretary of defense who personally owes > him, and who seems
well-connected to the more macho and traditionalist > elements of
the military--which is itself one of the most macho and >
traditionalist segments of the US society.> > He has also replaced >>>>>> the sitting chairman of the joint chiefs of staff > with a person
of his own own choosing, which if track records mean > anything,
he is a Trump loyalist.> > So from my perspective all of this is
really up in the air. Personally, > I favor much of what he seems
to be doing--although the entire tariff > thingie seems
pointlessly risky to me, in an economic sense, and so I > wish it
would go away. But forcefully announcing an end to favoritism >
based on whether one is a member of an officially recognized
oppressed > identity group--which list has grown by the month--and >>>>>> to the complete > idiocy of self-selecting one's sex--not sexual
identity, mind you, but > making a claim to the sex, itself,
however grotesque and clumsy--and > expecting everyone else in
society to play along with this ruse, is just > plain *good*
policy, as I see it.> > I think he'll push pretty hard to make the >>>>>> tax laws of 2017 permanent, > and this is a significant benefit to >>>>>> anyone with a pass-thru single > member LLC. I consider that as a
plus.> > He does indeed seem to be interested, personally, in
securing something > closer to "peace" between foreign powers than >>>>>> the status quo. However, > he reserves the right to use force to
benefit the US, as he sees it.> > See? This is very, very
disorienting, and it's why I like processes to > follow clearly
defined courses, not ad hoc actions. To come to a decent >
understanding of what personal actions to take to give me the best >>>>>> > chance of continued success is very taxing and worrisome. But
then, as a > counter-balance, I *am* getting a lot of what I have
wanted, which in a > nutshell is a cultural re-set, so it's tricky >>>>>> times, indeed.Valid points, all. I do like the idea of DOGE, but I >>>>>> think they are being way too hasty about it. I think tariffs
should only be used, in a *much* more calculated manner, when
leveling the playing field with other nations. I appreciate him
doing something about the boarder, the USA has made many enemies
since 1945 and hence need secure borders.Trump is a person I never >>>>>> liked because his threats and refusal to admit incorrect or
totally wrong statements. Nor do I agree with his governmental
style; bull in a china shop. I think his handling of COVID when
early on he was on-board with Fauci regarding shutting everything
down in March of 2020 was very poor. Worse, he did not push for
things to return to normal during the rest of his term although he >>>>>> did start speaking out against Fauci and the WHO/CDC.His behavior
on January 6, 2021 was despicable. But as one co-worker said to
me, Europe around 2005 or so started to have some elected leaders
who act similar to Trump. So they implied that this may become the >>>>>> new 'normal'. That is point worth pondering further...--
---------------Scall5
Is this really you Scall5? I am surprised to be honest.
You shouldn't be surprised; as I have voted Libertarian since 1996
and have been a $ supporting member of the Libertarian Party since
200(?). I have used this nick on rst since the middle 1990's, if not
earlier.
Like I have stated NUMEROUS times on rst, I will NOT vote for a GOP
or Demo Presidential candidate until I feel that the political
duopoly is willing to reduce the federal deficit. Still waiting for
that to happen!
Not sure why you have pigeon holed me into something else than that.
Ah, Scall, shame on you.
RST is *all about* pigeon-holing people so as to make them better
targets.
Straw-manning and pigeon-holing, yep.
;^)
I must admit Sawfish that every time I post logical thoughts, the
others often simply stop replying to that thread...regardless of their
viewpoint.
There is a *very* fine line between offering enough provocation to
ensure a response, but not so much as to immediately turn it into the
usenet version of the 1945 Tokyo firebombing.
At some point I would like to seriously discuss libertarianism with you. Upfront, I won't veer away from my survival-by-opportunism formula,
which, while it's somewhat distasteful to me at times, it has paid big dividends over the long haul. But the *ideals* of libertarianism appeal
to my personal values very much.
Here's a question that has bothered me for quite a while: do you think
it's possible for a Libertarian society to function *unless* the vast majority adheres to its tenets? And that *voluntary* non-practitioners
must by necessity be excluded from the social system?
Basically, no work, no eat.
To me, it looks like libertarianism as an all-encompassing system cannot
work without full enrollment of the populace. I can get into reasons, if needed, but for sake of analysis, if it is not possible for the bulk of society to to adhere to these tenets, can the individual even practice
those tenets without getting constantly screwed by the majority?
Like what is happening now, but much worse?
I think for libertariansim, it has to be either the majority belief, or
it must be practiced in isolation, 'way back up in the hills.
What do you think?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:42:18 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,083 |