Hey, look everyone! Somebody on the far left wrote something trite. And shockingly for a Leftist, she's not a supporter of President Trump!

Well, that's good enough for me. Never mind that the writer is someone who wouldn't believe me if I said that tomorrow will be Thursday, this delightful little fable is all the proof that I need. Tell Robert Mueller to pack his bags and go home. We don't need to see any evidence, we know everything that we need to know!

Impeach Trump! Impeach Pence! And throw Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart back in prison for good measure (they're guilty of something, right?)

Ahem.

How long has he been carrying this thing?

"Oh", you say, "Years..." - and he's a billionaire who has hosted foreign diplomats and other billionaires at Mar-A-Lago for years before he was elected?
He's right there near the White House signals office? Doncha think they know how to secure a phone?

I'm sure it's more fun to remain horrified than think about this. Can't suggest anyone knows what they're doing. Nope.

I'll be amazed if his phone doesn't have a custom OS.

Meanwhile, a simple question: how in the hell do YOU know if any phone is "secure", Mike Murphy?

CNN tried to claim that nobody "wiretapped" the Trump campaign a while back, but they actually did not have the means to determine that at all, because that's "proving a null". Only the release of previously-secret information tagged for its source can show tapping has occurred in the age of WiFi, Bluetooth and other radiofrequency transmission, because no physical connection by a spy is made. "Experts", huh?

If you think this hasn't been available to interested parties for awhile, please say why.

Meanwhile, news flash: Nobody has to tell secrets on this thing. Although, come to think of it, the way some public officials have been selling access, I wonder if there are any secrets left to sell.

Chin up, you: the sooner Trump tells the wrong guy when he's going somewhere, the faster he gets assassinated, and you can be both pleased it happened and horrified about Mike Pence. That'll be new and exciting all over again!

I certainly hope things go well for the country, but if they do, that will be a catastrophe for some folks.
I see that CBS found a downside to the improving economy; more people driving means more traffic deaths.
IMPEACH...somebody.
Higher employment will be slavery.
The end of ISIS will be....man, that's a toughy. Imperialism or something. Or, anyway, mean. How insensitive can you be, having a secdef named Mad Dog! Yeah, that's the ticket. Mean.

Question for the technologically oblivious.

Do you think a "secure* phone somehow keeps the call from being recorded on the other end of the conversation?

Answer. There is no such thing as a *secure phone* including the land line on the desk in the oval office.

"When I think of the leader of the free world these days, I think of Angela Merkel -- not because I agree so much with all of her policies (I sure don't). It's because she seems to act like a sane adult."

Well yes, if you avoid examinng what she has actually *done* as opposed to what the news media says about her.

Letting one million unvetted ethic Arab and Persian young men from terrorist producing cultures into Germany is going to go down in history as the mother of all bone headed mistakes.

She is the 21st century's version of Neville Chamberlin at Munich.

He's still better than the corrupt, incompetent _itch who ran against him.

So insecure lines are good enough for us 'rabble' but not good enough for the elite.

He's still better than the corrupt, incompetent _itch who ran against him.

dee nile at May 31, 2017 5:39 AM

Aptly named.

When I think of the leader of the free world these days, I think of Angela Merkel -- not because I agree so much with all of her policies (I sure don't). It's because she seems to act like a sane adult.

That sane adult, called on the carpet by both the Obama Administration and Donald Trump is finally seeing the light. The Europeans have for far too long been far too dependent upon the US for their own defense and military capabilities.

Germany spends about $40 billion on NATO (1.2% of its GDP). The UK spends $60 billion and France spends $44 billion. The US spends considerably more on the defense of Europe.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense."

Donald Trump, right? No, Robert Gates, Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense. When Robert Gates says it, it's measured and thoughtful. When Donald Trump says it, it's bombastic and divisive.

If Russia invaded Europe today, it would find a competent military opposing it. The Germans have the capabilities to defend Germany, or at least inflict significant casualties upon an invader. German armor is as good as it gets in Europe and its soldiers are well-trained and disciplined.

