Birth Control
Righty: The Good Lord counseled us to “be fruitful and multiply,” and His wisdom is good enough for me. Birth control is an unnatural disruption of the human life cycle. Even worse, I think it’s a symptom of cultural narcissism: snooty urban yuppies don’t want anything as depressingly mundane as babies to keep them from dining out at their fancy restaurants. Look at what’s happening in Western Europe, where the native populations are surrendering their future to the hordes of Muslims who reproduce like fruitflies in their midst. And why? Because Europeans are so enamored of their cushy lifestyles that they’ve balked at the strenuous task of raising offspring. Listen up, America! I see the same pattern emerging here, among our own middle class. Get busy and start reproducing — unless, of course, you’re comfortable with the idea of living in the Estados Unidos thirty years from now. But what do you care? Your children won’t have to live there — because YOU WON’T HAVE ANY!
Lefty: Whoa there, Righty! Your racism is exceeded only by your chronic ignorance. Having children should be a matter of personal choice, and optional birth control is the most effective means to that end. Furthermore, your stance on birth control (and the Catholic Church’s, for that matter) should win some kind of award for environmental irresponsibility. How can you continue to fight birth control when this overcrowded planet will be running out of resources before the end of this century? Forget about white Americans and Europeans versus Muslims and Hispanics. The issue is whether our primitive biological need to create more and more people in our image is going to lead us to a nightmare scenario of famines, global deforestation and mass extinctions. And who’s going to suffer most? Precisely the people you fear and despise, Righty: Hispanics, Muslims and other Third-World peoples whose expanding populations will soon overwhelm the earth’s ability to support them. The Church, especially, deserves to be excommunicated from the human community for its willfully reactionary, disastrous and ultimately evil (yes, evil!) prohibition of simple birth control methods that could save our planet from ruin.
The New Moderate:
Such intense heat emanating from the right and left can mean only one thing: the answer lies in the middle. The New Moderate believes, with Lefty, that the Church has no divine right to prohibit a practice that was never mentioned, let alone condemned, in the Bible. (And don’t quote us the story about Onan and his seed; if you’re going to adhere to the literal dictates of every Bible verse, you’re also required to stone the nearest adulterer and renounce pork forever.) The Church must wake up and see that unlimited human reproduction is going to severely compromise the quality of life on this smallish planet of ours.
That said, we also share Righty’s concern that the middle classes of Europe and America are going to contracept themselves into extinction if they don’t show a little more enthusiasm for procreating. Having a kid is the ultimate life-affirming gesture. The creation and nurturing of a unique little person is one of life’s most richly rewarding pursuits, even if it tends to crowd out the occasional restaurant meal or midnight movie.
The moderate solution, simply stated: poor people around the world need to start using birth control; middle-class people need to use it a little less. Of course our solution sounds racist, classist and all that (go ahead, Lefty; heap your infamy upon us!). But we’re merely attempting to create some needed balance: a little more restraint from those who are currently overpopulating their lands to their own detriment, and a little more lusty abandon on the part of the fading bourgeoisie, whose continued presence is vital to the survival of Western civilization (or what’s left of it).
Summary: Poor people need to practice birth control more; middle class people need to practice it less.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Race Wars! “The minorities are having more kids they can’t afford to educate so in response I should too” Righty. Too many cooks spoils the broth. Too many people spoil the whole freakin’ world! Just because your religion wants you to make more “Christian Soldiers” doesn’t mean it’s a rational idea. Besides, bad parents can mess up their children. “But controling my right to be stupid is anti-American” then I’m leaving…
If you want birth control used more, make it free and available. The same problem with spay and neuter of dogs and cats. Where there is free or cheap spay/neuter there are fewer strays and the shelters are not swamped with unwanted animals. Where spay/neuter is expensive there are packs of roving dogs, feral cats and overwhelmed shelters. Sorry to compare people to dogs/cats but the overpopulation issue is the same. People who do not have contraceptives have too many children and those who do have contraceptives do not have too many children. Solution: Give birth control to everyone FREE. Our planet needs the population growth to stop now.
Guess what. I never wanted kids (and now menopausal thank God). Many of my friends never wanted kids. In fact over 20% of couples aren’t having kids. So you think I’ve missed out on life? Not a bit. Do I hate kids. Not at all. Would I have been a good parent. No way. But I guess I should have raised some miserable children just because you think more middle class babies will solve the problem. Bottom line. Another place it’s none of your business whether people have kids or not. Their choice. I support those who want them and I support those who don’t. I think you are WAY less “centrist” than you think.
Good. You Lefties and Middle-Of-The-Roadies can wipe yourselves out as sacrifices to Mother Gaia (or is it “Gay-a”?) while we multiply ourselves and take over.
