…is a wonderful natural space, perfect for solar panels to offset the evil leather from evil moo cows, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post about what Trump’s favorite tabloid is now saying.
Read: If All You See… »
He does the “to be or not to be”, in other words, he’s wavering all over the place
(ABC News) Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s opinion of Hillary Clinton seems a bit murky, as he homes in on who may be his eventual opponent.
Addressing thousands of people at the Pennsylvania Farm Expo in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Thursday, he began by slamming “Crooked Hillary,†adding how her Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has suggested that she might be unqualified to be president.
“I don’t know, I think she’s qualified, I guess. But that doesn’t mean she’s good,†the businessman said.
But, in the next breath, he seemed to change his mind.
“He [Sanders] said she is not qualified to be president. Now, what he meant is because her judgment is so bad,†Trump said. “So Bernie Sanders, not me, said she’s not qualified. So now I’m going to say she’s not qualified, OK.â€
The thing that interests me the most in this is that Trump has spent the better part of a year denigrating his Republican opponents, attacking them mercilessly, questioning them both personally and professionally. Yet, he just doesn’t seem to have it in himself to truly attack Hillary in the same way. It certainly does make one wonder what Trump’s motivations are, after working hard to split the GOP to the point where many proclaim they will never ever vote for Trump, which helps, you guessed it, Hillary (Sanders won’t get the nomination). He’s divided the GOP, which helps the Democrats. Going easy on Hillary helps…..Hillary.
Whenever I hear Trump on Hillary, the attacks seem muted, and nowhere near the venom he reserves for other Republicans, the party he says he’s representing. Makes me wonder whether he has an ulterior goal. To be clear, he has gone after her on a few occasions, but, just not the same as with other Republicans.
Read: Trump Does Hamlet Regarding Hillary’s Qualifications To Be President »
Trackback URL
Investopedia defines a free market as
A free market is a market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Here we go
WEEKLY ADDRESS: Ensuring Our Free Market Works for Everyone
Hello, everybody. One of America’s greatest strengths is our free market. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy – it’s how we create jobs, expand opportunities, and give everybody a shot at success. It’s what has made America the strongest country on Earth.
The most essential ingredient in a healthy free market is competition. But right now, too many companies are engaging in behaviors that stifle competition – like blocking new competitors from entering the market or limiting the information and options that give consumers real choice. As a consequence, the rest of us pay higher prices for lower quality products and services. Workers receive lower wages than they otherwise would. Small businesses and entrepreneurs can get squeezed out of the market. And none of that is fair – or good for our economy.
And some of that “unhealthy” behavior arises from government instituting regulations that pick and choose winners and losers. Some of it arises, shockingly to Obama and other liberals, from competition which lets the consumers choose the winners and losers. For instance, I used to shop at Kroger for groceries and stuff. They closed down due to too much theft and low profits from high (required) acceptance of food stamps. Across the street is a super Walmart. I won’t shop anywhere else now. Great prices and immense selection. I like cherry tomatoes for salads. The nearest Food Lion and Lowe’s Foods have a small selection, and often not a good selection. Walmart typically has 5 different types. They’re produce and fruits selection is giant. If they drive competitors out of the market with great prices and incredible selection, that’s the free market.
Here’s how Obama’s free market strategy works
The deck should not be stacked in favor of the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations, against working Americans. That’s why my administration is doing everything we can to reverse this trend and promote more competition in the marketplace. In addition to enforcing the rules on the books, I’ve directed federal agencies to identify anti-competitive behavior in different industries, and find new and specific ways to promote competition.
Huh. That’s approaching a command economy, where the government dictates everything. Right now it’s stuck in a crony capitalism mode.
One industry that’s ripe for change is cable TV. Right now, 99 percent of cable and satellite TV customers rent set-top boxes from their providers. According to one survey, this costs households an average of more than $230 per year. We spend some $20 billion to rent these devices. While we have almost unlimited choice in what we watch on television, from traditional programming to online content, there’s next to no competition to build a better, user-friendly product that allows you to easily access all this content in one place. So most consumers just rent whatever the cable company offers. Because we have to. That means companies have little incentive to innovate. As a consequence, we need multiple devices and controllers to access content from different sources. That makes no sense.
So my administration has encouraged the FCC to remove the barriers to competition that prevent new players from offering innovative cable box options to consumers.
Interestingly, quite a bit, if not most, of the problem with set top boxes arose from government regulation and intervention. Now, government intervention and regulation is required to fix the problems that government regulation and intervention created.
Now, it’s not that I disagree with this “encouragement” from Team Obama. I’d love a set top box that allows me to limit the channels I see to only those I want, rather than having to scroll through a ton I don’t. And one that uses virtually no power when the power button is pressed (current boxes use a lot of what is called Vampire Electricity).
