TriGirl

I'd like to hear again from the people who spoke to news organizations before the election. The Trump apologists who said, "well, he didn't REALLY mean that LITERALLY. He means he'll do something more like [xx]." I'd like the same reporters to get those same people on their news programs and ask what they think of the president now doing EXACTLY that thing, literally. Do they still support him? FWIW, "democracy" doesn't just mean people get to vote for their government. It also means rule of law applies to all, with a focus on individual rights, not group rights. In other words, you can't just decide to make a new rule because "the majority" wants it, if it oppresses or excludes the minority. We've learned this lesson the hard way over the course of our history. Why must we repeat the lessons? See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I was thinking a pool or "over/under" on how long it takes the new president to be impeached. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Too many posts to quote. Bottom line is: what about a universal maximum income? It could be a multiple of minimum wage/UBI (say, 200x). Anything above that needs to go into a tax shelter of some kind (again, with a max limit) to maintain the person's income at no more than that level the rest of their lives, so they don't need UBI when they retire. Above and beyond that, the money either goes to the common good (public transportation, infrastructure, health services, education, defense, security -- mostly what taxes pay for); or if the head of the corporation, the remainder goes back into the corporation/company, so the employees make more. If the workers improve productivity under the management of these top leaders, then yes, the top leaders can still earn a much higher salary for their management skills. But the workers then also have an incentive to improve productivity, because only so much of the company profits can go to the owner or management (including all bonuses, etc). If the company is using automation to replace a bunch of workers, then the workers who ARE still there reap more benefits, not just the leadership. And the rest of the profit goes to the common good of society. Just a thought.

+1. I'm kinda proud of the fact that it takes me three days to prepare my brisket, with barbecue sauce made from scratch. Melts like butter, but holds its shape for good sandwiches. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I'd be happy if he would start with buttoning his jacket when he isn't sitting. That's just common manners. And Ms. Ivanka Trump WAS wearing a US flag pin. We all know she'll be doing more of the work anyway. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Agree. It is very difficult to change the thinking of a 70 year old person. There are however many republicans other public servants who are kind, magnanimous and consensus driven. Hopefully they will help steer the government. FIFY. From both parties, as well as independents. And many others who are not so much. I hope the same as you. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Listening to the inaugural address, I kept wondering how many more people sitting right on the same dais he was going to insult. Then I was wondering who wrote it, because that speech writer should be fired. Did a quick search for the transcript, and got this result: Trump wrote inauguration speech himself Yeah, that makes more sense. Can't wait for the Sunday news shows! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

The difference being that she admitted as such, took responsibility for her actions and expressed regret/remorse. She's served seven years, and will always be a convicted felon (she had her sentence commuted, not pardoned). She's paid a price -- whether it was harsh enough at seven years is certainly debatable -- and will continue to do so with the felony conviction. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Back when I was living/jumping in the IN/MI area, a couple jumpers from my DZ made a nude demo jump into a nudist colony in Roselawn, IN. Bad: One of them femured on the jump. Good: The EMTs didn't need to cut his jumpsuit off.

Actually, immigrants applying for citizenship do need to learn English -- though I can't say to what level. While we do not have an official language, the "language of the government" is English. This only means that everything filed by the government (laws, legal opinions, etc) must at least be in English. This does not prevent the additional versions in other languages, so that new immigrants or those who don't speak English to a Level 5, or even visitors, can understand the documents better. The official language of Italy is Italian, yet I see signage in both Italian and English (and some other languages) all over the place. When I visit there, I'm not admonished and told to "learn Italian" or "go back to my own country" when I'm speaking English. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

This is written on the heels of Quade's post, but answers the main question of the thread. This morning on CNN, morning show anchor Alisyn Camerota had Sean Spicer on for an interview, and she asked about the president-elect's messaging. She brought up the guidance everyone was given during the campaign that they should not take Mr. Trump's comments literally, and that at the time they were all kind of explained away. She further reminded him that the public was told that once elected and off the campaign trail, Mr. Trump's behavior would morph into behavior more presidential, and his comments more measured. From that, she asked him if we should now take him at his word, i.e., take his current statements literally. Mr. Spicer said Mr. Trump's tweets now are "his own words," so they should be taken literally. I say again: the press secretary for the next administration said in person on national television this morning that the public should accept Mr. Trump's tweets as his literal intent/meaning WRT nuclear proliferation. Mr. Trump said that we should increase our own nuclear arsenal, in order to force other countries to decrease theirs. He said we had to be prepared to use them (unlimited warfare). We have backed off from unlimited warfare since the end of WWII, when we actually employed it. This is why the conflicts in which we've been involved since then have been more drawn out, why the argument can be made that there was not clear "winner" -- because we understand what unlimited warfare means, and don't want to go there again, and therefore have limited ourselves to what military actions (killing people and destroying things) we are willing to accept in the course of our objectives. We learned from unlimited warfare that simply killing everyone is not the answer. The side that suffers the most fatalities is not by default the "loser" -- at least not anymore. We've been called hypocrites by many countries because we employed atomic/nuclear weapons, and now try to speak out against their use. Ramping up the rhetoric, and threatening to use nuclear weapons, IMO, is the exact wrong move. I'm an independent, not a Dem -- but THIS is one thing that very definitely scares me about the president-elect. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Going just a bit off topic: The title character in The Ugly American was actually the good guy. Please, everyone -- it's a great book about the pitfalls of how we sometimes see ourselves and behave WRT other countries, and ways to do it better, with respect, and getting respect (and some broader horizons) in return. I encourage everyone to read it -- especially those who want to use the phrase, so it can be reclaimed and used correctly. (and now back to your regularly scheduled SC thread topic....) See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

