Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I have no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are better than mine.

 

It doesn't require inside knowledge or mysticism to put together a reasoned "guess" why the Chinese might have a way to use our debt against us - just as there are reasonable restraints against them doing just such a thing. I have no more information than any informed citizen can have by reading and investigating both sides of the claims.

 

My point is that the right wing talking points about the debt are are not outright lie but they have a quite low probability of creating any kind of problem. Kaitlyn wrote about the right's talking point of division of the debt equals ($X) for each person in the U.S. which is accurate up to a point, and the point being that the debt does not come due all at once and that it is extremely unlikely ever to be called in in great sums ever anyway - the U.S. is not some hourly worker with a risky home loan - because there are repercussions to calling in a country's debt. We should work over time to reduce the debt, but there are more pressing concerns at the moment than a debt that is manageable.

 

I admit that I don't know for sure if debt will be or will not be a threat to national security. I am aware that the debt cannot come due all at once so the total number is not that scary when spread over many years. You seem to be saying that it is a threat, and I would like to know what specifically makes you think it is a threat. That it is a large scary number is not a valid reason - that you think country xyz may take action a or c despite d and e, those would be something concrete to talk about.

 

It's really pretty simple. You either have some reasons you can explain or you are simply restating right wing talking points.

 

I genuinely would like to know - either we have reason to be concerned right now about the debt or we don't. Explain to us why your position is one of immediate concern.

[Kaitlyn S]

I will respond to the questions asked of me when I have time, but in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I would like to give thanks to the Lord for being healthy enough to be here, and wealthy enough to have not only the necessities like food but luxuries like access to the Internet. Not everybody has both of those but most of the posters here do and should be likewise thankful.

[andrei]

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me.

 

Let's look at some of his assertions.

 

But consider that U.S. debt is not nor will ever be required to be repaid in a lump sum in a single year. Our debts are accumulated debts that come due over the course of many years.

 

This is true, of course, but how about interest on debt? Isn't US paying any interest on it?

Yes, they do, a lot actually.

223 billion in 2015, more than Education/HUD/Transportation combined.

How about projections for the future, when interest rates are going to go up? Interest payments projected to double by 2019 and double again by 2026. Sure, the Feds will take care of it by keeping IR low forever.

 

Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.

 

Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so.

 

I am not saying the debt should not be reduced. It should be - at the proper time.

 

And when exactly is this proper time if not now when the rates are low and the payments are low?

When interest payment will reach 0.5T/year for sure the budget will be balanced and debt reduced.

[Winstonm]

Let's look at some of his assertions.

 

 

 

This is true, of course, but how about interest on debt? Isn't US paying any interest on it?

Yes, they do, a lot actually.

223 billion in 2015, more than Education/HUD/Transportation combined.

How about projections for the future, when interest rates are going to go up? Interest payments projected to double by 2019 and double again by 2026. Sure, the Feds will take care of it by keeping IR low forever.

 

 

 

Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so.

 

 

 

And when exactly is this proper time if not now when the rates are low and the payments are low?

When interest payment will reach 0.5T/year for sure the budget will be balanced and debt reduced.

 

LoL. :P

 

Claim 2) Try looking up data before you regurgitate right wing claims and you might alter your views. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

 

Claims 1 and 3) Borrowing is encouraged when rates are low (that's why the Fed lowers rates during recessions). It is when rates are expensive that debt payments become attractive. You make a great point - the actual debt is really not relevant as it will never have to be repaid in a lump some so there is only the relatively small $223 billion in interest that we really have to concern ourselves with on an annual basis.

[y66]

Donald Trump's vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland:

 

As many Americans are trying to figure out what kind of president they have just elected, the people of Balmedie, a small village outside the once oil-rich city of Aberdeen, say they have a pretty good idea. In the 10 years since Mr. Trump first visited, vowing to build “the world’s greatest golf course” on an environmentally protected site featuring 4,000-year-old sand dunes, they have seen him lash out at anyone standing in his way. They say they watched him win public support for his golf course with grand promises, then watched him break them one by one.

