HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » shanen » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

shanen

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 277

Journal Archives

Why does the GOP love childhood poverty?

Trying to open up a research topic here, but I think I need to start with a couple of premises and questions.

Premises:
(1) Childhood poverty is bad, even a form of child abuse.
(2) The GOP supports a lot of policies that increase childhood poverty.
(3) The children who grow up relatively well off have better lives as adults.

Research questions:
(1) Do adults who grew up poor tend to vote for the so-called Republicans?
(2) How many of Trump's voters grew up in poverty?
(3) What are the relationships between abortion and childhood poverty?

My thinking on this topic may have started from the wrong basis. I was initially thinking that the children of wealthy women obviously do not grow up in poverty, but those are the same women who can get an abortion if they want one. They have that choice simply because they have enough money. How much of childhood poverty is caused simply by making it hard for poor women to get abortions?

At first it might seem odd to increase the number of children who are suffering. However, if those children grow up to vote for your party, it starts to look reasonable (for rather twisted and politicized values of "reasonable"). Is that why the particular issue of abortion rights is so central to today's GOP? (I thought it was just confusion about the nature of genetics.)

Then again, my personal evidence seems to point the other way... I'd say that I grew up on the poor side, but it's clearly made me want to do what I can to prevent other kids from growing up that way and led me to oppose today's GOP.

Looking over these questions, I see they are typically dense, but I'm unsure what might need to be explained further... Of course I'm willing to answer your questions about clarification (or I wouldn't have published this comment), but mostly I'm hoping for links to some answers. Also recommended books.

Is Putin playing Trump like a cheap fiddle?

Let me start with a few questions:

(1) If Assad was winning, why would he resort to sarin?
(2) Is Assad still making his own bombs, or getting all of them from Russia?
(3) Has the sarin been analyzed to find out where and when it was made?
(4) After Trump called Putin, did Putin call his stockbrokers or his generals first?
(5) How accurately can Putin predict Trump's half-cocked reactions?

Mostly I think no one on America's side has answers to these questions, so now I'm speculating. In short, I'm certain Assad had opportunity, he probably had means, but I'm not seeing his motive. In contrast, I think Putin had much better means and many motives, but it's unclear how well he could control the opportunity for the war crime. Also important to consider how well Putin could predict #PresidentTweety's half-cocked knee-jerk response.

If you have solid evidence of some urgent military reason why Assad needed to use sarin, then I'd be quite interested in examining your evidence. The only thing I can imagine is that Assad's reign of terror was getting weak, so he decided he needed to ramp up the terror, but all of the evidence I've read about says Assad was winning, not losing, so no reason for him to rock the boat so hard.

In terms of Putin controlling the opportunity, I think the most important data involves his logistics network. How well can the Russians track the flow of their weapons? If he slipped a few sarin bombs into a shipment, could he predict where they would be used?

In terms of motives, I doubt that helping Trump is important to Putin, even though that will probably be one of the results. Much more important is how much money Putin and his friends could make on the fluctuations in oil prices. In particular, Question (4) could involve a LOT of money--but some of the profits might be on the American side if the Donald tipped off any of his cronies. In between is the motive of increasing Assad's dependence on Putin (but which would also explain why Russia is trying to muddy the waters with claims of sarin already being on the ground).

Gee, that reminds me. Do you suppose the Secretary of State still knows anyone in the oil business?

When Kellyanne Conway punched someone in the face, what had he said?

While "celebrating" the "winning" of #PresidentTweety, Kellyanne Conway went even more nuts than usual, and wound up punching someone in the face. Repeatedly.

What had he said that pushed her over the edge? Well, I guess I mean farther over the edge, because I knew she was nuts after the first time I heard her speak for about 30 seconds, but over the edge into violence?

Considering the VILE things that #PresidentTweety has said, I can't imagine what could be so vile as to make her come out swinging. Or was she just trying to restore proper party discipline, comrade?

Not so concerned if she was drunk, though the details could be titilating.

P.S. Already at a loss for picking the worst part of #PresidentTweety's first 10 days. My Trumpitis is getting worse and worse. So far it was probably the liar-in-chief's press secretary's defense of his first lies about the size of the crowd. There are NOT different facts. For any specific thing, there is ONLY ONE fact and anything else is a flaming LIE.

Remember when corporations "loved" a certain German leader? (Mussolini, too)

Trump is now trumpeting how he saved American jobs at Carrier. All it took was promising (via his VP) a few million bucks in tax savings. Increase the deficit? Who cares? Have to do it again next year? Maybe, but by then Trump will be telling us to look somewhere else.

Maybe that tax money could have been used for better education to make American workers more productive and more competitive? Or do you think American companies better start doing whatever the Donald says? When Trump says "Jump", the only acceptable answer is "How high?"

Another example involves IBM's recent overture to Trump. That one already cost one employee her job when she objected to the CEO's overture (or kowtowing?) to Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/11/29/this-ibm-employee-quit-over-her-ceos-letter-to-donald-trump-2/?utm_term=.9a420f8c2de7)

Has your employer or boss told you to get in line behind the Donald? Or maybe they also said not to tell anyone about the corporate cheerleading?

