Steve Rymer

Thanks Joe. Most?

Oh dear. Is that all you've got? I think I demonstrated you were just plain wrong about many of your assertions on the economy. You've not addressed a single point or supplied a single reference. But, you do seem to enjoy snide comments.

I did say off the top of my head. So many points and a few insults - I'm not sure where to start. I am not an economist, but I will take a swipe. "Let's talk specifically about causes of job loss you're referring to in our country." - I didn't mention jobs. "labor deficits" refers to imbalances. "From 2000-2009, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. The crescendo of that loss was due to the world economic meltdown". The period from the dot.com bubble collapse in 1997 and ending in 2001 until the recent crash of 2007/2008 was a period of US GDP growth. http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2011/11/22/us-escapes-eurozone-contagion-so-far/ http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG "The crescendo of that loss was due to the world economic meltdown, which we'd probably agree was due to American banks. " - No, that happened in 2007/2008. The GDP increase was fueled by cheap money and fraudulent investment vehicles. Many jobs have been lost to China (2001-2013): https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001 "The result is that a lot of our people lost their jobs, and were forced to take jobs at about half the wage, which wasn't going to cut it. Lots of workers over 40 simply never recovered, and never rejoined the work force," - agreed. " and some companies folded and went to foreign countries.. " - factories closed and went to China/Mexico. Outsourced. "The idea that we've continued to lose manufacturing jobs is false." - Nope, see above. "The Obama administration has gained about a million back," - maybe but, by exchanging well paid jobs for minimum wage. "and the industrial sector has continued to grow. " - Don't know about manufacturing. One point I would make is that Apple(China)'s GDP is counted in the US and some 70%(I could try and source if you like) of global trade is inter-branch traffic. "Just as great a factor in job loss has been due to automation" - Yes, and much more to come. " You seem to have a distrust of government. " - Yes. Many years of observation, research, revelation and experience. I bet you could think of 5 really big government lies or deceptions without even trying. My default position is disbelief until proven true - I think that is a reasonable position. "You obviously don't think it can help protect our environment. " No. Have they? How's fracking working out for you? Fukushima? Hanford? The Gulf? Corexit? Flint and 200 other water supplies in the US? "As a taxpayer, if you are one or not, " - That sounds like the sort of slur a republican would resort to. And yes, I pay tax. " do you think it would be worthwhile to have a government retooling program to retrain misplaced workers? " No, I don't. Manufacturing in the developed world is sunk (without some of the items in the list in my original response to you). Automation is about to explode. Foxconn has just replaced 60,000 jobs in China - where does that place US workers at 4x the cost? " Do you honestly think the Republicans will [be] behind that? " - Do you honestly think the Democrats will be behind that? As I said, I am a political atheist (you may not have read that post). " They've opposed almost any programs like that since the 60's" This is a biggy - not had a lot of time on this: Here's 3: "May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats " "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate". "August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) introduces 1965 Voting Rights Act" " Or maybe you think the free market system will cure all? " - No, how can anyone read my 5 point reply and think I'm a free-market-fundamentalist! "...sanctity of the "constitution" or the Bible?.What is it Steve?" Well, the constitution is important, but I live in the UK, so I'm a peasant on the land. Bible? No, I'm an atheist. Steve

Hi Paul, I would suggest agencies like the EPA are fronts for corporate interests. In addition to the items I mentioned (fracking/pipelines etc). They allow corps to outsource liability in exchange for a minimal capped fine, provide a focal point for public discourse and anger away from the corps, perform a non-existent oversight role, set lenient targets for polluters and most importantly - they don't protect the environment. I would consider Sanders and left-wing progressive and an outsider - he was actually my pick. "How does this square with your sentence?" - perhaps I was not very clear? "I'm actually pro-principal:....I would argue just the same for a left-wing outsider." "How is weakening government institutions a solution for fighting entrenched monied interests?" - I did not suggest weakening them. I would radically overhaul them. Right now, they are captured lapdogs. I would give them teeth, standards set by academia - not industry, end the revolving door and implement personal penalties for EPA failures. "Don't we need better institutions?" - yes. "Ano[t]her question - are you in favor of single payer health care, which you say Hillary Clinton is against?" Yes, I live in the UK. We have a fantastic NHS, although it's being starved of resources, maligned in the press and privatized in secret in preparation for a US corporate invasion via a free trade agreement (IMHO). "In my opinion Trump and his team including Robert Mercer are trying to weaken government, skew power further towards big money interest and away from public interest" - yes, but big money already own it all anyway. I sense that everyone has pre-decided I'm a free-market republican because I argue against what is happening to Trump. I am defending a principle here. Steve

Globalization is a race to the bottom for most and a race to the top for a few. It can never work for all because it replies on trade/resource/capital and labor deficits for profit. It allows transnational corporations to avoid paying taxes, paying decent wages or complying with regulations and a whole host of other crappy things. Off the top of my head: Countries service their own domestic markets - where possible. Where not possible - $-for-$ trade/exchange between countries. No outsourcing where demand can be met internally. Pay taxes on profits in the country where it was earned. Stock markets trade within each country. Dunno. It's all pie in the sky. Do you have any ideas? Steve

Give me a chance! You actually had more than one point in your post.