 

A promised $1.25 billion investment has shrunk to what his opponents say is at most $50 million. Six thousand jobs have dwindled to 95. Two golf courses to one. An eight-story 450-room luxury hotel never materialized, nor did 950 time-share apartments. Instead, an existing manor house was converted into a 16-room boutique hotel. Trump International Golf Links, which opened in 2012, lost $1.36 million last year, according to public accounts.

 

“If America wants to know what is coming, it should study what happened here. It’s predictive,” said Martin Ford, a local government representative. “I have just seen him do in America, on a grander scale, precisely what he did here. He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised.”

 

Alex Salmond, a former first minister of Scotland whose government granted Mr. Trump planning permission in 2008, overruling local officials, now concedes the point, saying: “Balmedie got 10 cents on the dollar.”

 

Sarah Malone, who came to Mr. Trump’s attention after winning a local beauty pageant and is now a vice president of Trump International, disputed some of the figures publicly discussed about the project, saying that Mr. Trump invested about $125 million and that the golf course now employed 150 people.

 

“While other golf and leisure projects were shelved due to lack of funds,” she said, “Mr. Trump continued to forge ahead with his plans and has put the region on the global tourism map, and this resort plays a vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland.”

 

Mr. Salmond said that Mr. Trump’s impact on business in Scotland might actually be a net negative because his xenophobic comments have so appalled the Scottish establishment that the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, known simply as the R&A, is unlikely to award his other Scottish golf course, the world-renowned Trump Turnberry, another prestigious golf tournament like the Open anytime soon.

 

“I don’t see the R&A going back to Turnberry, which is a tragedy in itself,” Mr. Salmond said. “But it’s also a huge economic blow: Several hundred million pounds lost — or, in Trump terms, billions.”

 

Mr. Trump, whose mother emigrated from Scotland to New York in 1930, never showed any great interest in her place of birth. But in 2008, the same year he applied for planning permission in Balmedie, he visited the pebble-dashed cottage on the Isle of Lewis in Western Scotland where she grew up.

 

After emerging from his private jet and handing out copies of his book “How to Get Rich,” he reportedly told locals how Scottish he felt. “I feel very comfortable here,” Mr. Trump said before spending less than two minutes with his cousins in his mother’s homestead, The Guardian reported at the time. Within about three hours his private jet had taken off.

He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised? Say it isn't so Toto.

[kenberg]

Donald Trump's vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland:

 

 

He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised? Say it isn't so Toto.

 

From the beginning, my objection was not centered on Trump's policies, my objection was, and is, to Trump the person. And this means nothing can be done. It is very discouraging.

 

Reality has to be accepted, I plan to accept it. I am not yet prepared to say just what this will entail.

[andrei]

Claim 2) Try looking up data before you regurgitate right wing claims and you might alter your views. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

 

You should read carefully what other people post here, try to understand the message and only after give an answer.

 

Your initial assertion was: "Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.", which I have quoted before my answer: "Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so."

 

My answer was a sarcastic comment to your assertion (note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).

US economy have expanded (at a very slow pace) in the last 8 years, but the debt have not automatically decreased. Quite the opposite I would say.

 

 

Claims 1 and 3) Borrowing is encouraged when rates are low (that's why the Fed lowers rates during recessions). It is when rates are expensive that debt payments become attractive. You make a great point - the actual debt is really not relevant as it will never have to be repaid in a lump some so there is only the relatively small $223 billion in interest that we really have to concern ourselves with on an annual basis.

 

223 billion/year is not small, it is 6% of federal budget. And it is projected grow fast, outpacing Medicare or Social Security

[Winstonm]

You should read carefully what other people post here, try to understand the message and only after give an answer.

 

Your initial assertion was: "Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.", which I have quoted before my answer: "Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so."

 

My answer was a sarcastic comment to your assertion (note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).

US economy have expanded (at a very slow pace) in the last 8 years, but the debt have not automatically decreased. Quite the opposite I would say.

 

 

 

 

223 billion/year is not small, it is 6% of federal budget. And it is projected grow fast, outpacing Medicare or Social Security

 

:lol: You guys are trying to make the debt out to be such an emergency but it turns out all you really have to toss out as your massive problem is the payment of 6% of the federal budget? Really? 6%?

 

As for your first claim - get a grip - in 2015 Medicare alone was 15% of the federal budget, about $540 billion. Combined with Medicaid the percentage was 24% of the federal budget.