What I don’t want to read is a guy yammering on about the free economy while instituting more regulations.
We know this works. For years, Americans had to rent our telephones from the phone company. This was a while ago, but when the FCC finally unlocked competition for home phones, the marketplace was flooded with all kinds of phone options with new features, and at different price points. Consumers suddenly had many options. And the whole industry moved forward as a result. The same can happen with cable boxes, and in dozens of areas of our economy – all of which can make a difference in your everyday life.
The bottom line is, competition is good for consumers, workers, businesses, and our economy. So I’m going to keep doing everything I can to make sure that our free market works for everyone. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
He’s dead correct. When the regulations were removed, choice exploded. In the wired sector, this was more about long distance calling, and the ability to purchase your own phone, leading to cordless. Then to mobile phones, and people ditching the limited number of home phone providers, then the use of home and business phones over the Internet. This was more about removing regulation, rather than implementing more government regulation to override other government regulation. Competition is good. Government should get out of the way. And Obama should stick to talking about things he knows, like fundraising and golf.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Obama: I’m Going To Ensure A Free Market By Government Dictates »
I didn’t bother mentioning this yesterday,  because, quite frankly there’s only so much of this issue I really care about. This is what he said Thursday, on MSNBC
“North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they are paying a big price and there’s a lot of problems,” responded Trump.
“North Carolina, what they are going through with all of the business that’s leaving and the strife– and that’a on both sides. Leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble,” he said.
On to Friday
(CBS News) Â Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is tweaking his stance on North Carolina’s transgender bathroom law less than a day after he voiced his opposition to the legislation and suggested the state should just “leave it the way it is.”
“I love North Carolina, and they have a law, and it’s a law that, you know, unfortunately is causing them some problems,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview Thursday night. “And I fully understand that they want to go through, but they are losing business, and they are having people come out against.”
“I think that local communities and states should make the decision,” he went on to say. “And I feel very strongly about that. The federal government should not be involved.”
“In other words, let the state decide,” Hannity responded. “Kind of like your positions on education, give it back to the states.”
“Yeah, let them decide,” Trump said. “Absolutely.”
Ace Of Spades Thursday
Prediction: within 24 hours he announces a major reversal on this plank and begins using the most extreme language possible to put him in sync with what he imagines conservative opinion to be.
Close. He’s certainly modified his position.
Let me address something, per an email I received asking why I care about this issue. Quite frankly, if it wasn’t happening in North Carolina, I wouldn’t. Maybe a post or two, but, really, how many other Bathroom Wars posts have I dropped since I started this blog in 2004? A handful? There aren’t even that many on LGBT, or whatever acronym they’re using today.
Usually, my only interest has to do with using force of government, along with tactics like strongarming people, shaming, insults, browbeating, denigrating opponents, etc. Rarely do these folks, along with the wider Progressive community, attempt rational discourse to bring people to their side. They prefer vinegar over honey, if you get my meaning. I’ve said numerous times that my brand of Conservatism, known as Classical Liberalism, gives me a belief that if it isn’t negatively affecting me, and annoying me or bugging me doesn’t count, why would I care? Most LGBT stuff doesn’t harm me. Live and let live.
But, this is happening in NC. I do not think Government should force the private sector to comply with mandates that force them to let the gender confused use the bathroom of their gender choice. Let the business choose. Better yet, provide a reasonable, adult argument and convince people, bring them to your side.
Read: Trump Changes Stance On NC Gender Confused Bathroom Law »
…is a world turning to desert from moo cows which create leather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Lady Liberty 1885, with a post on Moral Monday vs those with actual morals.
Read: If All You See… »
Warmiat Susan Darovic is totally stoked that Earth Day and Tax Day Are So darned close together
April 22, Earth Day, is a good time to consider our progress on slowing climate change. That it closely follows Tax Day (April 18) seems appropriate, for climate warming is an economic problem too.
Fossil fuels are very costly. For one thing, they continue to receive heavy government subsidies. For another, they are not required to pay for the results of their pollutants.
Obviously, she’s yet another brain dead Warmist who fails to understand the difference between subsidies and tax breaks/incentives. Or, she’s simply doing what so many Warmists/Progressives do: intentionally telling a whoppet. A lie.
Of course, she wanders down the path of doom for bit, before getting to her real point
We need an economic answer to this, an answer that is market-based. Put a price on fossil fuels that covers their pollution. Then watch American ingenuity pull us back from these expensive disasters.
