Donald Trump Takes Finasteride. A New Perspective.

[hairblues]

That's right.

His vision for detente with Russia is dying.

Yeah, i am getting a sense that was a Bannon vision to join with Russia--and i am beginning to wonder/imagine if it's not to do join in a war against Mid East that takes the oil and kills Muslims. I dont know this just wondering like if i was writing a fictional movie and was looking for the incentive that would be the thing that made sense...or money somehow via oil deals.

I don't get the Russia love to be very honest i don't see any positive in it for us or Europe.

My friends from Russia that moved here during USSR years even voted against him over this and they usually vote Republican they voted democrats this time due to his love of Putin(my coney island peeps)

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yeah, i am getting a sense that was a Bannon vision to join with Russia--and i am beginning to wonder/imagine if it's not to do join in a war against Mid East that takes the oil and kills Muslims.

That's more or less it. Bannon was clear in his views several years ago.

He perceives Russia as a competing imperial power which eventually needs to be fought, but that's not the priority in the short term, the priority is to fight ISIS. Here:

You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

 

[hairblues]

That's more or less it. Bannon was clear in his views several years ago.

He perceives Russia as a competing imperial power which eventually needs to be fought, but that's not the priority in the short term, the priority is to fight ISIS. Here:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

Well reading that I am NOT so paranoid after all LOL my writer friends would be proud of me.
He does seem to want a Holy War with Islam.

hmm putting aside the social stuff and foreign policy... he confuses me economically on his stance.

He says he is tea party but then he is anti-ayn rand (Ron Paul) type libertarian capitalism that is extremely popular among Tea Publicans.

His economic take is very confusing..>he does not believe in regulation (i assume from what they are doing so far) but he also does not believe in bail outs for Wal Street. He does not like crony capitalism or libertarian capitalism yet he filled cabinet with these people.

THIS is what scares me about Bannon and Trump the most, as far as being an American and REALLY confuses me with the so called "patriotic Red State, Regan loving Americans'

he’s (PUTIN) got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

then he continues with this

we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s (V.PUTIN) talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.


that line between Nationalism, Traditionalism and Facism seems to be very easily blurred.
Not saying we are going to go full on Facist--but there are things they are setting up that smell a little fishy to me.

 

[yetti]

That's right.

His vision for detente with Russia is dying.

David for someone who professes to be on the left I am once again baffled by your political comments on this board. Meryl Streep etc are worthy of your disdain, but Trump has "a vision for detente", his plans for "meaningful reforms" will sadly be deterred because he's "losing the civil war". I mean, why might there be such a war? You might respond, holdovers from the Obama admin. and people on the inside who dont want the system to change. Is that it? Or is it more? And what you see as a grand and presumably laudable "vision for detente", obviously a lot of the country including many republicans are seeing as something based on something nefarious. But to you, his "vision" for peace is dying, and thats the sad story.

None of this is to say that theres anything wrong with having these positions if they are heartfelt. But then where are you politically? Because most, nay, all, people on the left are gagging, hard, on this cabinet, executive actions so far etc.

 

[hairblues]

David for someone who professes to be on the left I am once again baffled by your political comments on this board. Meryl Streep etc are worthy of your disdain, but Trump has "a vision for detente", his plans for "meaningingful reforms" will sadly be deterred because he's "losing the civil war". I mean, why might there be such a war? You might respond, holdovers from the Obama admin. and people on the inside who dont want the system to change. Is that it? Or is it more? And what you see as a grand and presumably laudable "vision for detente", obviously a lot of the country including many republicans are seeing as something based on something nefarious. But to you, his "vision" for peace is dying, and thats the sad story.

None of this is to say that theres anything wrong with having these positions if they are heartfelt. But then where are you politically? Because most, nay, all, people on the left are gagging, hard, on this cabinet, executive actions so far etc.

I don't even think many republican voters thought for a moment they were trying to align with Russia to fight Islam in Mid East.

No one is digging that deep.

And I don't think many voters that actually 'decided' the election--those few that were on the edge but went for Trump because of no more manufacturing jobs and felt ignored by Clinton/DNC or the Sanders voters who turned out to give a protest vote for 3rd party--i mean these are the people who really flipped the blue states to red and not by many individual votes (which kills me i almost would prefer a landslide) --those people I guarantee you have NO clue that Trump was this close to Bannon and that Bannon was puppeteering Trump this deep or that they were aligning with Russia this purposefully. Bannon is obviously dictating policy. I mean its obvious now. Just those on the Alt right probably had an idea what was up to.
(Feels like Bush and Cheeny all over again only times 1000).