 

Nice try but I get to call BS. Thanks for playing. If you guys really can't make the arguments for lowering the national debt, I can make it for you as there are good reasons to do so - but IMO there is no urgent need or panic about the debt.

[Al_U_Card]

Debt is easy (but dangerous when it runs your financial decision-making process) and saving is hard (when it deprives you of needed resources). A question of earning power and fiscal security. Our debt-based economy has enured us to accepting levels of debt that can, under appropriate circumstances, cause insolvency or worse. Interest based debt that comes from unbacked securities is the banks way of leading borrowers to indebted servitude. Why this is allowed or even accepted is quite the tour de force by the financial community and ranks right up there with leveraging and margin calls.

[Kaitlyn S]

(note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).

The allegedly obtuse girl got it.

[Winstonm]

Really? That's all?

[Kaitlyn S]

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

Again, have to answer quickly. The problem as I see it is that while now lenders have faith that the USA can meet their debt obligations, if the USA makes a major commitment to climate control, enough of our lenders will lose that faith (thinking that we are biting off more than we can chew) that they will be unwilling to buy our debt. If one of our bond offerings is undersubscribed, we default and our economy falls apart as the government ceases to exist due to lack of funds.

 

It's not a great fear but it's possible. When I have more time, I'll discuss further.

[Winstonm]

Again, have to answer quickly. The problem as I see it is that while now lenders have faith that the USA can meet their debt obligations, if the USA makes a major commitment to climate control, enough of our lenders will lose that faith (thinking that we are biting off more than we can chew) that they will be unwilling to buy our debt. If one of our bond offerings is undersubscribed, we default and our economy falls apart as the government ceases to exist due to lack of funds.

 

It's not a great fear but it's possible. When I have more time, I'll discuss further.

 

Your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Treasury auctions and the policies of the buyers makes it difficult if not impossible to have a discussion. I know it was written quickly, but the scenario you presented above is silly to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of monetary affairs.

 

Put simply, one cannot apply to countries and governments the same impulses that guide individuals and families as it applies to debt and monetary policies. Uncle Joe may fear that Bill's windmill might go broke so he won't lend him money; that fear does not apply to China buying U.S. t-bonds; China does not fear the U.S. going broke. It is a ludicrous idea.

[alok c]

Your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Treasury auctions and the policies of the buyers makes it difficult if not impossible to have a discussion. I know it was written quickly, but the scenario you presented above is silly to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of monetary affairs.

 

Put simply, one cannot apply to countries and governments the same impulses that guide individuals and families as it applies to debt and monetary policies. Uncle Joe may fear that Bill's windmill might go broke so he won't lend him money; that fear does not apply to China buying U.S. t-bonds; China does not fear the U.S. going broke. It is a ludicrous idea.

Treasury Bond comes under the purview of sovereign guarantee.It's viability depends upon so many factors e.g stature of the country in the world,stature of economy,GDP,fiscal deficit,current a/c deficit,ratio of total loan to GDP,ratio of external loan to GDP,stability of the country etc.It is a very complecated excercise.Considering above factors(there are many others),US T-bond will be preferred destination for all countries in forciable future unless some adverse action is taken & the economy takes a nose dive.

[Al_U_Card]

Treasury Bond comes under the purview of sovereign guarantee.It's viability depends upon so many factors e.g stature of the country in the world,stature of economy,GDP,fiscal deficit,current a/c deficit,ratio of total loan to GDP,ratio of external loan to GDP,stability of the country etc.It is a very complecated excercise.Considering above factors(there are many others),US T-bond will be preferred destination for all countries in forciable future unless some adverse action is taken & the economy takes a nose dive.

Let's not forget Trump's familiarity with going bankrupt to get out of financial difficulty...

[kenberg]

Your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Treasury auctions and the policies of the buyers makes it difficult if not impossible to have a discussion. I know it was written quickly, but the scenario you presented above is silly to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of monetary affairs.

 

Put simply, one cannot apply to countries and governments the same impulses that guide individuals and families as it applies to debt and monetary policies. Uncle Joe may fear that Bill's windmill might go broke so he won't lend him money; that fear does not apply to China buying U.S. t-bonds; China does not fear the U.S. going broke. It is a ludicrous idea.

