ldrews

It seems to me that the media is one power center and the President is another. Per the 1st Amendment the President/government may not interfere with the free expression of opinions. However, that does not imply that the President/government must cooperate with the press, nor does it prevent the President from expressing his opinion of the press. There is no legal requirement that the President even hold a press conference (I believe before Truman they did not), much less have to invite everyone. The President has every right to cherry pick the attendees, just as the press has every right to publish what they want within slander and defamation bounds. It is up to you and I to support whomever we want and to express our opinions regarding the appropriateness of each party's actions. To me, this is just a power battle between power centers. We probably have not seen anything yet.

Not fake news but clearly biased news, with the possible exception of NPR. The Washington Post and NY Times are clearly heavily biased in my opinion. Editorial selection, phrasing of headlines, biased adjectives in the body. OK, if by "rural" you mean everywhere outside the megacities, then I can agree. However, as you point out, even megacities comtain Trump voters. And as the exit polls showed, more people with college degrees voted for Trump than for Clinton by a narrow margin. Of course, more people don't have college degrees than do so of course more Trump voters don't have college degrees than do. The same is true of Clinton voters, perhaps even more so since her target demographic groups tend not to have as many college degrees as Trumps demographic groups (blacks+latinos vs whites). Where Clinton excelled was with Blacks and Latinos. Which was her strategy. But it wasn't enough. However, I don't think this election was about race. I think it was about populism vs statism. At the CPAC conference recently, Steve Bannon was quoted as saying that their daily focus was on "deconstructing the Administrative State". I would have called it the "Nanny State". This is a focus that I whole-heartedly support. One of the reasons that I support Trump is that I think he will improve the job situation for all areas of the US, not just small towns.

Glad that you are amused. For a moment I thought that you just want to pick a fight rather than have a discussion. So, renegotiate NAFTA to reduce the incentive for US manufacturers to export jobs to Mexico. This will put pressure on the manufacturers to move jobs back to the US thereby benefiting the US working/middle class. Of course this is not the only actions that can be taken. Already the Trump Administration is talking about border taxes, particular applied to US companies that manufacture out of the US. Again, pressure to move jobs back to the US. Secure the US/Mexico border to reduce/eliminate illegal aliens from entering the US and undercutting wage rates. Increases upward pressure on wages for US working/middle class.

Trump has already taken his first big action for the working/middle class. He withdrew the US from the TPP trade agreement and is starting the renegotiation of NAFTA. If you would like I can draw a picture for you on how that will benefit the working/middle class. So, what would your suggestion be for Trump to do to help the working/middle class. What big action do you think is needed?

Didn't you forget the word "rural". So, unless 86% of the white voters are rural the original depiction is incorrect. Do you have any evidence that 86% of white voters are rural?

OK, there is so much to comment on that I am going to have to take it in pieces. So here goes ... Based on the CNN exit polls (http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls) the breakdown of Trump voters were as follows: White voters, who make up 69% of the total, voted 58% for Trump and 37% for Clinton. Non-white voters, who make up 31% of the electorate, voted 74% for Clinton and 21% for Trump. White men opted 63% for Trump and 31% for Clinton; white women voted 53% for Trump and 43% for Clinton. Among non-college-educated whites, 67% voted for Trump – 72% of men and 62% of women. Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates. More 18- to 29-year-old whites voted for Trump (48%) than Clinton (43%). Trump, meanwhile, while winning just 8% of the black vote, collected 29% of the Latino vote – two percentage points more than his 2012 predecessor, Mitt Romney. Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump. But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton. Based on these exit polls, the phrase "overwhelmingly white and rural" seems a bit of hyperbole. Note that voters earning less than $50K/year voted 52% for Clinton, 41% for Trump, while voters earning more than $50K/year voted 49% for Trump versus 47% for Clinton. Trump did poorly among blacks (8%) but did better than expected among latinos (29%). So the common characterization of Trump voters being rural, ignorant, white dumbasses seems not to fit actual reality.

Wow! Thanks so much! Give me some time to digest this and respond appropriately.

I would love to engage in meaningful dialog rather than the drive-by shootings that my dissent seems to provoke. See above discussions on fixing inner cities and improving working/middle class job prospects. But I do not enjoy being called names and being disrespected simply because I do not echo the predominant viewpoint. When faced with such I naturally retreat into defensive retorts.

Increasing automation is indeed a problem for middle class jobs. But many small businesses cannot afford the capitalization required to automate. So perhaps the focus could be on facilitating small businesses. Also, if foreign products/labor are disadvantaged, then US businesses will put the pressure on the educational system to provide more capable workers so that the businesses can continue to produce products. Or move to more automation. It is obviously a complex dance. One of the forces for more automation, particularly in the fast food industry, is the mandated minimum wage laws. This movement has a double barreled effect: Fewer jobs for entry level youth, and reduced job training for entry level youth. The fast food industry, in particular, has been the training ground for inexperienced youth for the last few decades. I don't see any replacement coming along that will train youth how to work.

It seems to me that low-paying jobs are better than no jobs. And if the financial incentives are lined up properly, the number and pay qualify of jobs will increase. This includes renegotiation of trade agreements and judicious tariffs and border taxes. Whether you think that is a good idea or not probably depends on whether you are a consumer or a job seeker.

Maybe he doesn't consider his boss a fool?

OK, so how would you fix it? Or what is another alternative approach to improving the situation in inner cities. Or do you favor doing nothing?