I mean Bannon driving Trumps vision makes sense because ask anyone who grew up in NYC area around my age--TRUMP has no political vision he just wants to be 'loved'. Always been that way. And he was a democrate.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

David for someone who professes to be on the left I am once again baffled by your political comments on this board. Meryl Streep etc are worthy of your disdain, but Trump has "a vision for detente", his plans for "meaningful reforms" will sadly be deterred because he's "losing the civil war". I mean, why might there be such a war? You might respond, holdovers from the Obama admin. and people on the inside who dont want the system to change. Is that it? Or is it more? And what you see as a grand and presumably laudable "vision for detente", obviously a lot of the country including many republicans are seeing as something based on something nefarious. But to you, his "vision" for peace is dying, and thats the sad story.

None of this is to say that theres anything wrong with having these positions if they are heartfelt. But then where are you politically? Because most, nay, all, people on the left are gagging, hard, on this cabinet, executive actions so far etc.

Both the mainstream right and the mainstream left in the USA are completely intellectually bankrupt and clueless as to the failure of the status quo in the USA right now. The country is failing, but they think it's never been stronger.

When I say I'm on the left I don't mean with Hillary Clinton and her idiot supporters, who are oblivious to the declining living standards and socioeconomic collapse of most of the country and make tone deaf slogans like #AmericaIsGreat, who think identity politics is more important than economic issues, who were OK with Obama bombing the sh*t out of Libya in spite of knowing nothing about that country, who think Putin hacked the election, and who wanted the US military to "help" in Syria in spite of again knowing nothing about that country.

These people get their info from CNN, NYT, Washington Post (just the headlines), and know next to nothing. They are opposing Trump out of virtue signalling, when Obama pursued many of the same policies they were OK with them.

You probably don't know what any of this means. Most people on the US left don't. They mostly live in coastal bubbles. Start reading Chomsky, Naked Capitalism, The Intercept, etc and maybe after two or three years you might realize that Obama was a hack rather than an angel of light and love.

I'm telling you this but I don't really feel like explaining it. I am sure that you believe that everything would be fine under Hillary.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I don't even think many republican voters thought for a moment they were trying to align with Russia to fight Islam in Mid East.

No one is digging that deep.

And I don't think many voters that actually 'decided' the election--those few that were on the edge but went for Trump because of no more manufacturing jobs and felt ignored by Clinton/DNC or the Sanders voters who turned out to give a protest vote for 3rd party--i mean these are the people who really flipped the blue states to red and not by many individual votes (which kills me i almost would prefer a landslide) --those people I guarantee you have NO clue that Trump was this close to Bannon and that Bannon was puppeteering Trump this deep or that they were aligning with Russia this purposefully. Bannon is obviously dictating policy. I mean its obvious now. Just those on the Alt right probably had an idea what was up to.
(Feels like Bush and Cheeny all over again only times 1000).

I mean Bannon driving Trumps vision makes sense because ask anyone who grew up in NYC area around my age--TRUMP has no political vision he just wants to be 'loved'. Always been that way. And he was a democrate.

Trump was already advocating many of these positions long prior to getting involved with Bannon.

 

[yetti]

Both the mainstream right and the mainstream left in the USA are completely intellectually bankrupt and clueless as to the failure of the status quo in the USA right now. The country is failing, but they think it's never been stronger.

When I say I'm on the left I don't mean with Hillary Clinton and her idiot supporters, who are oblivious to the declining living standards and socioeconomic collapse of most of the country and make tone deaf slogans like #AmericaIsGreat, who think identity politics is more important than economic issues, who were OK with Obama bombing the sh*t out of Libya in spite of knowing nothing about that country, who think Putin hacked the election, and who wanted the US military to "help" in Syria in spite of again knowing nothing about that country.

These people get their info from CNN, NYT, Washington Post (just the headlines), and know next to nothing. They are opposing Trump out of virtue signalling, when Obama pursued many of the same policies they were OK with them.

You probably don't know what any of this means. Most people on the US left don't. They mostly live in coastal bubbles. Start reading Chomsky, Naked Capitalism, The Intercept, etc and maybe after two or three years you might realize that Obama was a hack rather than an angel of light and love.

I'm telling you this but I don't really feel like explaining it. I am sure that you believe that everything would be fine under Hillary.

