Category: Opinion

The purpose of this section is intended for opinion, blogging on general topics/issues and features of FOCM members.

Donald Trump Raw Transcript

From the NY Times comes this interview with Donald Trump and when I read the words to his answers, it’s comical in its lack of substance or content.  I know many politicians evade answering questions, but they usually go to a substantive point they want to make, but not Donald.

Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, had two telephone interviews with Maggie Haberman and David E. Sanger of The New York Times. Here are some excerpts:

On whether he would be willing for the United States to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries:

“An absolute last step. … I personally think it’s biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability … And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.”

What!?!  Nuclear capability is the biggest problem the world has?  I think he means, countries with nuclear capabilities.  And, uh, no shit, the first one to use them would be a very bad thing.

_____

On whether the United States should spy on its allies, and whether President Obama was right to stop the listening in on Angela Merkel’s cellphone:

“You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing. Because you know, many countries, I can’t say Germany, but many countries are spying on us. I think that was a great disservice done by Edward Snowden. That I can tell you.”

So, he would like to continue spying on our allies to see what they’re doing?, but he’d rather not say that?

_____

 

On his standards for using American troops abroad, such as for homeland protection, for humanitarian intervention, or to aid allies:

“It sounds nice to say, ‘I have a blanket standard; here’s what it is.’ No. 1 is the protection of our country, O.K.? That’s always going to be No. 1, by far. That’s by a factor of 100… After that it depends on the country, the region, how friendly they’ve been toward us. You have countries that haven’t been friendly to us that we’re protecting. So it’s how good they’ve been toward us, etc., etc.”

I guess it’s nice that he speaks at the 5th grade level, so that everyone can understand what little substance he says, but these phrases like: “number 1 by far by a factor of 100”.
WHAT?!

_____

On recent American engagement in the Middle East:

“If you would go back 15 years ago, and I’m not saying it was only Obama, it was Obama’s getting out, it was other people’s getting in, but you go back 15 years ago, and I say this: If our presidents would have just gone to the beach and enjoyed the ocean and the sun, we would’ve been much better off in the Middle East, than all of this tremendous death, destruction, and you know, monetary loss.”

HUH?!?

_____

On his recent comments questioning the effectiveness of NATO and its ability to combat terrorism:

“I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. … NATO is unfair. … Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that – you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money. … So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO.”

I know I may be nitpicking, but the sentences and grammar – ugh: so NATO has to be changed to include terror.  What does that mean?

_____

On whether Russia will end up dominating Ukraine:

“Well, unless, unless there is, you know, somewhat of a resurgence frankly from people that are around it. Or they would ask us for help. But they don’t ask us for help. They’re not even asking us for help. They’re literally not even talking about it, and these are the countries that border the Ukraine.”

HUH?

_____

 

Trump Transcripts are Funny

I’ve now read a couple of interviews or portions of interviews with Donald Trump.  Watching and listening to him talk and answer questions is one thing but reading them is different, amazing – kinda and funny.  Like other politicians who don’t answer a question – they give an answer to a question they’d rather answer, Trump also doesn’t answer, or well, he kinda answers but with a jibberish statement.

Here’s an example: he was answering a question about the North Carolina new law that includes barring individuals in the state from using public bathrooms that don’t correspond to their biological sex — the one listed on their birth certificate.

“North Carolina did something — it was very strong — and they’re paying a big price,” Mr. Trump said. “And there’s a lot of problems. And I heard — one of the best answers I heard was from a commentator yesterday saying, leave it the way it is, right now.”  (okay, see what I mean – what kind of answer is this? leave what the way it is right now; right now it is the law as passed or does he mean before the law)

He added that before the law passed, there had been “very few problems” but now North Carolina is experiencing an exodus of businesses and “strife” from people on both sides of the issue.

“You leave it the way it is,” he said. “There have been very few complaints the way it is.”

“You know, there’s a big move to create new bathrooms,” Mr. Trump said. “Problem with that is for transgender. That would be — first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. It would be unbelievably expensive for businesses and for the country. Leave it the way it is.”  (Really, there is a big move to create new bathrooms? and how is a “big move to create new bathrooms” a problem for transgender people? How are new bathrooms discriminatory?)

The Clinton’s – Making Money

Saw this and had to share – kinda funny right?

So we have Hillary running for President who has basically been a government employee for the past 25 years and her net worth is $31,000,000 and Bernie has been a government employee for about 40 years and his net worth is $530,000.  What did she do to get that much money?

  • Gave speeches for $225,000 each
  • In 2013, Hillary received $9,680,000 from her paid speeches
  • Salary as a senator ~$174,000/year for 8 years
  • Salary as Secretary of State $186,000 for 4 years
Clinton Irony
Clinton Irony

The Clinton’s – out of touch with reality.  I loved how she couldn’t work the turnstile on the subway, she’s not driven a car in 20 years, of course, she feels our pain and understands Americans who struggle and knows what they need (dripping with sarcasm).  Just go away, please.

Fifteen dollar minimum wage

So I see this article on the LA Times site about the $15 minimum wage and they open with:

The people who stand to benefit most from minimum wage hikes across California are low-income adults, most of them household breadwinners, according to an analysis by UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education.

A law proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown would gradually lift the statewide minimum wage from its current $10 to $15 an hour by 2023. About 800,000 workers were already promised raises to $15 in several cities that passed their own minimum wage hikes, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Monica.

Unfortunately the people (low income adult household breadwinners) they say will benefit will only benefit in the short term.  Artificially raising wages will lead to unemployment of those people are trying to help.  Doing things to help the economy will better serve everyone.  Reduce strangling regulations on businesses so they can have the time to make upgrades to their business and improve services.   I fail to understand why people don’t understand how harmful this minimum wage increase will be – either prices will go up making it difficult for low income people to buy goods and services and/or businesses won’t be able to afford to hire people or will lay people off.