 

I'll begin, as often, by confessing ignorance. But not total ignorance.

 

I accept that national debt and personal debt are two different things. It does not immediately follow from this that national debt is unimportant.

 

I brought up a wikipedia article

 

https://en.wikipedia...sks_and_debates

 

 

Yes I also know that wikipedia is not the leading source of economic research. But it's a start.

 

 

The graph at the top of the wik page, on federal debt held by the public, illustrates what I had understood to be correct: As a percentage of gdp, the national debt was very high during and just after WW II, it then dropped off substantially, and has since grown substantially.

 

We do not have to speak of personal debt to note that a short term peak in debt, caused by a crisis and dropping back after the crisis, is different from sustained debt growth that is accepted as the norm. So where are we?

 

A suggestion for caution, from the wik:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated in April 2010 that "Neither experience nor economic theory clearly indicates the threshold at which government debt begins to endanger prosperity and economic stability. But given the significant costs and risks associated with a rapidly rising federal debt, our nation should soon put in place a credible plan for reducing deficits to sustainable levels over time."

Of course view vary. Krugman is quoted:

 

According to Paul Krugman, "It's true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar's worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents' worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that's already deep in hock to the Chinese, you've been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction."

 

For me, about the only thing that is obvious is that the answer isn't obvious. If we go back to the public debt as a fraction of gdp chart, it appears that except for 1995-2000, the general trend has been upward for quite a while now. One might attribute the five year downward slope to the wise choices of Bill Clinton. Or one might note that the break up of the USSR made many things easier for us, at least temporarily. My guess is that it is a combination of these two items. Whatever the reasons for that decline, the rest of the trend is up.

 

Bernanke's rather mild claim seems to be that sooner or later we have to deal with this somehow. This seems right, well, obvious, to me. Does anyone disagree? But how to deal with it? Well, I don't know. I am sure Paull Krugman is a smart guy. He also strikes me as someone who has never entertained even for a moment the possibility that he could be wrong about anything. Wisdom suggests at least a bit of caution here. Generally speaking, I do favor investing money in the future. But really, who doesn't? The question is how to choose.

[jonottawa]

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/coulter-headshot-640x480-640x480.jpg

 

Ann Coulter: A Night to Remember

 

"In fairness, we Trump supporters don’t want to be sore winners, so we ought to set a time limit on our gloating. I propose three years."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO4xfj0ISoY

[Vampyr]

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/coulter-headshot-640x480-640x480.jpg

Ann Coulter: A Night to Remember

 

"In fairness, we Trump supporters don’t want to be sore winners, so we ought to set a time limit on our gloating. I propose three years."

 

Well, you had better gloat elsewhere, because well before three years have gone by, all forum members will have you on ignore. Doing it myself now.

[kenberg]

.

[mike777]

Granted 20 trillion in debt sounds like a lot.

 

I have never been a deficit hawk but ya...thats a lot.

I guess with Reps in charge we will hear a bit less whining about the deficit. I read stories that the tax cuts will result in a 30 trillion debt level in ten years. We can hope it is only 30 trillion in 2027.

 

As many others have mentioned see Medicare ....it is a mess today, it will be a holy mess soon and no one will dare cut it. The debate will be how to expand it...universal health care anyone?

[y66]

Guest post by R. Derek Black:

 

I could easily have spent the night of Nov. 8 elated, surrounded by friends and family, thinking: “We did it. We rejected a multicultural and globalist society. We defied the elites, rejected political correctness, and made a statement millions of Americans have wanted to shout for decades.”

 

I’d be planning with other white nationalists what comes next, and assessing just how much influence our ideology would have on this administration. That’s who I was a few years ago.

 

Things look very different for me now. I am far away from the community that I grew up in, and that I once hoped could lead our country to a moment like this.

 

I was born into a prominent white nationalist family — David Duke is my godfather, and my dad started Stormfront, the first major white nationalist website — and I was once considered the bright future of the movement.

 

Continue reading the main story

In 2008, at age 19, I ran for and won a Palm Beach County Republican committee seat a few months before Barack Obama was elected president. I received national media attention and for a while couldn’t go out without being congratulated for “telling them what’s what.”

 

I grew up in West Palm Beach across the water from Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, and he was always a loud presence in the neighborhood. I would drive a pickup truck with a Confederate flag sticker past his driveway each morning on my way to the beach and my family would walk out into the front yard to watch his fireworks on New Year’s Eve.

 

It surprises me now how often Mr. Trump and my 19-year-old self would have agreed on our platforms: tariffs to bring back factory jobs, increased policing of black communities, deporting illegal workers and the belief that American culture was threatened. I looked at my white friends and family who felt dispossessed, at the untapped political support for anyone — even a kid like me — who wasn’t afraid to talk about threats to our people from outsiders, and I knew not only that white nationalism was right, but that it could win.

 

Several years ago, I began attending a liberal college where my presence prompted huge controversy. Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began to realize the damage I had done. Ever since, I have been trying to make up for it.

 

For a while after I left the white nationalist movement, I thought my upbringing made me exaggerate the likelihood of a larger political reaction to demographic change. Then Mr. Trump gave his Mexican “rapists” speech and I spent the rest of the election wondering how much my movement had set the stage for his. Now I see the anger I was raised with rocking the nation.

 

People have approached me looking for a way to change the minds of Trump voters, but I can’t offer any magic technique. That kind of persuasion happens in person-to-person interactions and it requires a lot of honest listening on both sides. For me, the conversations that led me to change my views started because I couldn’t understand why anyone would fear me. I thought I was only doing what was right and defending those I loved.

 

I think the “Hamilton” cast modeled well one way to make that same connection when they appealed to Vice President-elect Mike Pence from the stage: “We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us.” Afterward, the actor Brandon Victor Dixon explained, “I hope he thinks of us every time he has to deal with an issue or talk about a bill or present anything.” I’m sure Mr. Pence believes his policies are just. But now he has heard from individuals who are worried about those policies. That might open him to new conversations.

 

I never would have begun my own conversations without first experiencing clear and passionate outrage to what I believed from those I interacted with. Now is the time for me to pass on that outrage by clearly and unremittingly denouncing the people who used a wave of white anger to take the White House.

 

Mr. Trump’s comments during the campaign echoed how I also tapped into less-than-explicit white nationalist ideology to reach relatively moderate white Americans. I went door-to-door in 2008 talking about how Hispanic immigration was overwhelming “American” culture, how black neighborhoods were hotbeds of crime, and how P.C. culture didn’t let us talk about any of it. I won that small election with 60 percent of the vote.

 

A substantial portion of the American public has made clear that it feels betrayed by the establishment, and so it elected a president who denounces all Muslims as potential conspirators in terrorism; who sees black communities as crime-ridden; who taps into white American mistrust of foreigners, particularly of Hispanics; and who promises the harshest form of immigration control. If we thought Mr. Trump himself might backtrack on some of this, we are now watching him fill a cabinet with people able to make that campaign rhetoric into real policy.

 

Much has been made of the incoherence of Mr. Trump’s proposals, but what really matters is who does — and doesn’t — need to fear them. None of the ideas that Mr. Trump has put forward would endanger me, and I once enthusiastically advocated for most of what he says. No proposal to put more cops in black neighborhoods to stop and frisk residents would cause me to be harassed. A ban on Muslim immigration doesn’t implicate all people who look like me in terrorism. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not force me to make a dangerous choice about my health, nor will a man who personifies sexual assault without penalty make me any less safe. When the most powerful demographic in the United States came together to assert that making America great again meant asserting their supremacy, they were asserting my supremacy.

 

The wave of violence and vile language that has risen since the election is only one immediate piece of evidence that this campaign’s reckless assertion of white identity comes at a huge cost. More and more people are being forced to recognize now what I learned early: Our country is susceptible to some of our worst instincts when the message is packaged correctly.

 

No checks and balances can redeem what we’ve unleashed. The reality is that half of the voters chose white supremacy, though saying that makes me a hypocrite. I was a much more extreme partisan than a vast majority of Trump voters and I never would have recognized that label.

 

The motivations that led to this choice are more complex. I have no doubt many of his supporters voted thinking he’d soften his rhetoric, that his words didn’t really matter. The words were not disqualifying for them because they don’t see, or refuse to see, what the message of hate will reap.

 

Most of Mr. Trump’s supporters did not intend to attack our most vulnerable citizens. But with him in office we have a duty to protect those who are threatened by this administration and to win over those who don’t recognize the impact of their vote. Even those on the furthest extreme of the white nationalist spectrum don’t recognize themselves doing harm — I know that because it was easy for me, too, to deny it.

 

That is the opening for those of us who disagree with Mr. Trump. It’s now our job to argue constantly that what voters did in elevating this man to the White House constitutes the greatest assault on our own people in a generation, and to offer another option.

 

There are millions of Americans who don’t understand why anyone might worry about the effects of this election. They see it as “feelings” versus their own real concerns. Those of us on the other side need to be clear that Mr. Trump’s callous disregard for people outside his demographic is intolerable, and will be destructive to the entire nation.

 

If I had not changed, I would have been jubilant after this election and more certain than ever that anxiety from a shrinking white majority would result in the election of more people who tap into this simple narrative. Now I’m convinced this doesn’t have to be our destiny.

 

Mr. Trump’s victory must make all Americans acknowledge that the choice of embracing or rejecting multiculturalism is not abstract. I know this better than most, because I’ve followed both paths. It is the choice of embracing or rejecting our own people.

[mike777]

Guest post by R. Derek Black:

 

 

 

Never heard of Mr. Black or stormfront....Y66 you read weird internet sites. :)

[onoway]

Never heard of Mr. Black or stormfront....Y66 you read weird internet sites. :)

I don't remember the name for sure, but 99.9 % sure it was this guy: He was raised and groomed to take over the leadership of white supremecy groups, and grew up surrounded by people who shared those values with his parents. He was very active and dedicated to promoting the cause through an internet site, and was highly successful in his proselytizing. When he left home and went to university it was basically the first time he had been the odd man out, in surroundings with people who had a very different point of view,and very different values. He gradually began to rethink the values and ideas he had so fervently and successfully been preaching. Through friendships and interactions and observations he made there he eventually came to be the person who wrote the letter that y66 posted. A remarkable young man to be able to shed his conditioning, and it was not without a lot of anguish, especially in regard to his family.

[hrothgar]

Never heard of Mr. Black or stormfront....Y66 you read weird internet sites. :)

 

This was an Op Ed piece from the New York Times.

 

While I have never heard of the author before now, I have most certainly heard of Stormfront...

[kenberg]

Going back, at least, to high school when a teacher suggested I write a term paper on Freud and I said "Who's Freud?" I continue to stun people with my lack of knowledge. Cherdano said I had to read more TNC and,as with Freud, I had no idea what he was talking about. Cherdano suggested my superficial knowledge of Huma Abedin might be sexist. When Trump said "Ask Hannity" I had only the vaguest idea of who Hannity is. And now Black. Never heard of him. never heard of Stormfront. Mea very culpa. I also don't know how to say very in Latin.

 

Anyway, it was an interesting enough article but not fascinating. Pam (Onoway) got more at the sort of thing that would interest me. My own migration from religion came with a fair amount of emotional stress. I look back with interest and curiosity as to just how it came about,. No short explanation would do. And I have come to realize how much my general way of looking at life was at least influenced by early experiences, family and otherwise. For me, that would have been a more interesting piece.But of course he gets to write the piece he wants to write.

 

Hamilton: Had I been in the audience, I would not have booed Pence. Hey! Black wrote a paragraph about Hamilton and never got to that level of specificity about himself. He speaks of what Dixon the actor did, he does not say if he would have done it. For a fairly long article, he says little about himself.. My view of what Dixon did: He singled out a member of the audience and, to all intents and purposes, announced "You are not welcome here". Not phrased exactly that way, but really it was the same message as the boos. Of course the audience and the actors have a right to send that message. I would have declined to do so. Again, I am saying more about myself in this paragraph than Black said about himself in a whole article. Mostly, the article was a lecture. I get tired of listening to lectures. In college, I skipped a lot of classes. An awful lot of classes.

 

Anyway, I learned a bit.