Posted on 02/28/2017 7:24:19 PM PST by conservative98
Mark R. LevinVerified account @marklevinshow
FWIW, President Trump's speech was terrific, despite certain policy disagreements I have with him.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Apparently doesn’t care about Never Trump scum here.
Here is a truth for you. Nobody really knows who Levin did or did not vote for.
He presents as mostly a #nevertrumper.
How's LevinTV going? Is this tweet - tainted as it is - a desperate way to win back the conservatives he threw away so he can get more than 3 viewers to his TV show?
That misbegotten "network" already threw Mark Steyn to the curb.
The level of Trump worship and defense here since the primaries has rivaled Obama fanaticism. We are a nation of laws with a constitution. Not a monarchy with a massive powerful executive who makes decrees. If challenging or questioning Trump is forbidden here now feel free to have me blocked.
Another question I have: If a judge issues an illegal order, such as the one by Judge Robart, must the President obey it?
The NYC subway system, like the national railroads, were private, profitable industries that were regulated out of business and taken over by the government. There were plenty of interstates before Ike, like US 1 from ME to FL. And they didn’t stop at every river and ravine for want of bridges. The idea that the Feds, who do NOTHING cheaply or efficiently and have no particular expertise, are necessary for infrastructure is a testament to the lack of understanding of how things worked before government grew out of control.
The NYC subway system, like the national railroads, were private, profitable industries that were regulated out of business and taken over by the government. There were plenty of interstates before Ike, like US 1 from ME to FL. And they didn’t stop at every river and ravine for want of bridges. The idea that the Feds, who do NOTHING cheaply or efficiently and have no particular expertise, are necessary for infrastructure is a testament to the lack of understanding of how things worked before government grew out of control.
>>The NYC subway system, like the national railroads, were private, profitable industries that were regulated out of business and taken over by the government.
>The first underground line of the New York City Subway opened on October 27, 1904,[5] almost 35 years after the opening of the first elevated line in New York City, which became the IRT Ninth Avenue Line.[6] By the time the first subway opened, the lines had been consolidated into two privately owned systems, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company (BRT, later Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation, BMT) and the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT). The city was closely involved: all lines built for the IRT and most other lines built or improved for the BRT after 1913 were built by the city and leased to the companies. The first line of the city-owned and operated Independent Subway System (IND) opened in 1932; this system was intended to compete with the private systems and allow some of the elevated railways to be torn down, but kept within the core of the City due to the low amount of startup capital provided to the municipal Board of Transportation, the later MTA, by the state.[7] This required it to be run “at cost”, necessitating fares up to double the five-cent fare popular at the time.[8]
>In 1940, the two private systems were bought by the city and some elevated lines closed immediately while others closed soon after. Integration was slow, but several connections were built between the IND and BMT, and now operate as one division called the B Division. Since the IRT tunnel segments are too small and stations too narrow to accommodate B Division cars, and contain curves too sharp for B Division cars, the IRT remains its own division, the A Division.
Note that the lines themselves where generally paid for by the city and run by private companies, which is generally a better arrangement than having the city run themselves. My point about the government being required to get them going and getting them interconnected still stands.
National railroads often benefited from large government contracts to build the initial tracks, as is the case in every other civilized nation.
>There were plenty of interstates before Ike, like US 1 from ME to FL. And they didn’t stop at every river and ravine for want of bridges. The idea that the Feds, who do NOTHING cheaply or efficiently and have no particular expertise, are necessary for infrastructure is a testament to the lack of understanding of how things worked before government grew out of control.
Almost all successful road systems have been funded by government entities for all of recorded history. libertarian-ism sounds nice but is historically ignorant of how things actually work and often make stupid and untrue claims about private roads and harbor development.
>I don’t think honest criticism is forbidden. Although I am a strong supporter of President Trump, that does not mean I agree 100% with what he does. For example, I question what appears to be his stance on the absurdly labeled “dreamers.”
Trump’s stance on DACA is pure politics. It’s the only part of illegal immigration that’s popular with the public thus he’s not going after it to avoid losing the rest of immigration reform on the horns of the dreamers crap.
Well, nobody has denied that Levin continued to attack Trump on many issues. Not "endlessly", though, else he wouldn't have had time to announce he was going to vote for Trump, or to emphasize how disastrous it would be if Hillary won. Levin made the case for voting for Trump even if you oppose him on a considerable number of issues, which was a useful case to make, and the only one likely to influence most of his listeners at the time (as I explained previously).