LOL. This is my point exactly. For someone who is supposedly "left leaning", you have an enormous amount of vitrol for the left, and what of our current president and his very hard right administration? Come clean. And yes, I get that you're saying that Hillary and her coastal bubbles (which constituted well more than half the votes during the last election), and CNN, NYT, Obama etc. aren't the "Chomsky left", and you're implying that that's what you are. OK, fine. But here's what your hero Chomsky has to say about Trump:

'We now face are the most severe that have ever arisen in human history. They are literal threats to survival: nuclear war, environmental catastrophe. These are very urgent concerns,' Chomsky said. 'They cannot be delayed. They became more urgent on November 8th, for the reasons you know and that I mentioned. They have to be faced directly, and soon, if the human experiment is not to prove to be a disastrous failure.'

He, and the non- "coastal bubbles" (that represent more than half the people that voted), "true" left that I suppose you are implying that you support, are mortified by Trump. They see the current admin as far worse than what Hillary would have put together... and that makes sense because from their perspective, of course it is. But not you, it's Streep and Hillary that make you ill. So there's a real disconnect between where you supposedly stand politically and what you post. And look, I don't care what you think and have no desire to try to convince you otherwise, and you can childishly condescend with "You probably don't know what any of this means" and "I don't mean with Hillary Clinton and her idiot supporters," if you like. Note I am not doing the same and don't pretend to know all the answers. But I think it's a transparent trick of persuasion to say you stand somewhere politically, and then do nothing but bash it. It sends the message, wow, this is a real convicning argument this guy is making, like someone working at a Footdtown telling you not to shop there - oh, I'd better not shop there if the employees don't like it. But in fact the guy works at the store across the street.

I'll respond to one thing though: "I am sure that you believe that everything would be fine under Hillary."

I think things would have been roughly what they were like under Obama, which is better than I think they'll be now. Time, and the legal system, will tell.

By the way, people who get news from CNN, NYT, Washington Post know "next to nothing" in your opinion, OK. So what are the legit news sources? Surely there must be some.

 

[SmoothSailing]

OK. So what are the legit news sources? Surely there must be some.

Not necessarily. I think every news source has a bias. People who don't diversify where they get their info from will usually end up with the bias that their news source contains.

So it's not that these sources aren't 'legit'. Two people can tell you a story, both telling the truth, and yet one could leave you supporting one side, whilst the other could have you supporting the opposite side.

 

[yetti]

Not necessarily. I think every news source has a bias. People who don't diversify where they get their info from will usually end up with the bias that their news source contains.

So it's not that these sources aren't 'legit'. Two people can tell you a story, both telling the truth, and yet one could leave you supporting one side, whilst the other could have you supporting the opposite side.

Yes of course, I agree with all that and personally get news from many different sources. But David's quote was "These people get their info from CNN, NYT, Washington Post (just the headlines), and know next to nothing.", specifically criticizing three news organizations with a very similar bias as ones that provide their customers with "next to nothing". So I'm wondering what he thinks is as good or better.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

By the way, people who get news from CNN, NYT, Washington Post know "next to nothing" in your opinion, OK. So what are the legit news sources? Surely there must be some.

The better parts of the American (and British) mainstream propaganda system, such as NYT, Bloomberg, Foreign Policy, The Financial Times, The Economist, Rolling Stone, etc can contribute a decent dose of a healthy media diet. They have a lot of resources which permits them to pursue some stories in detail, and the American view is an important view in the world given the prominence of the USA.

It should ideally be joined by more radical sources from both the US left (The Intercept, Naked Capitalism, Counterpunch, Black Agenda Report, etc) and us right (The American conservative, Zero Hedge, AntiWar.com, etc). It should also be augmented, where possible, by international media sources. If you're reading The Washington Post, you should also read Russia Today, Al Jazeera, Der Spiegel, etc, each of them has terrific journalists of their own who sometimes do quality investigative work that you would never, ever find from US sources. Myself, one of the wholes in my media diet is that I don't have a lot of South and East Asian sources. I don't read Chinese state media for example, that is a failure on my part.

When you read Chomsky for example, don't just google for one or two sentences that support your position and then declare victory and stop there. Try to read him on his own terms, read a few of his articles and books, watch a few of his interviews on youtube, and pay attention to all of it including the parts that make you uncomfortable.

A good start for you, if you're actually interested in learning (I'm skeptical) would be Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. It is a rigorously researched piece of robustly-referenced investigative journalism, and it will make you deeply uncomfortable. You should also watch the Netflix documentary "13th", directed by Ava DuVernay. It's about modern America's persecution of African Americans.

I'm giving you a chance here, but honestly I think you'll just stick to Anderson Cooper.

Not necessarily. I think every news source has a bias. People who don't diversify where they get their info from will usually end up with the bias that their news source contains.

So it's not that these sources aren't 'legit'. Two people can tell you a story, both telling the truth, and yet one could leave you supporting one side, whilst the other could have you supporting the opposite side.

