Someone asked, "GT, what do you think about Trump so far?" There was a a great deal of blather regarding his first 100 days, and I can think of no one less suited to summing it up than Senator Dianne Feinstein (Demagogue-CA). See it here, with minor modifications by me, GT.
Predictably, she was unimpressed. A statist partisan, although she could easily run as a Republican, I would expect nothing else. Remember, she was a total fascist favouring her rich pals as mayor of San Francisco. She ran as a Democrat for governor trying to position herself as tougher on crime, and more pro-death penalty than her Republican opponent. Californians didn't buy that, or didn't want a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.
She managed to fool voters when she ran for the Senate, in the Year Of The Woman, securing a safe seat that has kept her in office far too long.
She sums up her thoughts claiming that President Trump has had more "failed policies and bad ideas than most presidents have in an entire term," oblivious to her tenure as mayor although, in fairness, she was not president.
Feinstein also asserts that Trump and the Republicans have rolled back "hard-fought" progress on various issues, by which she means executive orders Trump's predecessor could not achieve through the legislative process, so he illegally issued his own laws and regulations.
I did not vote for Mr Trump, a decision by which I stand. However, most of the senior-citizen Senators points are absurd. The current President has made choices I support, several I oppose, about par for a Libertarian or even a libertarian.
I agree that the Internet action on consumer protection was a poor decision.
Her other main points are dishonest. Like "made it harder for working families to save for retirement." Where does she get that? Janet Yellin's keeping the interest rates so low makes it impossible to save without losing money to inflation. They "allowed states to block funding to Planned Parenthood." So what? The new budget retains PP funding.
Has he used his first 100 days "to boost Wall Street profits at the expense of American families, and, if so, how? Under his predecessor, the gap between rich farts like Feinstein and most Americans grew, whether that was intentional or not.
Then she shifts into partisan poop mode.
The President's policies will supposedly "undermine our efforts to create a more just society and protect the rights of all Americans." Whose efforts and which Americans?
Senator Feinstein doesn't give a rat's ass about everyday people. She has consistently supported legislation and regulations to make Americans' lives harder and less fair. She voted for the horrible Unaffordable Care Act (UCA), and refuses to participate in fixing it which, incidentally, is impossible with an ill-conceived law.
Agreed that she will fight "these policies," in that she will stick with Democrats in the Senate to block and stall everything the President and the Republicans do, including what should be routine cabinet appointments.
Unlike the previous president, Trump has shown that he is happy to meet with almost anyone, probably even senile senators from a leaderless party. Have Democrats taken advantage of his openness? No. If President Trump proposed legislation to do what the opposition party have wanted for year, such as infrastructure funding, you can be sure they would find a reason to oppose it.
As another president boasted recently, "Elections have consequences."
President Trump has acted dumbly, and supported some poor policies. The "repeal and replace" fiasco was a major blunder, in my humble opinion. The remaining Democrats, for some reason, want you to keep your UCA; I believe I know why. They offer no suggestions or compromises, confident that ignorant voters will blame Trump and the Republicans for the impending implosion.
That may be a costly miscalculation, but what do I care? Maybe it will pave the way for another party that doesn't merely oppose the current misgovernance, that offers solutions.
Think smaller government. Politicians like Feinstein couldn't get any smaller, without assistance from Wayne Szalinski.
Posted 6 June 2017 (writin May)
Found while seeking answers…
Nothing to add, except that a couple may be jokes.
Time to push her under the bus?
THE ONLY CHANGEABLE CLIMATE
Angry, Deceptive Rhetoric
For decades, vagrants have resided in the Bay Area.
There is no greater indictment of the Democratic Party's grip on major cities than their failure to act, unless you consider stumbling action. As someone at risk of joining their ranks, this subject strikes home.
The 78% anomaly
The reason cited for the slight "anomaly" is that this year the surveyors brought a victim with them, on the assumption that living on the street makes him an expert on where others hang out. Considering that this population is comprised of those living on the streets or in parks, plus those living in cars or other vehicles, it seems unlikely that their count is accurate. One might posit that occupying an RV is not comparable to a cardboard box, or even a tent.
The Daily Journal was less charitable to Pacifica, noting that reductions in one county often reflect a shift to another, rather than an elimination of the problem. Somehow Trump got blamed, too; always a useful diversion.
The DJ mention a plan to end human homelessness (pretty much) by 2020. Of course, those long-term solutions have never worked, so it's unlikely they will in future. These are plans to show government is not doing nothing, which it pretty much is.
San Francisco's homelessness decreased supposedly, according to the same non-credible study. When I lived in the city, there were indigents scattered about living in doorways, wandering around begging. That was depressing enough to make me happy to leave. Now there are encampments with real and makeshift tents lining streets, not just under freeways, but in the unlikeliest places. Near office areas, shops, legitimate residences, on walkways over freeways. Predictably, these neighbourhoods have increased crime, such as car break-ins. The city's solution: signs telling you to lock your car and hide the valuables within.
Acceptance of this unfortunate state of existence is one cause of its propigation. There were no homeless persons when I was growing up. They were referred to as "bums," "tramps," "drifters" and "vagabonds." The "homeless" euphemism makes it more acceptable, almost romantic, like they're just camping out.
You can be homeless sleeping on a friend's couch until you get your own place. Living on the street is unacceptable. Sure, a handful of eccentrics may wish to live on the street, but sane persons prefer having a roof over their heads and basic amenities, like toilets, making street life a health hazard to everyone. They have no necessities, like water and power (for refrigeration, cooking and bathing). The Bay Area has a welcoming climate, but it gets cold and wet. There are vermin and other obvious problems.
Democrats have been attentive to frivolities like gender issues, so-called cultural appropriation, speech suppression, racial invention, eugenics, climate and gun control, plastic bag and portion-size regulation, etc. Pressing problems, like lack of housing and jobs, are swept under the rug. They can only hope city residents continue to accept rhetoric over results. New stadiums and high-rises, today's versions of "bread and circuses," cannot distract forever. Progressives, who love to tell others to put their houses in order before tackling far-off crises, should take their own advice on local housing.
The Bay Area's limited housing supply is not being eased by construction of luxury homes and condominiums, nor by the state Democratic Party's War on the Middle Class. Locally, recruiting additional residents, illegal aliens for instance, exacerbates the problem. For some living on the streets, jobs and temporary housing might reintroduce them to mainstream society. For those too far gone, or with problems like mental illness and addiction, more individualised help is required. Private charities might make a difference with adequate funding, but government hate to admit their failures [see: NON-PROFIT SHOWERS].
Ignoring this endemic problem, or creating feel-good programmes to assuage guilt, will not help. Leadership might, but Nancy Pelosi and other locally-based pols would rather attack the President than the lack of residences. Whenever I see a row of tents, I feel queasy. Obviously, the Democrats in power can avoid seeing them from their gated communities. Either that or they just don't give a shit.Posted 27 June 2017
Dianne Feinstein tries to defend
her partisan rejection of Neil Gorsuch
Remember, she is neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional proponent.
The Official GT Slade Blog