You have a point.
> ...providing implicit support to Hillary Clinton until weeks [September 6 — more like two months] before the election when, in a transparent attempt to be able to claim to his audience that he fought against Hillary Clinton when he never had...
Obviously Levin spent more time on Trump than on Hillary during the primaries, and it’s true that he continued to criticize Trump on some matters after the nomination as well. He’d never stopped attacking Hillary and the Democrats, though, and those attacks increased long before the September announcement of his intention to vote for Trump.
I listened to Levin only two or three times a week for maybe twenty or thirty minutes at a time, but I heard them. Well before the announcement I predicted on this forum that when it came down to the final choice between Hillary and Trump, Levin would publicly choose Trump. (I’ll look up the link to prove it, if you’d like to see it.)
Why shouldn’t he? No assumptions of nefarious motives were required to understand why he’d do that. Do you really believe he wanted Hillary appointing Supreme Court Justices, who could be there for a generation? Or Hillary — who tried to cover up Benghazi and who announced she’d increase the number of Muslim refugees admitted into the United States — handling the opposition to Islamism?
Despite major differences, Levin’s long-held positions are closer to Trump’s in more instances than they are to Hillary’s. As vehemently as he opposes Trump on some matters, he opposes Hillary and the Democrats even more. It’s a simple as that.
His first hour was all about Trump's supposed backtracking on his immigration policies. He made a big deal about Trump "giving away" securing the border before compromising on "Dreamers," and was quick to suggest that Trump didn't learn the lesson of Reagan's agreeing on amnesty now in exchange for security later.
I didn't see any of that in the speech last night, but Levin sure had a lot of angst over it yesterday afternoon.
-PJ
what you cut and pasted is not very different from what I said. I know that the city was very involved with the creation of the transit system, for variances and easements as well as eminent domain issues. But people made their fortunes with them before the government took them over and they started operating at a loss as public utilities. As far as the roads, I specifically mentioned the federal government, states and localities are a different animal, constitutionally . As far as your ‘stupid’ remark, f u.
But that's not how we determine whether a person is a NeverTrumper. Unless we peep over the curtains, we won't know for sure how anyone voted, so that criterion is useless.
> "He presents as mostly a #nevertrumper."
A person who criticizes Trump is a Trump critic. All NeverTrumpers are Trump critics, but not all Trump critics are NeverTrumpers.
We judge whether people are NeverTrumpers by whether they continue to state publicly that they'll "never" vote for Trump. "Never" is a very strong, clear, and easy-to-understand word, and it does not refer to quantity of criticism. Levin announced publicly that he'd vote for Trump, and ceased being a NeverTrumper on September 6, 2016, well before the election. September 6, 2016 is not never.
Hard to cut Mark any slack. He is brilliant on educating on constitutional government, but has spent more energy dumping on Trump, based on all the ‘Dem fear talking points’ and fake news, than he spends on attacking the GOPe or the Dems. I used to love to listen to him, now he turns me off half the time, even when I am trying hard to listen. He is rude to anyone who calls in and tries to advocate waiting for Trumps actions and not jumping to bad conclusions regarding the false news reports that purport to know what is in Trumps head.
>what you cut and pasted is not very different from what I said. I know that the city was very involved with the creation of the transit system, for variances and easements as well as eminent domain issues.
And capital.
>But people made their fortunes with them before the government took them over and they started operating at a loss as public utilities.
My argument was about infrastructure, not operation. You’re conflating 2 different issues because I kicked your butt on the infrastructure argument. Very dishonest on your part.
> As far as the roads, I specifically mentioned the federal government, states and localities are a different animal, constitutionally .
The distinction is pointless because they’re both government. I’m talking from a broader context on what works, not getting wonky over the Constitution.
>As far as your ‘stupid’ remark, f u.
Right back you, chief. Did you know that Libertarians where allied with the Communists during the Spanish civil war? Their whole unworkable, utopian lie filled philosophy made a lot more sense after I learned that. Cheerio!
Yes, but like nightmare marriage, he has done nothing but nag us since about that decision. I don't mind his saying that he doesn't always agree with Trump on policy, but most times the policy he doesn't agree with is not even something Trump has done, but rather something that has been projected onto Trump by Dem or neverTrump talking points or fear mongering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.