That's what people keep hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it. So far I've witnessed no evidence supporting this claim. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Speaking of pay-to-play: From https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-inauguration-ticket-prices-25000-to-1-million-013543267.html Check out the link in the story for full "underwriter benefits." While I am fine with helping to finance the event by selling packages that include ball tickets, preferred hotel bookings and ground transportation, the access issues really concern me. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Or in a publicly televised speech. That works, too. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Not on the issues, but certainly on the members of congress who might vote for that legislation. It's a threat that the members of congress really fear: getting labeled as wanting to hurt seniors during their elections (representatives most of all, as they have to be re-elected every two years). See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Agreed. I'm also in favor of adjusting the age brackets, to be applicable to people currently age 35 and younger (those who still have 20 years to establish employment that may offer retirement benefits after that amount of time). But the lobbyists for the older generation currently receiving SS keep the scare tactics up, trying to claim it will affect anyone in the eligible or soon-to-be eligible age range immediately. As we've seen, that's the age demographic that shows up to the polling places in droves, so they are a perfect target demographic. Do voters really think legislators are that stupid, that they would write a bill that snatches money out of the hands of an elderly person, forced to wait another two years to age back into the new system? Then again, voters don't bother reading the bills before going off on how messed up the bills are, so they'll believe just about anything the mouthpieces want to say. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

A mantra I've thought repeatedly throughout the campaign: "Ignorance should be painful." (it would certainly motivate many to learn a little something about whichever topic they are discussing and subsequently learn they're woefully ignorant) See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

It is. It's called write-in. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I'd really like to see an adjustment to the income subject to SS tax. First $30,000 is untouched. $30,001 to $300,00 pays (or something like that). Perhaps the cap is tied to the tax brackets? It pays for more than retirees. People with certain disabilities get Social Security, including families with eligible children. Regardless of the worker input/retiree benefit, there are certain beneficiaries who will receive much more than they will ever contribute. I'm 100% on board with that and have no problem whatsoever with my money contributing to their welfare. Personally, I have structured my retirement planning around the assumption that I'll never get a penny from Social Security. Any working person in their 20s, IMHO (especially people making a good living) should consider that will be the case as well and go from there. If it turns out later you really need SS, then let's hope it is still available. It you don't need it, let someone else use it. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Hey, Quade. I also wonder about the preferential treatment given to the company(ies) his daughter runs or helps to run. Being part of meetings with foreign representatives? Certainly 1) gives her an edge in international business dealings, and 2) implies partiality on the part of the government, that those companies are essentially endorsed by the U.S. government. I haven't been to law school yet, so I can't say what laws that breaks (aside something akin to insider trading on the part of Ms. Trump). I therefore don't know what penalties would apply to the president, or if it would all be on Ms. Trump. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

FIFY!

You clearly were not raised in a culture where being willing to die for your country and its values is something that is a point of pride, discussed over the dinner table, and used as an anchor in political discussions. What has that to do with a flag? The flag tells you when you make it to the border or where the next group of athletes in the parade are from. Just because anyone has worn it on their arm or lapel while performing their duties on behalf of that society doesn't mean the flag needs any more protection. Parachutes save lives, but we have no problem cutting them up or using them as tents in other circumstances. The values you speak of are service to the society, whether compensated or donated. THAT should be respected. Oh, FFS, please don't. I'm so f'ing tired of hearing that tripe. If you pay your taxes, you pay my salary. That's plenty "thanks." I do what I do because I like it. I don't like living in one place for too long, so the frequent moves are a bonus for me. I get to live in and out of the US, and don't have to look for a job each time or pay for the move. I knew what I was getting into and chose this line of work. I'm not sacrificing shit. [/rant] If you can't tell, it's a peeve of mine. I have a couple of stock replies when people say that to me: 1) "Thanks for paying my salary," and 2) (usually to TSA agents or other public safety or public health workers) "Thanks for yours." See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I do. Ms. Clinton proposed it in the correct way, to get it discussed and considered (and likely dismissed, if not ignored). It's obvious there are Americans who feel this way, and so the issue was appropriately addressed by the government. Mr. Trump will soon be the "face" of the U.S., and he's saying these things to the general public over a medium that is akin to speaking directly to them. He is, in essence, speaking for the government in his posts. This is NOT the appropriate way to intelligently discuss and debate the issue. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

By "qualified," I mean someone who has worked in government at the federal level. Someone who has had to work to get a bill passed, who has at least had a conversation about foreign policy with a foreign representative and understands that no issue is binary nor simple. Someone perhaps who has served in the foreign service, or CIA, or DEA, or USAID, or high levels of the military (understands international relations and foreign policy consequences). (Did you check out Evan McMullin, as I suggested?) At the same time, I wouldn't expect Sen. McCain or Ms. Pelosi to take over a Fortune 500 company or negotiate a business merger. And on the subject of "elites," is it just professional political operatives you reject, or do you hold the same opinion of the Wall Street "elites" being nominated for professional government/policy jobs? (I'm really asking your opinion). See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!