A good plan is the carbon-fee-and-dividend plan proposed by former Secretary of State George Shultz. This plan would put a steadily rising fee on the production of fossil fuels, based on the carbon dioxide they emit, return all the proceeds equally to all the people, and safeguard our balance of trade with a tariff.
Funny how it almost always ends in one of two things, or both: taxes and governmental dominance. In this case, she’s pitching more taxation. Surprise! Why is the answer never “I’ll do my part and give up my own use of fossil fuels, doing all I can to make my life carbon neutral, and I ask my fellow believers to do the same”? No, it’s a tax, which will magically be returned to the people who have seen their cost of living skyrocket, and, double surprise, will now be even more reliant upon The Government to survive.
They’ll also be limited in mobility, as the cost of fuels will be to high to travel. Authoritarians love to keep people in place. If they control your movement, they control you.
Anyhow, happy Earth Day, where concern for real environmental issues has been supplanted with a desire for authoritarian centralized Government on Other People.
At least she didn’t trot out the notion that this is “free market” based, like others do. This would be a government imposition, a government economy.
Read: It’s Wild That Earth Day And Tax Day Are So Close Or Something »
The Bathroom Wars continue, and the NBA still refuses to take a stand against the Houston law against the gender confused using the bathroom of their gender identity. No mention of pulling the team from Houston. Still no mention of the NBA forcing ever other team’s venue to allow the gender confused to use the bathroom of their choice.
(Charlotte Observer) NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Thursday that if North Carolina’s LGBT law remains unchanged, the 2017 All-Star Game would have to be moved from Charlotte.
Silver’s comments on the state’s controversial House Bill 2 came at the Associated Press Sports Editors’ commissioner meetings Thursday, according to attendees. Earlier in the day, Silver again called the law “problematic†for the league as it stands, but he said he’s confident state lawmakers will “do the right thing.â€
“We’ve been, I think, crystal clear a change in the law is necessary for us to play in the kind of environment that we think is appropriate for a celebratory NBA event,†Silver said at the APSE event.
Huh. So what’s supposed to be a good family weekend event should include men entering the women’s bathroom with women and girls. That’s appropriate? In what world? Perhaps the NBA should worry more about the violence and criminal activity by their players. Perhaps they should worry more about the selfish and thugish attitudes from so many of their players, which kids emulate.
“I’m not sure what statement we would have been making by pulling the All-Star Game but saying we’re absolutely fine playing our playoff game in Charlotte,†Silver said.
“What’s most important to this league is that there be a change in the law. It’d be easy to make a statement, but I can’t cut and run here. I’m leaving my team there,†he added.
What about Houston? Realistically, what about most cities that have an NBA, which have laws against people using the bathroom of the opposite sex? What that statement shows is that this is simply a Being Brave stance for political purposes. The NBA should remember that not everyone agrees, and they could be driving away fans with this pro-gender confused stance. If they aren’t willing to say that all teams should allow this, then it is simply optics, and a fake stance.
Let’s be clear: the primary concern is not about TG folk being predators, though, certainly, some may take advantage: the concern is that people with bad intentions will take advantage of this bit of Social Justice Special Snowflakiness and harm women and children.
Apparently, this has all been just an act
(AP) Donald Trump’s chief lieutenants told skeptical Republican leaders Thursday that the GOP front-runner has been “projecting an image” so far in the 2016 primary season and “the part that he’s been playing is now evolving” in a way that will improve his standing among general election voters.
The message, delivered behind closed doors in a private briefing, is part of the campaign’s intensifying effort to convince party leaders Trump will moderate his tone in the coming months to help deliver big electoral gains this fall, despite his contentious ways. (snip)
Trump’s newly hired senior aide, Paul Manafort, made the case to Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities: one in private and one onstage.
“When he’s out on the stage, when he’s talking about the kinds of things he’s talking about on the stump, he’s projecting an image that’s for that purpose,” Manafort said in a private briefing.
“You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You’ll see a real different guy,” he said.
Huh. As William Jacobson notes
I fully appreciate that support for Trump has become a cult of personality.
Nothing can sway those who refuse to see that Trump is conning them. He doesn’t respect you. He doesn’t like you. He is manipulating you to get what he wants.
It’s all a show.
And that show has been about demonizing other Republicans, those that are not supporting him. It’s been about insulting them, about going after the so-called Establishment, about trashing those who support other candidates or are just against Trump. And the show has apparently been a scripted act, duping his supporters.
Trump isn’t trustworthy, and he never has been. Now he’s using that untrustworthiness as a selling point. That’s clever – it’s worked throughout the campaign actually, since he’s used his corrupt quasi-bribery of public officials as evidence that he knows how to work the system but can’t be bought himself. But it also demonstrates that all those who thought Trump authentic got played. Either that or those who think that Trump will fulfill promises to change now are getting played.