Thank you for your thoughts. You are right, some VETS would not do well. Perhaps some further qualification would be required. Although for the goal intended some failures are acceptable. The financial incentives are significant. A 0% mortgage is like living rent free. And if the house and neighborhood are improved during the 10 year period, the VET would realize substantial capital gains. For example say the VET acquired a house in Chicago South Side for $50,000. The VET and family live rent free, except for property taxes and insurance, for 10 years. If the VET simply maintains the house but helps improve the neighborhood, the VET would easily realize $50,000 capital gain after 10 years. Refinancing the expiring mortgage would be easy. After 10 years when the mortgage expires the VA would use normal foreclosure procedures. The VET would have to be brain dead to let that happen. Refinancing after 10 years should be fairly easy. But if necessary the VA forecloses and sells the house on the open market to recoup the original mortgage amount. This is not a free ride. The VET has the incentive and the VA has the expectation that the VET will maintain/improve the property and the neighborhood. The VET has a very strong incentive to clean up the neighborhood in order to provide a safe life for his/her family and to realize the capital gains at the end of the mortgage. If 3 or 4 VETS locate in the same neighborhood, I would expect the neighborhood to get cleaned up rather rapidly. And by cleaned up I mean both physically and crime wise.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I had some thoughts about the problem. I tend to think about how to give people incentives to clean up their own situation. How about this: Arrange for the VA to give 10 year 0% interest mortgages to vets who will buy and live in a home in the target areas. This would do several things: Reward veterans for their service to the country Place trained, competent individuals into the target areas where they have significan incentives to clean up the mess. Provide better role models for the youth in the area My thought is that the vets, who would now have a strong vested interest in their neighborhood, would not put up with much crap and over a period of a few years would clean up and stabilize the community. What do you think?

OK, thanks for the input. So, Bannon is an anti-semite. Trump's son-in-law and daughter are Jewish. Trump just, finally, came out with a denunciation of anti-semitism. So apparently Bannon is not having much effect there. While I disagree with Bannon on Planned Parenthood, I sort of understand where he is coming from. But to me it is irrelevant. Although I like and approve of Planned Parenthood I don't think the Federal Government has any business funding it. Protect it yes, fund it no. Alleged domestic violence is just that, alleged, not proven, and therefore should be ignored for the purposes of this conversation. Anyone can allege anything about anyone. So unless you think Trump is a mindless idiot (oops, I forgot where I am) I would assert that the danger from Bannon is minimal. Watch him, but don't get your knickers in a wad.

OK, goodbye. But before you go, let me ask you: Does Tulsa have any inner city crime problems? That is a topic I would like to see discussed: solutions to the plight of inner cities.

If by troll you mean someone who offers a different viewpoint and is willing to defend it, then I will proudly accept the label. But if you mean someone who simply drops in a provocative statement and then disappears, then please notice that I am still here. Are there any issues you would like to discuss?

In evaluating a person, I prefer to look at his/her actions. So far Trump's actions align with his campaign promises and with some of my priorities about change for the US. So far I have no evidence to the contrary. But if you wish to continue to be misled by his words, be my guest. He seems to be playing the liberal/left and media like a master negotiator. He did the same during the campaign. Do you see a pattern here?

Thank you for some substance! And yet Tillerson, Mattis, McMasters, Mnuchin, Sessions, are all strong, independent leaders. Many of them have effectively managed large organizations, do not seem to be afraid of confronting/disagreeing with Trump. This does not seem to me to be the mark of an insecure, myopic president. You may disagree with his worldview, with his politics, etc., but that does not make him dangerous in a general sense. To me dangerous would be getting us into a nuclear war with Russia, or allowing terrorists/jihadists with nuclear/biological weapons to enter the US. Most everything else we can and will deal with. Steve Bannon is dangerous to you because you don't agree with his worldview. They probably think the same of you. And as distorted as Alex Jones, Breitbart, et al may be, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are not far behind. Bias and selective reporting seem to be rampant everywhere I look. To say that this ***** is less shitty than that ***** seems a meaningless distinction to me. But if you want to run away from a contrary viewpoint/opinion, I certainly can't stop you. But I would like to hear more of your reasoning and not just your invective. Why are Steve Bannon, the Gorka pair, Steve Miller, General Flynn dangerous? Please give me some explicit details.

I do assume that an individual communicating with me is telling the truth until I have evidence to the contrary. Am I naive? Probably. But my life seems to go much better this way. I am sorry that you are so cynical. And while I don't consider myself a Trump fanboy, in the recent election it was a no.brainer for me.

I envy you. You have a whole lifetime of adventures to look forward to. I am coming to the end of my life. But, please, don't confuse enthusiasm and passion with experience. The world probably doesn't work the way you think it does. It didn't for me when I was your age. There is an old saying: If you are not a socialist/liberal when you are 20, you don't have a heart. If you are still a socialist/liberal when you are 40, you don't have a brain. In any case, good luck with your job search and your life!

Ah yes. The resort to insult and character assassination rather than engage in meaningful conversation. Typical juvenile response. Tell me, do you still live in your parent's basement? Have you matured enough to actually hold down a job? Do you have any real world experience?

I disagree. I offered specifics, you come back with evasive questions. I ask for specifics, you totally avoid them. You want to dialog? Tell me what you think, don't just snipe at my offerings. Give me some substance to work with. Otherwise, yes, retreat into an attitude of condescending superiority. I'm sure that will be effective in persuading us independents.

You must think this is all a joke! How about a serious suggestion, not just some flip off?

Well, if you have the education and experience that you claim, then the only reason not to respond is that either there won't be a negative impact in the Muslim countries, or the impact doesn't fit your narrative. I think you are disinginous and a fraud. But what do I know? By the way, what right wing talking points am I reciting? I have simply presented a list of the things that I, an independent, would like to see accomplished in the U.S. Do you have an objection to that?