Hi Kirk, I always frame the RNC/DNC argument like this. You accept the RNC is the party of the rich and powerful, but somehow think every 4/8 years they let the party of the people(PP) have a go. The PP raise just as much cash from all the same people, they often employ cabinet members and staff formerly employed by the RNC and enact identical policies (Obamacare should be named Romneycare - it was first proposed by him and was concocted by a right-wing think-tank) with the same outcomes. They do not improve the living standards of their core voters and they do not alter any of the core government policies (War/Neo-liberal economics/Globalization/Tax etc.). Nothing substantial changes. Apart the names of the vultures at the pig trough - would it really be any different if the RNC were in power? Most of the people in congress are multi-millionaires and became rich after being elected. Insider trading is legal for members. I am actually even more cynical than that. The DNC will enact legislation which the RNC then go on to use and vice versa. Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal and signed NAFTA. Bush used extraordinary rendition and torture. Obama used extra-judicial assassination. Bush signed the Patriot act. Obama renewed it and signed the NDAA - which allows for indefinite detention and killing of US citizens without due process(Habeas Corpus). It ends Posse Comitatus - which prevents the military engaging in domestic law enforcement operations. If you tell someone that Trump can murder you without a trial - people freak, but if you tell them Obama signed legislation to allow it and has used it - everyone calms down(????) Still think you have real choice? Steve

I love original thinkers.

Hi Joe, Agree with a lot of what you say, but the Democrats are also the corporate party. The anger, disillusionment and disenfranchisement is also very real. It also explains Brexit. Have a look at Professor Mark Blyth. Steve

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's not real. Government is the art of looking busy whilst never changing the things that really matter. Have you ever heard a politician say "Well, we've been doing it this way for xx # of years and it's works just fine. We've looked at numerous other methods and this really is the best way" or do constantly change things for the sake of changing them? If you are old enough you can watch old, abandoned polices re-introduced as new ones - just to shake things up. There is no best practice in government policy. One radical way to save money would be to stop changing stuff and stop funding quangos, committees, think-tanks, surveys, marketing campaigns, feasibility studies etc. My wife is a teacher and they can barely keep up with the changes imposed on them.

Maybe, but did Reagan? Bush 43? Or even Obama? Anyway, I don't really do politics - not this stuff anyway. It's a con. Got any comments on Comey's connection to previous Clinton investigations? Which is where I started...

Maybe, I would prefer to see an end to postal voting and voting machines. This is where most of the dodgy stuff is. I would also recommend voter ID - it would stop multiple casting, the dead voting and busing in from other districts. There's also voter purging which is an issue - don't have a solution to that - maybe no disqualifiers. Steve

Agreed. Savvy and moderately intelligent in a specific way. I also agree he probably dreams of deals and share your opinion of business ethics, but he's not really done anything yet. I doubt he will use his position to line his pockets - that comes after holding office, but he's already rich. My concern is he lacks the knowledge to not be led all over the place.

Hi Paul, Steve will do fine. I agree historically it's been the Republicans that have benefited most from dodgy dealing Bush 00', but this time Trump was universally despised within the party apparatus and I've not seen anyone claiming his vote was rigged. The white man party? Both parties are the "business party" with different colored ties. Both hold identical policies for the things that really matter(war, economics, globalization, immigration etc) whilst the republicans pretend to want to infringe on abortion rights whilst never really doing anything. I didn't mention the EPA, but I will bite. The EPA has not really protected anything. They allow fracking, trans-national oil pipelines, exemptions under the clean air and water acts, they did not prevent the Flint water scandal (it was discovered by two local doctors who used their own money for tests) and many, many more. They are on the opposite side of every issue except the odd annexation of land to save an endangered species. I am such a cynic I believe all such agencies (EPA,FDA etc) are there to give the illusion of oversight whilst giving the public someone to vent to and allowing corporations to pay small fines for infractions. They are not really testing the water or air and impose standards agreed by the people they are supposed to regulate. Climate science is a big one and Yes, I do believe it's crap. Will expound if requested. "Clinton would have been preferable". Really. She's a republican in all, but name. She's very pro war (Libya, Pivot to Asia, supported Iraq), has taken money from all the people democrats despise, opposes single payer, did not believe in Gay marriage(she does now - apparently), cites Robert Byrd as a mentor and was actually a Republican in her formative years. She is so well known for her lies that Democratic audiences would laugh at suggestions of her honesty. She is everything that is wrong with US politics. Steve

Michael, Same question to you?