But, hey, when we need him to be strong this way and take on the Democratic Party and it’s candidate, who will most likely be Hillary Clinton, Donald plans to soften his image and stop the attacks? Really? One has to wonder if Trump’s anger and venom is only aimed at the GOP, the party he proports to represent. Will he go easy on Hillary? Will he ditch his new phrase “crooked Hillary”? Will the campaign be all lollipops and unicorns? Will he tank the general election for Hillary, something many conspiracy theorists have wondered about?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Trump Pledges To Changes His Hardcore Image If He’s The Candidate »
So, by now you’ve probably heard about Harriet Tubman replacing Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill….did you know that if you miss the shift key you get 420?……quick, did you know that Jackson was on the $20 bill?…, and, according to George Soros funded Think Progress, we aren’t taking it well
Hours after the Treasury Department announced its plans to revamp a number of U.S. paper bills with depictions of African American and female civil rights icons, conservatives started criticizing the move as “politically correct†and “unnecessary.â€
The Treasury’s new plan places abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 while relegating former President Andrew Jackson to the back. Meanwhile, the $10 bill will still feature Alexander Hamilton but include a mural of female suffragist leaders on the back of the bill. Images of Martin Luther King, Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, and Marian Anderson will also be added to the back of the $5.
Speaking on the Today Show, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump argued against the move to replace Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 with Harriet Tubman.
“Andrew Jackson had a great history, and I think it’s very rough when you take somebody off the bill. Andrew Jackson had a history of tremendous success for the country,†he said. “I think Harriet Tubman is fantastic. I would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can maybe come up with another denomination, maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill.†He went on to call the change “pure political correctness.â€
Now, is this a case of “not taking it well”, or simply providing counter arguments? In some cases, the first. I was listening to Trump talk about it, and I think he’s wrong about this being PC. It could also be argued that this is a case of Social Justice. But, much like with earmarks, PC and SJ is not always bad. It’s a matter of sometimes that the issues are “turned up to 11“, like from the movie Spinal Tap. Real issues that need to be addressed, but are taken to the utter far end of extreme. Kinda like buying a 700 horsepower car for a 5 mile daily commute on residential streets. Of course, I really do not expect Trump to have a deep understanding of the issue.
Likewise, Ben Carson was not having a meltdown, but making an argument against. The only other “conservative” mentioned is Greta Van Susteren, who truly did not take the news well. But, she’s not really a Conservative. Barely a Republican. Her politics are really “Scientology.”
Really, few are flipping out. Some make good cases, such as Dana, who comments here daily
(First Street Journal) But, to me, the irony is just astounding: in order to pander to political correctness, the Treasury Department is going to remove the one President, the only President, who ever paid off the national debt! John Gordon Steele noted in The Wall Street Journal, right after President Obama signed the ridiculous American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the stimulus bill we were told would keep unemployment from rising above 8%, pointed out that President Jackson paid off the debt by doing the one thing that is anathema to Republicans and Democrats alike: he cut federal spending, vetoing every spending bill that he could. President Jackson vetoed infrastructure bills; today Presidents won’t even try to cut back on appropriations for luxury items. You can find plenty of articles telling you why it was bad to pay off the debt, but, to me, paying off the debt would be a wonderful thing.
That’s not “not taking the news well”, that’s making a counter-argument. Apparently, in Liberal World, no one is allowed to make counter arguments, and by “apparently”, we know that’s exactly the way they think. From the Libertarian leaning Reason, we are provided with 4 reasons why having her on the $20 is a good idea, my favorite being
3. She believed in armed self-defense, a radical-enough concept for poor whites, let alone renegade blacks. During her Underground Railroad missions, she carried a pistol both for protection against slave-catchers and, reportedly, to keep ambivalent “passengers” in line. To this day, blacks have a strong and yet routinely overlooked belief in the Second Amendment, leading one historian to argue that “guns made the Civil Rights movement possible.” The desire of relatively powerless minorities to arm themselves can still be heard in pro-Second Amendment remarks made by rappers such as Ice-T.
Don’t tell Liberals about her carrying guns for person protection. Their heads might explode. Then there’s this
Breaking: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting Republican pic.twitter.com/G9dVXpTaXv
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) April 20, 2016
Heh!
https://twitter.com/BigGator5/status/722941030287482880
Me? Couldn’t care less. I rarely carry cash, and when I do, I have no idea who’s on the bills.
Read: “Conservatives Aren’t Taking The Harriet Tubman News Well” Or Something »
…is a world drying out from moo cows which produce leather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on whether feminism is ruining soccer.
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.