However, as a famous European conqueror once noted, an army travels on its stomach. Where Europe falls short is where the US shines, logistics. Without the US, NATO would struggle to get NATO troops from one part of Europe to another. Pan European defense depends upon the ability to move troops quickly to the point of conflict. Once the invader destroys the roads and railroads, it all depends on an army's ability to move itself quickly. NATO armies cannot move quickly.

When France wanted to send troops to Mali, it was forced to rely on the US Air Force to transport those troops and to supply them. That's about a 5,000 mile journey, admittedly longer than a pan-European trip, but indicative of an inability to move troops.

Britain's RAF Vulcan bombers had to use US Air Force in-flight refueling capabilities to make their famous long bombing run during the Falklands War.

In a book on America's WWII Red Ball Express, a German general told the author that the strength of the US army was its logistics. It did not have better equipment (Sherman vs. Tiger, Tiger wins easily). It did not have better soldiers (probably a bias on the general's part). But, the American army could get what it needed to where it needed it when it needed it. German logistics could not have kept up with Patton's dash across France. American logistics barely could.

Without the US, NATO does not have power projection capabilities. It can defend European soil, but that's it. And NATO can move troops and supplies only as long as the roads and railroads are in good shape, or the Americans help.

John Keegan wrote a book on the Iraq War in which he observed the stunned reactions of European and other military commanders at witnessing US military logistics in action. The advancing army stopped at a predetermined point in the desert and out of the dust and sand came a host of trucks with fuel, spare parts, medicine, food, supplies, water, and ammunition. There were ambulances for the wounded, mechanics to fix broken tanks, etc. With only a short break to refuel and rearm, the army was off and moving again at a breakneck pace toward Baghdad.

Later, a Belgian colonel, flying into Bagram AFB on a US C-130 confided to a reporter that the Europeans could not fly into that base. The militants fired shoulder-fired rockets at the well-lit planes as they slowed down to land. Only the Americans could come in low and fast with no lights and successfully land a giant transport plane.

The US has been asking Europe to contribute more to is own defense since the '70s. In 2006, NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of each country's GDP on defense (the US spends 3.6%). Six NATO countries then spent that much. Today, only five do. Germany is not one of the five.

Donald Trump is not saying anything former American presidents have not already said. He's just put some force behind the words. And Angela Merkel, the "sane adult" seems to recognize that the day of reckoning is coming. Now, she has to convince a reluctant German (and European) public which would rather mock Trump than sacrifice a few luxuries to pay for its own defense..

I believe that Hillary is still carrying a Blackberry. I know for sure she did whilst at State.

Yet, I don't recall the caterwauling from certain quarters. This is less "she did it too!" and more "she set the damn bar this low and you didn't object, and now that you do IDGAF".

Liberals have chosen to coarsen our culture. Their validation and encouragement of raw hate, their flouting of laws (Hi leakers! Hi Hillary!) and their utter refusal to accept democratic outcomes they disapprove of have consequences. What is itself so surprising is how liberals and their media rentboyz are so surprised to find that we normals are beginning to feel about them the way they feel about us – and that we’re starting to act on it. If you hate us, guess what?

We’re going to start hating you right back.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/29/liberals-are-shocked-to-find-were-starting-to-hate-them-right-back-n2332712

Question; why do the people who think it was OK for Clinton to store UNSECURED classified info in her closet think Trumps cell is a threat to national security?

Obama's NSA-secured Blackberry drove Hillary mad with envy.

That is a numbskull move by the President. Does he think cellphone encryption necessarily means it is secure? I'm sure furriners can find some way to hack it. He will remain a C President in my mind for this, even though he thankfully will withdraw from the Paris climate pox.

In the meantime, the Establishment can pursue its soft coup against Trump if it wishes, but that won't necessarily be without consequences.

ECONOMIST: Plot to Overthrow Trump Risks “Civil War” in America

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

> and he's a billionaire
> who has

He had an enormous inheritance. But because he's a shitty businessman, he's worth a fraction of what he'd have if he'd merely invested in mutual funds & spent his entire life playing golf.

The guileless, insensate desperation of you guys to express admiration for this baboon on a personal level is grotesquely, self-abnegatingly pathetic. Yet you're old enough to drink, drive, vote and carry library cards. You identify at the most personal level with Donald Trump, who never did anything for anyone else in his entire life... At least, not without winding up in court.

Do you scare yourselves with mirrors? Maybe just in the morning before coffee

"Obama's NSA-secured Blackberry drove Hillary mad with envy."

That's interesting, because normally the NSA would provide information security tech to a Cabinet department upon request (and maybe some funding has to move across). I'm sure there were dozens if not hundreds of people inside State, while Hillary was there, who had secured phones. The only reason the NSA would not have provided one to Hillary, that I can think of, was the the President ordered them not to.

"The only reason the NSA would not have provided one to Hillary, that I can think of, was the the President ordered them not to."

Obama certainly had his moments of lovability!

Kagan said:

Let's start with the question of what does it mean to deliver, because that raises the question of what is it that Trump supporters are asking him to deliver. In some cases I think yes, whether it's middle class wage stagnation or whether it's, you know, that stuff that's written about in "Hillbilly Elegy" and 'the forgotten class' if you will, whether he can deliver materially to them I think remains to be seen. And if he does, OK. But unfortunately a lot of what Trump supporters are seeking is not about material things. He is basically expressing an anger that they feel. He is a spokesman for an anger that they feel towards elites, toward people of different clans in the system, for a general sense that someone's gotten it over on them. That he can deliver on a daily basis. He can deliver anger every day. So when he goes out and says the American press is the enemy of the American people, he's delivering, right there. And they're thrilled to hear it! He's cheered for saying that among a certain constituency. So we would like to be able to say, I think, from a kind of rational materialistic point of view, that if he's not able to create, if he's not able to take, what is it, already a 4.4-point-something-percent unemployment rate and turn it into, I don't even know what it could possibly be, that he'll 'lose support.' I think if, if it's anger the people want he can feed them an endless stream of anger.

I heard that and thought, "Radwaste." Also, "Snoopy," and maybe "Isab." That's where their heads are at.

This isn't about policy. No matter what happens, no matter what Trump says and no matter how many or how few the consequences, Snoopy will squeal though a thickening mist of masturbatory product: 'Trump, the failed real estate investor who's never served in government or military, is TOTALLY WINNING!'

I can't understand how people can get old enough to participate in society without recognizing these vacuous patterns of teenage hero-worship in their own behavior.

He's Donald Motherfucking Trump, and you turned him into the President of the United States. Or you turned the Executive Branch into a playpen for one of the most transparent & shallow figures in public life... A teevee gameshow host.

THAT'S how your mentality, and your little broken-teapot egos, will be recorded by American history.

Why? Are you children of divorce?

> The guileless, insensate desperation of you guys
> to express admiration for this baboon on a
> personal level is grotesquely, self-abnegatingly
> pathetic.

Don't forget best selling author!

>He's Donald Motherfucking Trump, and you turned him
>into the President of the United States. Or you
> turned the Executive Branch into a playpen for one
> of the most transparent & shallow figures in
> public life... A teevee gameshow host.

Let's see. To start, he's a good negotiator, good at persuading people, good at making decisions in complex situations, good at firing people, good at public speaking, good at listening to advisors...

> This isn't about policy. No matter what happens,
> no matter what Trump says and no matter how many
> or how few the consequences, Snoopy will squeal...

And you'll squeal just the opposite.

> TOTALLY WINNING!

Yes. I'm tired of conservatives who are great at coming up with snappy one-liners at cocktail parties or in blog comments, but don't get things done.

"I heard that and thought, "Radwaste." Also, "Snoopy," and maybe "Isab." That's where their heads are at."

My teeny tiny little bit of influence as to who the president was going to be ended at the county convention when I cast my vote for Ted Cruz.

Im quite happy if Trump does absolutley nothing, except appoint three Supreme Court justices, and get some control over illegal immigration.

I dont personally like Trump but I dislike him less than slimy Obama and lyin Hill.
And he didn't make his millions directly off of the American tax payer, and foreign influence peddling.