Exactly correct.

 

[yetti]

When you read Chomsky for example, don't just google for one or two sentences that support your position and then declare victory and stop there. Try to read him on his own terms, read a few of his articles and books, watch a few of his interviews on youtube, and pay attention to all of it including the parts that make you uncomfortable.

A good start for you, if you're actually interested in learning (I'm skeptical) would be Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. It is a rigorously researched piece of robustly-referenced investigative journalism, and it will make you deeply uncomfortable. You should also watch the Netflix documentary "13th", directed by Ava DuVernay. It's about modern America's persecution of African Americans.

I'm giving you a chance here, but honestly I think you'll just stick to Anderson Cooper.

You know, David, the reason I prod you on some of your posts is that I think you're a reasonably smart guy who goes over the top in how sure you are about certain things, so I'm curious about how you'll support them. And I do it with an open mind. But when you condescend and call people who support a candidate you didn't support "idiots", you reveal yourself to be not quite that smart and nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

 

[SmoothSailing]

A good start for you would be to become 50% less arrogant.

I think most people need this advice. We're all far to sure in ourselves.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

You know, David, the reason I prod you on some of your posts is that I think you're a reasonably smart guy who goes over the top in how sure you are about certain things, so I'm curious about how you'll support them. And I do it with an open mind. But when you condescend and call people who support a candidate you didn't support "idiots", you reveal yourself to be not quite that smart and nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

Perhaps, but I gave you an honest chance and this is how you responded.

I predict that you will make no meaningful effort to engage with any of the media sources I listed you.

But I can't just assume that. I had to give you the chance.

 

[yetti]

I think most people need this advice. We're all far to sure in ourselves.

Ha, I deleted this because I didnt want to offend, but I stand by it. And yes its good advice for all of us.

 

[yetti]

Perhaps, but I gave you an honest chance and this is how you responded.

I predict that you will make no meaningful effort to engage with any of the media sources I listed you.

But I can't just assume that. I had to give you the chance.

What do you mean, you gave me an honest chance? Who do you think you are? Wow....... I hope you are joking.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

What do you mean, you gave me an honest chance? Who do you think you are? Wow....... I hope you are joking.

I listed several alternative media sources that have the prospect of making you uncomfortable, of challenging you, of educating you, just as they challenge me and make me uncomfortable and educate me. I was wondering if you would engage with just one of them, upon being presented with (which you requested) a wide world of greater media that covers a greater range than the narrow focus of the American mainstream media.

I was wondering if you would engage with some of that material, or ignore all of it and come back to me with pure ad hominems. You had two options, and you made your choice.

 

[yetti]

I listed several alternative media sources that have the prospect of making you uncomfortable, of challenging you, of educating you, just as they challenge me and make me uncomfortable and educate me. I was wondering if you would engage with just one of them, upon being presented with (which you requested) a wide world of greater media that covers a greater range than the narrow focus of the American mainstream media.

I was wondering if you would engage with some of that material, or ignore all of it and come back to me with pure ad hominems. You had two options, and you made your choice.

Dude, I didn't ask you to educate me, nor do I need to be educated by you. I asked you what media you consume because you knocked a few, so I was curious about what you don't knock. Simply. In this thread I asked you about the discrepancy between where you say you stand politically, and the content of your posts. Trump's "vision for detente" you describe, for example, isn't viewed that way by most people on the left (or right for that matter), nor do they believe that Trump has many "meaningful reforms" on his agenda. You do, so I was curious about what you think they are. Clearly this touched a nerve and you decided to ignore it, and respond with "people who voted for the candidate I didn't support are idiots" and the very silly "I will give you a chance". Awesome answer. OK.

 

[JHCL1990]

Federal government data shows that while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.

What is the cost of illegal immigration?

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117.

Please take a step back and realize that you are arguing in favor of criminals.

 

[hairblues]

Federal government data shows that while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.

What is the cost of illegal immigration?

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117.

Please take a step back and realize that you are arguing in favor of criminals.

You take a step back and realize i am not arguing for or against anyone. I said clearly violent criminals need to go. Im not even that emotionally invested in immigrants i dont think it makes sense economically for mass deportation of all for more reasons then we have debated here..if you were not such a 'dick' i would get deeper into it with you to explain. But you are automatically biased against anything i would mention to you.

Point/

You said they dont pay taxes

I said they do

I gave you proof they do DOCUMENTED first in an article you dismiss as bias then with a Govt document that has the names of all the researchers.

You keep coming back with stuff you can't even quote from where you get it...LEt me guess Heritage Foundation?