Printable View
You would think after four years as VP she could offer more than a few inchoate thoughts on the economy. I think we can look forward to several weeks of “joy” and “freedom” and pay no attention to the political consultants behind the curtain.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
If clarity was the objective the media would have to start with trump. He's way less clear than Kamala about what his administration would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And after four years as president you'd think the same about trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Actually Trump has been quite explicit. What he can do legally or what he is just fibbing about are different issues. From various sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity.
On day one, we will throw out Bidenomics, and we will reinstate a thing called MAGAnomics. (I'm seeing tax cuts for the rich?)
On day one of the Trump presidency, I'm restoring the travel ban, suspending refugee admissions...
He has pledged to launch the biggest deportation operation of illegal migrants in US history on his first day in office.
Trump claims he will "stop inflation by stopping the invasion," arguing that his immigration crackdown will reduce housing costs and other expenses.
...tariffs of "more than 10 percent" on all imports.
I will repeal crooked Joe Biden's insane electric vehicle mandate and we will 'drill, baby, drill,'" Trump told supporters in Wisconsin, using an old Republican slogan.
"Energy costs will come down very quickly," he vowed. "In many cases we'll be cutting your energy costs in half."
I think we have a pretty clear picture, ugly though it may be, of what Trump is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
In the case of Harris, we have a better idea of what she used to stand for that she no longer does. At least if her staffers and proxies are to be believed. I suppose if she wants to reverse herself yet again it would be easy enough to toss a few staffers under the bus and proceed. Even when she ventures to say anything remotely substantive, there’s a sort of media praetorian guard rushing to tell us we misunderstood her. Half a year ago, they were writing about their concerns about her political incompetence. Now it’s rapturous applause. What’s really changed?
At some point, the greasepaint will rub off and the media will run out of nitrous oxide. She may already be in office by then. Once you drag the Trojan Horse through the gate, it’s too late.
Elections for president are not often won by candidates who focus on being a policy wonk. Just ask Hillary Clinton. She was the wonkiest candidate of my lifetime. Joe biden tried to use facts and policies in his recent debate and was completely overwhelmed by the vomit of lies and meanness spewing from trump’s mouth. Trying to counter trump’s verbal puke with policy details is a losing proposition. This particular election will be won by Harris if she appeals to enough democrats and independents. Other than tax cuts for rich people and spending lots on the military I don’t remember much about Reagan’s
Candidacy other than ‘morning in America.’ And we all remember Gingrich’s ‘contract with America’ but does anyone remember the details? My memory of it was of a bunch of vague platitudes about good, and limited, governance.
I think Clinton triangulated away from wonkishness after her double secret healthcare plan cratered. Then she shifted to a combo of smug patrician deploring the deplorables for some audiences and the fake-accent condescension for the hoi polloi. Almost worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
The Harris strategy seems to be to memory-hole her past and focus on a feel-good show about nothing. It might be effective against the Trump rage machine.
Hopefully some intrepid reporter will get Harris to share her stance on Hannibal Lector. And the electric boat/shark issue. These are very important subjects that she has been silent on. Trump has been much more transparent on these topics.
this country is too stupid to have a candidate run on policy and win. If people wanted policy Bernie Sanders would be in the white house (or maybe Elizabeth Warren if you prefer the technocratic). Could they have passed all their policy? Well no, there is congress, stuff has to get through congress. That's also a problem with a presidential candidate running on policy, they don't actually have the ability to pass any but a small % of it without congress. That's why to some extent it's more rational to choose: who can push executive orders (but these are limited), who can pressure congress best, who is likely to lead to enough people getting elected to congress that they can actually pass policy, who can bully pulpit for their agenda the best? If you are more pessimistic than that, who will at least block bad policy from getting enacted with the veto most completely?Quote:
Elections for president are not often won by candidates who focus on being a policy wonk.
But it's not like people don't ever get a chance to choose candidates who highlight policies if that's what they really wanted, but it's CLEARLY not something they care about when Trump has been running for President for 3 Presidential cycles and Biden was the 2020 Dem nominee in a competitive primary. As long as voters needed to win behave that way, what can anyone do but cater to their awful taste? Cater to the lowest common denominator undecided voters in a few swing states. And they WOULDN'T BE that undecided if policy was what they cared about!!! (unless they are just some single issue voter waiting for their single issue to be addressed where it's an issue neither party even kind of cares about, then they are just out of luck).
okay----i personally think that building you are referring to is BEAUTIFUL. Not only that, I have proposed several ideas for using it, without turning it into yet another Gentrification project. It does need a nice paint job; perhaps a mural on the south side ond okay---some landscaping. But it should be used for commercial and industrial purposes--light industry; not a dynamite factory or sawmill, etc. Yup. Why does everything need to be an antiques shop or bistro or art gallery or upscale apartments? That's the kind of CRAP the renovators are doing here, and who needs it, besides limousine liberals? Not mee. Hope that helps you kids some.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I like your ideas, bobby... why can't it be both? I love the idea of a mural! What would that look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebittybobby
Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
ummmm…. neither of you have to look at this building as I do. My fondest hope for it is that it is torn down, but that’s not going to happen because the city already went for a government grant – your tax dollars at work – to tear it down but did not get that.
So we are stuck with it. At this point what I hope to happen is that they put in large windows, a new roof, and paint it a color that recedes. no one is going to use it as a factory building that’s just not viable. And you have to take my word for it that Hermann REALLY needs rental housing units.
okay---I think that building would make one hell of a body shop. Or else a custom church furniture shop, like the one on the bluff in DC, Nowhereville, that employs prolly a dozen people full-time for the last 60 years. Actual jobs that don't cater ta agerculchure. Yup. Or would you rather have it something like nine-eleven missipissi, when you can have a nice meal for $100? plus a gratuity for the thugs you encounter in the lot? Ha. Hope that helps you some.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I would be thrilled with any restaurant coming into Hermann that is as reliably good as that restaurant for which you have a strange obsession.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebittybobby
Here's the Woolen Mill in Winooski, VT. Would this be a viable outcome for the Hermann factory building?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
https://woolen-mill.com/gallery/
Here is what it looked like before:
https://woolen-mill.com/history/
our Hermann building looks nothing like those old Victorian factories. We had many of those factories in St. Louis turned into residential lofts, including several directly in my old neighborhood. I lived a block from 2 of them. They have brick walls and old growth wood beams and big window openings.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
our Hermann building is made of cement block and was put up in the late 50s/early 60s. There’s nothing of architectural interest in it
.....nothing of architectural interest......Ha. Just that it's a modern concrete block commercial building, no doubt with steel trusses, that would prolly cost $500,000 to build, today. Just trying to think why an 18th-century frontier building would be more worthy of preservation???? But yeah---I'd like to have that building, except that there's prolly a bunch of wine-drinking nimby's in the vicinity that would complain, just for for something to "do". Oh I know---they could make it into a lirrrrarry; the nearby lirrrry here started out as a grocery store, then furniture store, then a lirrrrarrrberry. Sure, that's it. Yup. Even put a small shop up front that purveys tea & crumpets, just like the one here. . Ha. Thankk meee.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
okay----i came up with another possible use for that unoccupied building up there in Herman that Faux is constantly griping about. With some gummmint grants, it could be made into a Homeless Shelter. Yup. Housing, in out of the rain and cold for those who have nowhere to go. Yup. 3 hot meals a day, and also FREE medical care. Cable TV, and cold A?C. That way, they won't hafta sleep behing a dumpster, somewhere. Yup.