Not impolite at all Michael, I actually don't think it's relevant (not my opinion), but Trump's suitability. He was elected and that should be enough. But, I will answer. Is he smarter than Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Maxine Waters? Yes, I would say so. He has a different kind of intelligence and yes, his lack of political and geopolitical knowledge worries me. It makes for an easily led president. He did run a business empire and that must count for something. As for maturity. I don't see a lack of it. I see a non-politician and non-media savvy president. He's prepared to say it like he sees it - one of the reasons his supporters voted for him. They are sick of the lying, obfuscating and deceptive practices of the current batch of politicians. He's not a procrastinating, teleprompter reading, think-tank consulting autobot. Does he have access to those? Yes. Does he use them all the time to create a false public persona. No, I don't think so. I do know he represents a big threat to a lot of people (the Media, incumbent politicians etc). He puts his foot in his mouth. He says the wrong thing. Voters looking for real change (not an advertising slogan) - like that. Fitness to lead his country. Presidents rarely lead the country. Perhaps this explains some of the animosity the establishment have towards him. Maybe he became president stupidly believing he would run the show. Well, he's learning the hard way. There is no real democracy. I don't want you to think I'm pro-Trump, I'm not. I'm actually a political atheist (new term invented by me). I think the whole process is a PR exercise. I'm actually pro-principal: Can any old Joe Bloggs get elected? Is the process simply about money and friendly media coverage(paid for)? Can an outsider really make a difference or will we be trapped in this pro-war, pro-globalization, pro-neo liberal economics, pro-open border game forever? I would argue just the same for a left-wing outsider. Steve

Sorry Tommy, This isn't even a conversation. You post and then before I even respond you introduce a completely unrelated post. You then make assumptions about my response or lack of and go off on a tangent. I replied to a post about Comey(and his credibility). You introduce the concept of fake news. I provide a justification for my opinion. You introduce the FSB and Guccifer. You then offer an unsubstantiated theory about Wikileaks, how they operate and their motivations. All the while "bumping" your last post to get a response. By suggesting you "Address my post before we go off reservation..." I was attempting to keep you on track. And yes, I should have said "Please".

Address my post before we go off reservation...

A Wikipedia page referencing a 'dossier' containing "unverified allegations" first published unchecked by Buzzfeed and not even believed by the Trump-hating MSM. MSNBC called it "a collection of rumors". Hmmm. I think the era of being able to verify anything has long passed. Reuters: "People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia..." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 The Comey connection to Whitewater is a simple non-controversial statement about his career path. The newspaper scan was published in 1996 which pre-dates the current controversy. To anyone that does not hate Trump (on a personal level) and is prepared to take a reasoned look at the situation (not the events). You may come to the conclusion that something unique is happening here. There appears to be considerable opposition to Trump which started even before his campaign. It comes from every corner of the MSM, from his own Republican party, the Democrats, Independents(Jill Stein), the EU, it's leaders, the European MSM and the US "Deep State". If you are happy that this coalition may indeed succeed in ousting Trump in what should really be described as a "soft coup" - then fine. But Trump was elected. Clinton in her arrogance miscalculated and lost. The above players were confident that they could do what they had always done - denigrate, misinform, twist and fabricate a false image of one of the most venal candidates in US election history all the way to the White House. The US voters saw through her. They also saw in Trump their last chance to elect someone who was not bought and paid for by industry - accurate or not. The US public had/has almost no faith in either their corrupt politicians or lying media. The Trump vote was a "middle finger" to all of them. Now the establishment is trying to correct that. Steve

I've not seen any evidence that he was under FBI investigation. There is a suggestion he was being surveilled - probably as part of a general partisan muck-raking exercise to help Hillary. Comey has a history of letting the Clintons off - just when they need it. Wikipedia: "In 1996, Comey acted as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee" Steve

Thanks Michael. Yeah, it was a little late - and it's a big topic. Steve

Hello all, Not been on this site for some 11 years, but thought I would dip in and take a look. Can't really believe what I am seeing. Specifically: Politics is a dog-and-pony PR exercise designed to distract the population and provide the illusion of choice. It is usually manipulated by the dominant state/local powers using a combination of propaganda, voting procedures, Gerry-mandering, systemic procedural tricks and fraud to return a 'business-as-usual' candidate. Candidates are usually pre-vetted/pre-compromised or pre-purchased - or a combination thereof. Plausible sociopaths are highly desirable. They can lie and invade other countries without remorse. Many appear to believe Clinton would have been preferable to or better than Trump. The level of infantile thinking required to buy into this is quite stunning.

Sorry John, The link works for me - if a little slow... For some reason it won't leave it alone...it insists on turning it into a hyperlink. Here it is on tinyurl (still slow): http://tinyurl.com/m75mf

Interesting article... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=3249

Len said: My point wasn't really a correlation between the picture or aircraft and a 757, but more the fragility of aircraft skins. The damage in the picture(s) was caused by bird strikes. It would appear they can have a similar effect on 757s. It's quite impressive damage for birds which would offer considerably less resistence than a metal pole, break-away design or not. Takeoff is also slower than the predicted speed of flight 77. I don't remember saying it was a missile... Initial photos clearly show no 75ft hole. They show a 16/20ft hole, presumeably created by the landing gear. The 75ft hole appeared following the collapse due to fire.