I believe, although I cant prove it, that the democratic party is self destructing before our eyes.

We are going to have some massive blue state financial failures in the near future, and Trump is less likely to kick the can down the road to appease the unions (or approve a federal bailout)

Hillary couldn't lead a troop of hungry girl scouts to a hamburger stand.

John Podesta as Secretary of State? You gotta be fucking kidding me.....

> Don't forget best selling
> author!

You didn't even hear the wind as the point sailed past your ear, right? Instead, another splooge launches over you, arcing now like an umbrella over your own presence.

You are not a man who reads books, even best-sellers. Nor has anyone described a book of Trump's as worthwhile. The man doesn't read books; why would you admire one he (putatively) wrote? Can you describe a favorite passage?

> he's a good negotiator, good
> at persuading people, good at
> making decisions in complex
> situations, good at firing
> people, good at public speaking,
> good at listening to advisors...

At none of those things, not one. He's a serial bankruptee, never one of NYC's top ten real estate dealers despite being born into the best possible position in that market, compelled eventually to sell a name from silly talk-show appearances for shitty sportswear, steaks, and game shows. It's telling that you mention a gift for firing people without describing a talent for hiring or nurturing them; you are a television viewer.

> And you'll squeal just
> the opposite.

You're living your live in, and compelling world history in the direction of, a sixth-grader's game of didso/didnot.

> but don't get things done.

No; you are not about policy. You are certainly not about "getting things done," though it must someday become apparent to you that he hasn't accomplished a goddam thing.

"Get things done"... Like the man himself, your beatoff daydream for government is quintessentially liberal. More that that!: counter-conservative.

There's just nothing to admire about this.

Amy's blog post is affirmed. (Except for the goofy part about Merkel.)

Projection here is so powerful as to completely obscure the fact that the issue's about a secure cell phone.

Cry all you want because Daddy isn't the saint that you wish. It remains unlikely that any handheld device in the grip of a President, whether you like it or not, is insecure, and it is unlikely that it was insecure before he was elected.

It will be far less insecure than yourself!

By the way – if you're going to argue about books, you best not use Obama as a reference. He didn't write "Audacity of Hope". Writing styles are unique, like signatures.

We now return you to your previously scheduled program of self-generated outrage and woe.

Raddy, you began your blog comment with "he's a billionaire"; it's why you like him. You are literally being that simple-minded about it, but are unable to make a sane appraisal of even his financial "achievements":

He flopped as an owner of a professional football team, effectively killing not only his own franchise but the league as a whole. He blew up his first marriage, married his mistress, and then divorced her, too. He bankrupted his casinos five times over the course of nearly 20 years. His eponymous airline existed for less than three years and ended up almost a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And he has slapped his surname on a practically never-ending sequence of duds and scams (Trump Ice bottled water, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump University—for which he settled a class-action fraud lawsuit earlier this year for $25 million). Other risk-taking businessmen might periodically cop to falling short while pivoting to what’s next. Not Trump. He has dealt with his roster of losses largely by refusing to acknowledge them as anything other than wins.

More than a belief in the power of positive thinking or the casual audacity of a tireless salesman, Trump has perfected a narrative style in which he doesn’t merely obscure reality—he tries to change it with pronouncements that act like blaring, garish roadside billboards.

Me thinks Crid lost big in one of Trump's ventures that failed. The mention of President Trump causes Crid to grab his pearls and sink into vapors.

"People will look back on these years and recognize precisely who you were."

Yes and with a sigh of relief. They prevented President Hillary.

Despite Trump's constant impulsive dimwitted covfefe

> Me thinks Crid lost big
> in one of Trump's ventures
> that failed.

1. According to his foamingly rabid teenage fanboys, no Trump venture has ever failed.
2. Methinks is one word.
3. We all lose big when the Orange Baboon pretends to be serving our interests.
4. Your obsession with Hillary Clinton excuses nothing. Your failure to identify and groom a better candidate from the pool, preferring instead instead to elect this trivial wisp of a celebrity character, describes your political sophistication as Ugg! in all respects.

"Hillary: Ugg!"

"'Billionaire': Ugg!"

Wait 'til you guys learn about the wheel. Your amazement may cripple you.

Why? Are you children of divorce?

Yes, and as some of the first, and life long, victims of 3rd wave feminism we certainly werent going to give power to the woman who sold her soul to that devil.

People will look back on these years and recognize precisely who you were.

The folk who installed an a man with no backing and no real power into an office that had far too much of it gathered unto itself, rather than a soulless jackal with no compunction about changing her mind on every single issue depending on how it best compensated her.

A woman who called black men dogs, who claimed women and children safe in America as the primary victims of war, a woman who didnt give a shit about rape, gay marriage, abortion, or any other issue until it was politically expedient to do so - while simultaneously taking cash from regimes that violated every value she publicly claimed to hold.

The next generation or two might hate us, but if western society survives another century, they'll pity us that we had to select such a man over her

And don't forget: Trump is Middle America throwing a Hail Mary pass. They knew that there would be cringeworthy moments. But they also knew that Trump was the only opportunity, in this election, to put the brakes on the Left's plan for the gradual and inevitable decline of America.

(I'm talking about the general election. If you want to point out that those voters had the opportunity to choose any of a half-dozen candidates in the GOP primaries who would have made better Presidents, that's a fair cop.)

( ... If you want to point out that those voters had the opportunity to choose any of a half-dozen candidates in the GOP primaries who would have made better Presidents, that's a fair cop.) ~ Cousin Dave at June 1, 2017 6:33 AM

Except that none of those candidates offered Middle America a real brick to throw through the window of the government.

Marco Rubio never bucked the system, going along to get along. JEB Bush was the privileged epitome of the system, scion of a consummate DC insider. Kasich was a political operator who had yet to show any inclination to take on the system. And, despite his inflammatory rhetoric and histrionics, Ted Cruz never actually accomplished anything except group tantrums shutting down the system for a week at a time but, in the long run, changing nothing. Trump was the only one who looked like he'd offer a chance to those fed-up voters to "blow it all up."

Whether "blowing it all up" is a desirable goal is something that can be, and should have been, debated before electing a Trump to office. But to these forgotten voters who feel that their own government no longer listens, or cares to listen, to their concerns, it was too late for a measured candidate. A great big stupid gesture was called for, in their minds.

(I'm talking about the general election. If you want to point out that those voters had the opportunity to choose any of a half-dozen candidates in the GOP primaries who would have made better Presidents, that's a fair cop.)
Cousin Dave at June 1, 2017 6:33 AM

I agree with Conan but for different reasons. The democratic primary is totally controlled by party insiders with locked in super delegates determining the nominee.

Why is that? Because the free for all in 2008 which stampeded Obama into office was something the Clintons didnt want to happen again.

The republicans on the other hand got the same free for all in 2016 that the democrats had in 2008.

And a large part of the split was driven by the failure of the establishment republicans to unite around Cruz because they believed right up until April that they could force the choice of either Bush or Rubio.

Yes, it was amazing how long the GOP establishment continued to back Bush in particular, long after it was clear that his campaign had flatlined.

"A great big stupid gesture was called for, in their minds."

I've seen this point made today: if Trump is that bad, how bad are the people in the establishment who made it possible for him to win?

...if Trump is that bad, how bad are the people in the establishment who made it possible for him to win? ~ Cousin Dave at June 1, 2017 12:12 PM

I don't know that they were bad, but great swaths of the country are feeling ignored by Washington, and government in general.

Factory closings and meth have devastated the portions of the country laughingly dismissed as "flyover land" by the coastal denizens and national intelligentsia. Their underfunded and sub-standard schools haven't given them the tools to compete for good jobs in the city, so they're stuck out where the satellite dishes bloom. Besides, they cannot simply relocate to the city where new jobs and opportunities are because the high cost of living acts as a moat, keeping them out of the castle.

The economic downturn decimated cities and towns alike, but the recovery has, so far, only benefited the cities. The factory that small town depended on is gone and, with no salaries to enable the purchases, the local Walmart closed. And the small mom-and-pop stores that might have offered even low-paying jobs closed up when Walmart opened.

These folks blame NAFTA. The DC elite (Cruz included) defended NAFTA and promised to keep it, and even augment it with another free trade agreement, the TPP. They saw cities getting cheap goods while towns were getting shafted. Trump attacked the status quo, promising to change NAFTA and dump the TPP. Who did anyone with half a brain think these factory-less folks would vote for?

Cruz played by the party rules, Donald broke them. Donald became popular with these forgotten voters for breaking the rules. They don't care that he's coarse or vulgar or, egads, unpresidential. They want NAFTA renegotiated, the Paris Agreement abrogated, and the arbitrary and seemingly random "dear colleague" regulatory letters stopped. They want their jobs back. No one in either party seemed to get that; except Trump.

The minority our Founding Fathers feared would be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority are not to be found these days in the inner cities, but in the former factory towns and working class enclaves; a population few in the government are listening to; and even fewer want to. Until people understand that, they'll never understand the appeal of President Donald Trump.

"Factory closings and meth have devastated the portions of the country laughingly dismissed as "flyover land" by the coastal denizens and national intelligentsia. Their underfunded and sub-standard schools haven't given them the tools to compete for good jobs in the city, so they're stuck out where the satellite dishes bloom"

Conan you are doing the exact same thing with that line. Not all of the cities in America are on the coasts. Trump wasn't elected just by rural voters. There flat aren't enough of them to elect anyone. The suburbs were a huge part of Trump's voting base. Those are city residents. And yes, that is also where the satellite dishes bloom.

"If you want to point out that those voters had the opportunity to choose any of a half-dozen candidates in the GOP primaries who would have made better Presidents, that's a fair cop."

I don't think that is true Cousin Dave. As Conan and Isab pointed out only Cruz and Trump were credible in attempting to reduce the federal government. And surprise surprise those were the last two standing. Lucifer and Dumbo. At least that is how all the rest of them felt.

Even today the Republican party is focused on tax reform and income tax cuts. They still don't get it. Fuck tax cuts. They don't matter right now. Taxes are not the problem. Regulation is. Under Obama the cost of compliance increased by ~$600 billion dollars. Revenues (i.e. taxes) run to $3.3 trillion. So just the increase in Obama regulation was the same as a 20% tax hike. Tax cuts are irrelevant. Getting regulators off of the backs of businesses is the only thing that will get the economy moving again.

Ben, not every suburb is full of picket fences with smiling happy middle class families.

Quite a few are working class areas with high rates of joblessness and despair. Visit Oildale, California outside of Bakersfield some day and see a suburb hit hard by job losses, substandard education (if the products of its school system are any example), meth, and sharply rising costs of living. Kern County went for Trump (54.7%) over Clinton (39.7%) and Johnson (3.8%).

"Taxes are not the problem. Regulation is."

I'm with you on that, and I wished more people realized it. Tax cuts are the solution to a different problem; that's not the problem we have now. And cutting regulations is something that will improve the economy and won't cost the government a dime in revenue. In fact, by improving the economy, it should boost tax revenues.

Our regulatory regime has long since gone past the point of usefulness. Having accomplished 95% of the goal, they (and we) are discovering that that last 5% is awfully damn expensive for something that doesn't make much difference. And I still want to know: what is the Constitutional basis for the legislature to delegate its lawmaking powers to the executive branch?

I'll add that the type of tax cuts that the GOP is focused on -- capital gains and similar -- is tone-deaf in the current environment. Even Trump the populist has fallen for this. Unemployed factory workers in Ohio will say, "what good is a capital gains cut when I don't have any money to invest?"

If you intended that to include the suburbs and exurbs I'm mollified Conan. I've just seen too many analyses which count anything less than a 30 story apartment building as 'rural'. Which is ridiculous and is certainly part of why the Democrats still don't understand how they keep losing.

Cousin Dave, there is a very real effect where when power is centralized money flows to that location. (I know you realize this but stick with me for a moment.) So the richest areas are setting the rules for the whole nation. This wealth and geographic disparity means those leaders don't have much connection with the rest of the nation. What seems like a small cost to them is a huge cost elsewhere.

Gail's attitudes on Obamacare are pretty much an archetype of this. She sits in NYC with a median family income around $70k and sees Obamacare causing a small (in her situation) cost on everyone. Meanwhile someone in Biloxi with a median family income around $39k has a completely different view of of that 'small' cost. In Biloxi land it was a huge and unaffordable cost. Every time I raised cost as an issue with Gail her only response was to call me greedy and cheap. She just can't understand that most Americans can't afford her 'small' cost. They just don't have the money. At the same time Gail feels she is very cosmopolitan and worldly. After all she meets people from all over the world on a regular basis. But from where I sit in Houston Gail looks very provincial. She only knows New York and Los Angeles. The rest of the nation she dismissed as unimportant rural areas. I.e. fly over county.

Gail is emblematic of most of the Democrat party and also a large chunk of the Republican party. Or at lest Republican politicians. The Commerce Party wing of the Republicans is strong in politicians but weak on voters. That is why Jeb lost so badly. And that is why they just couldn't understand why Jeb lost. Just like how the Democrats are still struggling to understand why they lost.

I personally would love lower capital gains. It would help me out and many in my family out. But out of my friends and neighbors there might not be a singe one who could give two figs about it. Same with income tax rates. For McConnell and McCarthy the inverse is probably true. But if McConnell and McCarthy can't get out of their bubble they may soon be out of a job.

Apologies for the long and poorly organized rant.

If you intended that to include the suburbs and exurbs I'm mollified Conan. ~ Ben at June 2, 2017 7:45 AM

Darn, I had two more examples I was going to toss out there. ;-)

The two major political parties (and more than a few of the minor ones) simply don't understand the devastation that has been wrought on the working class by the recent financial difficulties. The working class doesn't have jobs. And the costs of living are going up.

You mentioned the effect of Obamacare premiums in places like Biloxi. Good example.

But there are other costs that are hitting them hard, too. When I moved to California 15 years ago, the fine for driving singly in the HOV lane was $268, pretty high then. When I left a few years ago, it was almost $500. That's huge to someone whose wages have been essentially frozen for the last 20 years. And court costs are always attached to that. Not to mention time lost for attending court, which can be tough on an hourly worker.

But if you have an $80,000 Tesla or an expensive Prius, you can drive in the HOV lanes by yourself all you want.

I got a speeding ticket in North Carolina visiting my father when he was ill (no 15 mph cushion in NC that I got used to in the Bay Area). The fine was $30. The court costs were $180. Even if I'd been released from paying the fine, I was still stuck paying almost $200.

Costs to open a business (e.g., landscaper) or work in certain fields (e.g., hairdresser or daycare worker) can be in the thousands after aggregating licensing fees, mandatory classes, background checks, reporting requirements, employment regulations, etc.

To a family struggling to put food on the table (urban or rural), rising barriers to entry in fields of employment, rising insurance costs, and other taxes and regulations amount to hundred-foot walls keeping them out of the party.

That's why the Democrats and the Republicans are losing touch with the voters.

That's why the working class voted for Trump.

People I know aren't going to hold Trump responsible for speeding tickets and local fees. Most people do understand who is taking which chunk of money. I agree it is all part of the same problem. But just about everyone can tell who they wrote the check out to and hold that group responsible.

As far as the federal government goes, EPA and labor regulations are the biggest issues. Obamacare hurt blue collar workers. But if you are honest new EPA regulations hurt just as much and didn't require passing any laws. Hence all those former factories you mentioned.
Dodd-Frank hurt new business creation, thus reducing the number of new blue collar jobs, but that is fairly remote in most people's minds. That is why you see such a split in the unemployment and labor participation rates based on education. If you have a useful college degree your unemployment was around 3-4% for the Obama years. But if you have a high school degree it jumps to ~20% for many of those years. And if you didn't even get a high school diploma then heaven help you. You mentioned poorly functioning and underfunded schools Conan, but many of those hurting didn't come from underfunded schools. And the poorly functioning parts are largely driven by the federal government. The hard truth is that we can't all be IT professionals. There isn't a large enough market for white collar jobs to support 125 million people.

So yes, that is why the Democrats and Republicans are losing touch with voters. And if the Commerce party Republicans perform a coup against Trump that may be the end of the Republican party.

It's not about speeding tickets and local fees. It's all part of a general frustration with government regulation that's going on.

The Paris Accords are a good example. For a benefit of 0.2 degrees, Washington elites are willing to sacrifice $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. All based on models that have proven to do a poor job of predicting even one decade of sea level change.

Ben --

You're unhinged. Most of your characterizations about my views on Obamacare are completely imaginary.

I have noted that 1) Obamacare is unquestionably flawed, 2) that what happened to Obamacare premiums varied greatly from state to state, 3) that it is not accurate to say everyone's premiums went up under Obamacare, 4) it is not true (as some here have asserted) that everyone hates Obamacare except those receiving subsidies. in fact, a very large (and increasing) percentage of people are now in favor of keeping it, and 5) The GOP's proposed replacement manages to actually be worse, which is truly pathetic.

Oh, and I identified myself as a libertarian and noted that I was rather disgusted that the GOP didn't manage to come up with a good free-market alternative and some ideas to bring down the costs of providing care, given that they've had seven years to think about it, and instead came up with a lame-ass version of Obamacare that accomplishes nothing but decreasing taxes on the very wealthy.

By the way, you are way fucking off on my median family income, which is not surprising, given that you pulled it out of your ass along with any number of other assumptions you've made.

Cite for my calling you "greedy" and "cheap"? Yeah, I didn't say that. But I am now calling you delusional and irrational, so you can make the most of that.

Whatever, though. It's pretty clear that whatever I say, you will read it through your own warped lens.

You were quite clear Gail. No worries.

"Raddy, you began your blog comment with "he's a billionaire"; it's why you like him."
Christ on a biscuit, you just took the first thing YOU saw. I began with a logical question: "How long has he had this thing?"

But you have to make this about the man, not the practice in question.

If you're going to base anything on reality, try to use what people do all the time, not just when you want to. The issue raised here is security, not anyone's revulsion -- except for people looking for yet another thing to blame Trump for. As I actually said about GWB, there are enough things going on that nobody has to invent complaints. Yes, you have made them. Yes, I read them. Nope, Trump's not going away.

"People will look back on these years and recognize precisely who you were."

Gee. Aren't YOU the guy on here who constantly berates others for claiming what "people" will do?

Meanwhile, the basic premise of this blog entry is nonsense.

On-topic: it is unlikely that a billionaire concerned with business espionage (which clearly happens in those circles based on general reporting) has a factory-stock phone. It is more unlikely that a person in the White House has a stock cellphone. It is a fact that CNN, at least, completely botched all reporting on "wiretapping" by claiming a null. Further, as Isab pointed out, it is a fact that those on this blog who claim that security depends on devices are mistaken. You might be one of them, I can't tell.

All of these things are independent of anyone's feeling or outrage. Chill.

> Meanwhile, the basic premise
> of this blog entry

It's your personal adoration of this guy that's so confounding. It's like you've been waiting your whole life for a moment to really feel these things for someone.

You chose Trump.

And he's a businessman! And he's totally a successful one! So I bet he has a SPECIAL phone! With magical powers! (All this for perhaps the least discreet figure in American public life.)

And I bet he carries his special phone in a special rich-guy case, which makes him totally admirable, and I bet it's in a Louis XV style, with an enormously thick and bogusly-engraved frame, like a pretentiously bullshit painting on one of his repossessed airplanes... Because he's a rich guy! And rich guys are SO COOL! Even when they're bankrupt!

I'm right, so you have to divert. Cheers.

And you'll probably never be able to seperate a practice from the person engaged in it. It's like no other President had a cell phone, for you.

So like your gorgeously orange superhero, you declare victory, close your mind a little further, and start a brand new day!