Let’s say you own a frozen yogurt store and you net $50K per year as your net income.  You have two employees that you pay $7.50 per hour and each works 30 hours per week.  They both make $11,250/year, so you’re paying $22,500/year in wages.   Now the government comes along and says you have to pay $15/hour.  If you continue as before, your wage expense is now $45,000, making your net income as the owner is now $27,500.  What can you do?

  1. close the business
  2. lay off one employee
  3. double the price of the yogurt

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-minimum-wage-raise-20160330-story.html

Democrat Party and Abortion

So I was watching the Democratic candidates on the Fox News town hall and I have to say I was shocked at both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton’s stance on abortion.  I’m also shocked that there appears to be no one else upset about it – at least judging by media coverage and the lack of a response.  Both Bernie and Hillary – seemed to say or support no limits on abortion, “it’s a woman’s body and therefore her right to choose.  I interpreted this as them supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion up to the day before delivery.  I assumed that they’d mention or support at least no abortion after viability or after 30 weeks or something.

Democrats would probably say that isn’t what they were saying, they’re merely supporting abortion as it is now, legal based on Roe v Wade with whatever those restrictions and qualifiers are.  I thought they left that vague.

On the note of healthcare, a member of FOCM Political group postulated this: When Bernie was asked about why he felt that health care is a right, he replied with something like – because we are human beings.  Which begs the question:  when does he believe we become human beings?  Apparently that happens at birth.  Until then, there’s only one form of Democrat healthcare available for a pre-born infant and that is ABORTED!

It’s always been an interestingly inconsistent position of Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats: pro-abortion and against the death penalty (in favor of death for unborn babies and leniency for murderers – zero tolerance for putting to death the wrong person)

Republicans: pro-life and in favor of the death penalty (in favor of life saving for unborn babies and death for murderers – accepting that despite best efforts of cops, lawyers and judges some people wrongly convicted may be put to death)

Why can’t we agree to end the death penalty and have mandatory sentences: first degree murder – life imprisonment with absolutely no chance of parole or life imprisonment for 100 years?
And then we should be able to agree that since babies born at 26 weeks have a survival rate of 75% – 85% that abortions cannot occur after that point unless the life of the mother is at risk.

Not having ever been a woman and thusly not able to be pregnant, is it unreasonable to think a woman can make up her mind (choose) within 25 weeks if she wants to have a baby or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Warming It’s the Trees’ Fault

Looks like Ronald Reagan’s statement may not have been so wrong when he said: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” — Ronald Reagan, 1981

The assumption that planting new forests helps limit climate change has been challenged by a new study.  Researchers found that in Europe, trees grown since 1750 have actually increased global warming.  The scientists believe that replacing broadleaved species with conifers is a key reason for the negative climate impact.  Conifers like pines and spruce are generally darker and absorb more heat than species such as oak and birch.  The authors believe the work has implications for current efforts to limit rising temperatures through mass tree planting.

The research team reconstructed 250 years of forest management history in Europe – and found that the way forests are controlled by humans can lead to far less carbon being stored than would have been the case when nature was in charge.  Removing trees in an organised fashion tends to release carbon that would otherwise remain stored in forest litter, dead wood and soil.  Choosing conifers over broadleaved varieties also had significant impacts on the albedo – the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space.  “Even well managed forests today store less carbon than their natural counterparts in 1750,” said Dr Kim Naudts who carried out the study while at the Laboratory of Climate Science and Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France.

Speaking to Science in Action on the BBC World Service, she said: “Due to the shift to conifer species, there was a warming over Europe of almost 0.12 degrees and that is caused because the conifers are darker and absorb more solar radiation.”  The researchers say that the increase in temperature equates to 6% of the global warming attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. They say that is a significant amount and believe that similar impacts are likely in regions where the same type of afforestation has taken place.  Many governments have made planting trees a key part of their plans for dealing with climate change; China is building a “great green wall” of trees, set to cover around 400 million hectares when complete.  The authors suggest the world should look carefully at both the types trees that we are planting and the ways in which they are managed.

Trees’ Role in Global Warming

Hillary vs Bernie: Friend or Foe of Wall Street

From last night’s town hall on CNN,  Anderson Cooper asked the Democratic front-runner if she made “a bad error in judgment” by accepting $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches. She didn’t hesitate to say no.

Her explanation sounded flip. “That’s what they offered,” she said, adding that “every secretary of state that I know” has also given such high-priced speeches.

Cooper followed up by asking why she’d take the risk of making such appearances if she was going to run for president. Clinton said it was because she was not totally sure she would get in the race. “To be honest, I wasn’t committed to running,” she replied.

The most problematic part of her answer came when she insisted something that is demonstrably untrue: “They’re not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much. Fine with me.”

However, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.”

  • “In all, donors from Wall Street and other financial-services firms have given $44.1 million to support Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and allied super PACs, compared with $39.7 million in backing that former president Bill Clinton received from the industry.”
  • “Only about $75,000 of the $75 million Sanders has raised for his 2016 campaign has come from donors in the finance sector.”
  • “With the $21.4 million that Wall Street has given for her current White House bid, Clinton is on track to quickly exceed the nearly $23 million that she raised in her three previous campaigns combined from the PACs and employees of banks, hedge funds, securities firms and insurance companies.”

Washington Post article

So how can she attack Wall Street big money?  because she’s a politician and has a long history of saying whatever she feels she needs to in order to get elected.