To sue or not to sue? Whether tis nobler to perjure or be Bill Cosby-ed?

About those Gettysburg promises to sue ALL of the women who have accused him of sexual assault... My analysis:

If Trump sues them, then he has to testify under oath. Then he has to confess or perjure himself. Therefore Trump won't sue.

If Trump doesn't sue them, then all of the other women he's sexually assaulted will start coming out. Therefore Trump MUST sue.

Damned if he sues, and double-damned if he doesn't. How many women are just waiting for the monetary value of their Donald stories to skyrocket after he's in the White House? How much silence can he buy before he's Bill Cosby-ed out of office?

I think the funniest part is that the Donald must have some idea how many women are out there. Has he really deluded himself that thoroughly that he can't remember all his affairs and one-night stands?

One word of warning to the journalists who are likely to get dragged into the mess: Don't forget Dan Rather. Trump's minions are quite likely to set up some fakers to play against the media. They better be quite careful of the fakers. The way they burned Dan Rather was by taking the real story and getting him to overplay it. I'm still convinced that there was real evidence that was used to create the fake evidence there...

Defensive humor? How to laugh at the Donald?

Stock picks for the reign of the Donald

Makers of anti-anxiety medications, makers of wife-beater T-shirts, and for-profit prisons.

Plastics? What a silly idea! Get in on BIG poverty now! It's gonna be YUGE!

Don't know if I can retitle this thread more broadly. Jokes are not really an adequate response, but I do think that Trump hates to be laughed at. Meanwhile I think he is laughing at the tears of the people who are weeping for the death of democracy.

P.S. Not a joke: Hillary got the most votes, and yet the so-called Republicans, the personal and rebranded party of the Donald, now has absolute control of all three branches of government. The nominee he isn't yet talking about in public is that stolen Supreme Court justice, but you can bet that he's picking the most supremely loyal candidate. The Donald needs personal loyalty uber alles. I wish I could figure out a joke about that bit...

Corporate responses to the election of the Donald?

The CEO of IBM wrote an open letter to Trump soon after the election. IBM had a long tradition of staying out of politics, but I don't see any way to interpret this letter that isn't some sort of endorsement of Trump's administration. At the optimistic end, maybe it's just saying IBM doesn't care as long as Trump lets them make bigger profits, but at the pessimistic end it could be taken as a warning to IBM's employees and business partners to keep their mouths shut.

Has your employer done anything along these lines? I'm guessing that Ginny Rometty's letter was emailed to all hands and posted on the intranet, as well as the public posting at https://www.ibm.com/blogs/policy/ibm-ceo-ginni-romettys-letter-u-s-president-elect/ for everyone. If you've gotten something along these lines from your employer, do you care to speculate about why?

Are you worried yet? Nobody expects the Email Inquisition.

(I'd add a poll if I could, but I'm afraid I don't like the financial model here. Am I confessing too much to say my last media donation was probably to Mother Jones, and my main campaign donation this year was to Bernie.)

How to brand the Republicans properly? GOP = HATE

Not every Republican is a hater, but every enthusiastic Trump supporter is. I'd be interested in meeting a counterexample, but I'm not holding my breath.

More to the point, the Republican brand has been hijacked. Today's angry mob led by Con Man Donald has NO relationship to the progressive Republican Party led by Honest Abe or the pragmatic governing GOP of Teddy or Ike. It's become an angry and partisan insurgency, and if they can't have their way they'll just make lots of noise and prevent the government from doing anything. There are real problems that need to be solved, but absolute obstructionism is not the solution to anything.

So how to hold them to account? How to make sure the GOP goes completely down the drain so a REAL 2nd party can take over that important job. You can't have meaningful elections without at least two viable choices.

Exhaustion of the Donald campaign by security briefings?

Just had a weird idea of how to destroy Trump's campaign:

Require him to UNDERSTAND the daily security briefings they are giving him.

They would give the identical briefing to Hillary, and then ask her a couple of questions about it. Of course she will answer immediately and accurately.

When Trump got the questions, he would be stumped, but he would be allowed to ask the briefing officer for help. Then more help, and more help, and usually wind up using the rest of the day getting to the point where he could answer the questions. No time left for campaigning. Game over.

Oh wait. It would probably backfire. When would the Donald have time to say and tweet all those stupid things? Just by keeping him away from mics and keyboards it might allow some people to delude themselves about his presidentiality.

Is there any category of Trump supporter who can feel shame?

Can't find a matching discussion, so I'll pose the question... Based on my observations, there seem to be four main legs of Trump's little high chair: (1) Government haters, (2) Hillary haters, (3) Bigots, and (4) Racists. Can any of them feel shame at supporting the Donald? If so, how can the shame be increased?

P.S. No matter what Trump thinks, the cute little high chair is not a throne.

P.P.S. A poll on which leg is thickest would have been interesting, but the economic model is not attractive. I've already donated to Bernie, and I don't regret it though it was hopeless, but I'd prefer to buy solutions, not just throw money at a website. How about solution projects after the articles (or linked to related threads), and if enough members support the project it would get funded and DU would get a tithe (after holding the money until then) for project planning, publicity, and reporting on the results.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »