LenP

Members
  • Content Count

    8,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

LenP last won the day on May 4

LenP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

925 F'n Saint

About LenP

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist
  • Birthday 09/22/1968

Recent Profile Visitors

3,298 profile views
  1. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    There were definitely people who did just that here in PA. Carbon county is the example I know best, but there are others. It is the same people voting, just voting for Trump not Obama.
  2. There are growing reports of them however I believe the DNCR still denies they are here. I can believe it but also think most of the sightings are just really big bobcats. I had a bobcat in the yard here that looked to be 50-60lbs. Our black bears are some of the biggest in the world, why not bobcats too. It would be easy to mistake a 60lb bobcat for a cougar particularly if you do not see a lot of cougars.
  3. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    I don't think you necessarily have to be all things to all people, but I do think if you want to be a successful president that you need to try and always give even your detractors a way to maintain their respect, at least when that contingent of detractors makes up 1/4 of the population. Once you call someone an irredeemable deplorable, you have left no space to come together on pretty much any topic. The relationship becomes toxic. Ironically, Bill Clinton was one of the better presidents when it came to this.
  4. Pennsylvania also had the first public library and is home to the best location for stargazing east of the Mississippi. We also have an abundance of very large bears although I am starting to think that may be a negative.
  5. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    She said half of his supporters were irredeemable and deplorable. That is a 1/4 of the country she was writing off. It is arguable whether or not they actually are or are not irredeemable, however I can not see how it was anything but contempt for 1/4 of the country. I am much more likely now to believe that there actually are that many despicable racists in the country, however I have nothing but contempt for racists and am willing to own it. What is worse is that most of the half she was talking about would have thought it not applicable to them, while many in the half she thought could be saved thought she meant them. If you are going to be President, you really should not write off 25-50% of the country which is what both she and Romney did. That cost both of them at the polls.
  6. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    I don't see humans as being the selfish species that you do. We thrive in communities where people live together and support each other and always have. Where there are the most problems it is where selfishness is rebranded and elevated. We would not have survived as a species unless individual members put the interests of community above their own. In regards to automation, that is already happening, which is what creates the downward pressure on wages even when we have full employment. It is why it is why we are losing social mobility. The only thing that is holding back automation is the availability of exceedingly cheap human labor, and post pandemic the humans will lose even more leverage over robots since robots are not affected by things like Covid.
  7. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    I understand the full comment adds context that softens the statement, however when I look at the totality of her campaign and statements I am left in the same place of seeing someone who really does not like or respect nearly half the country. It is not terribly different than the recording that caught Romney writing off half the country as takers who are a lost cause. The full context softens it, but there is still a contempt for a large percent of the population. Neither of those instances puts Romney or Clinton even remotely in the same ballpark as Trump, but they are not traits I want to see in a President.
  8. LenP

    Are You a Socialist ?

    Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, etc. all to me seem largely irrelevant if you accept that the world today is fundamentally different than the one that existed before now. Much of the global economic activity today revolves around monetizing IP which is reproduced at a cost of near zero and with the need for little to no labor, and a world where monopolies arise in less than a decade to dominate entire domains. Where manufactured goods are involved, the manufacturing process has been commoditized and is increasingly automated. Technology today is destroying jobs faster than it creates them, meanwhile we keep looking at the arguments of the past hundred years as if they are even remotely relevant. If we were living in anything that functioned remotely like the 19th and 20th centuries, we would be looking at massive runaway inflation right now instead of a recession and relatively low inflation in the face of injecting trillions of dollars into the economy over a few short months. Until we can come to some basic understanding on where we are, the arguments on where we go and how to get there are meaningless.
  9. I still do not understand what the concern is. There is always potential ethics conflicts unless the nominee has never worked in the private sector and does not accept any campaign contributions if/when they ran for public office, with that also extending to the family of the nominee. Sometimes there may be greater apparent potential, as when an officeholder owns and profits from a business that contracts with the govt, corporate entities with business before the govt, foreign govts., or all the aforementioned. Sometimes it is barely noticeable, and most times it is somewhere in between. Still, potential is only potential until there is some sign that unethical behavior is taking place. I would ask those who are concerned about this, what is the alternative? How would that be applied to politicians or political appointees?
  10. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    I agree on Clinton. Her "deplorables" comment put her contempt on full display.
  11. LenP

    "Trump Doesn't Talk Down to Anybody"

    I believe there are two separate but overlapping forces at play. There are the the things that pulled people into the cult, and then there are the things that keep them there. The disinformation is a big part of what keeps people there, which is no different than any other cult. Separate folks from anyone who is an outsider, make even friends and family the enemy if they don't agree with you or even if they question a belief. I believe that the bigger part of what attracts people to the cult in the beginning is not the disinformation, but is that they feel understood and accepted. The first rule of getting someone to listen to you is to establish that you care about what they say and you respect them. Clinton failed at this, Biden did not but that does not mean we are out of the woods. The cult is still large and it's walls of disinformation are getting taller, it will become increasingly hard to pull people out.
  12. The tagline for the company reflects where they came from when they started it, not what will happen as they return to public service. They baked an out into their lease in case they went back to work in public service, so the intention is not to do both at once. If they continue to own/run the consulting business while they are serving in the WH, I would have a problem with that just as I had a problem with Trump doing the same. It is a bit early to find fault with them now, since they have not even started their new gig yet.
  13. I am not sure what the issue is. This is fairly standard and happens in private enterprise as well. If an executive leaves a place like Google, Apple, or FB, the knowledge they have is valuable to other companies which may want to partner with them or invest in them. Some of the knowledge is proprietary and some not, the knowledge that is not proprietary is what the someone like that is selling as a consultant. This is not terribly different than that, and there is nothing in the article which indicates anyone is violating ethics or laws. If someone serves in the WH for several years and the leaves after an election, then they still would be expected to earn a living somewhere. Consulting is a logical choice for many, particularly if they would like to be in public service again at some point if their party regains the WH. I am not seeing why anyone would have a problem with it, unless they think private enterprise should not be able to pay for knowledge or advice or that public servants should not be able to earn a living outside of public service. If they were profiting from companies which had business or issues in front of the WH while they were serving in the WH, I would think that is a conflict of interest and is at minimum unethical and in some cases illegal. That is not the case here, so I am just not seeing what the problem is. This is Biden, did anyone really believe he was going to staff the WH with BLM and Antifa protesters who have no ties to private industry?
  14. I am not sure what the issue or concern is with this. There are a lot of of experienced govt folks who worked together before, many as part of the Obama admin, who formed a consulting company when they were out of work with many of them now being called back to public service. Unless one wants to read sinister ulterior motives into this, it sounds rather fortuitous for the Biden admin and for America that many competent people are being called to work in the WH have not only worked as a team in the past, but also recently so they know how to work together and hit the ground running. I am not seeing what is wrong with it.
  15. LenP

    America's very own Stupid Coup

    By that logic, we could have a 9/11 every other day and it would not be worth doing anything about.