Not for nothing that God blesses those who honor Him with “unprotected” sex with many progeny. We’ll take many “arrows” in our scabbards to your empty ones.
Oh, and I have made many many more “life affirming gestures” than people I know who didn’t really want kids but had them anyway. Abuse, neglect, rampant sexual abuse….of course not all families are like that…but the healthy ones are the ones who had kids because it was true to who they were. The ones who don’t have kids because it’s true to who they are in spite of a sick culture that thinks it should get to force everyone to have kids are also life affirming. What about the concept of quality, not quantity??
SOME people who don’t have any kids of their own abuse other people’s kids.
SOME people who don’t have any kids of their own rape other people’s kids.
What’s your point?
Cindy: You make perfectly reasonable arguments here, believe me. See my response to your comments under “White People,” which covers pretty much the same ground. My concern is about future demographics, not individual choices.
Cindy couldn’t have said it better…ditto…ditto…ditto……we have separation of church and state in this country. Simply put…people should curb their god. If they want to have a plethora kids, go ahead as long as THEY can afford to support them. If NOT, DON’T….and don’t expect the rest of us to put them on the government dole. Likewise, I don’t want anyone going around telling me or anybody else to pop one out every other year because that what “God wants”. Since when did God come down and put anyone PERSONALLY on a mission?? As far as anyone “contracepting themselves into extinction”, that’s FINE BY ME. That’s what people are SUPPOSED to do if they are unwilling and/or unable to raise kids. We live, we die and when God or science decides to destroy this planet, that’s what will happen whether we like it or not.
“Ami,”
If you don’t like the government dole, surely you take every opportunity to communicate with your elected representatives your opposition, and to vote for those who share your opposition to the dole, and against those who favor the dole.
Personally, I’ve never taken any government handouts that I can avoid. I do travel on the government roads as I have no choice. I will, though, accept Socialist Security to get back at least part of what has been taken from my pay.
What’s your basis for “separation of church and state”?
How is it relevant?
Wow! Mr. Bayan, have you ever kicked a hornet’s nest.
I’m a liberal, pro-choice until viability, pro-military (especially the navy), pro-U.S. Constitution, pro-keynesian, pro-environmental stewardship, anti-unfettered capitalism, agnostic woman without children, AND I think it would be very good if those (particularly women) with more resources and education were to have a few more children, and those with less education and less resources were to have a few less. Now, mind you, I completely realize the hypocrisy of a childless educated woman stating that other childless women, and particularly those with resources, should raise more kids. But, it is what it is.
Right now in our country there is movement that wants to restore full-blown patriarchy to our shores. And not the role restricting, sexist gender structures of the Mad Men series , but the old testament patriarchal system in which men are encouraged to create multi-generational dynasties through having as many children as their wives’ wombs will bear. Women in this lovely set-up are “consecrated” to their homes in their roles as wives and mothers, prohibited from attending college, forbidden birth control, and pledge unconditional submissiveness to first their fathers, and then their husbands. These people have lots of children (the Duggars with nineteen children and counting are representative), and, unlike the Amish, they vote in local, state, and national elections. They’re associated with the Advanced Training Institute/Vision Forum homeschooling and Quiverfull movement. Here’s a link to more info about it: http://www.widewhite.org/2010/09/cult-of-quiverfull-ati-vision-forum/
Compare that vision to the vision of those on the left, center, or even moderate right: amongst my own family (which is mostly center right to conservative, with a few liberals thrown in), my grandparents had 10 children, my parents had 4, my three sisters had 2-3 children apiece (I had none), and of my 7 nephews and nieces, who are all approaching 30, only 2 are married, and only 1 has a child.
People of more moderate persuasion, those of the non-patriarchal, multi-generational dynasty bent, whether they be left, right or center, need to be producing more children to offset the profound fecundity of Vision Forum. I’d be on board for a national PR campaign to encourage educated people of means to have at least 3-4 children.
At the same time, birth control should be available and free or low-cost to people of low-income so they can plan or prevent pregnancies that might impede their careers or earning potential. Of course, as a liberal, I also believe that we need to institute economic policies that allow an average family of 3-4 to survive on a single income.
“Surprise,”
Just curious: how do you tell when an unborn child is “viable”? What do you mean by “viable”?
I am a strong supporter of birth control and have made alot of enemies in my lifetime because of it. Let me start by saying that I was born on the very day abortion was legalized. Which I was constantly reminded of by my mother who repeatedly said if abortion had been legal I would not be here. Thus I have a split opinion of abortion. However I am a firm supporter of birthcontrol because of it. I believe that access to free and effective birth control is a wonderful way to move our society forward. No child should have to bear the burden of knowing their family is suffering economically because their parents could not afford birth control.
The spay/neuter programs in our country are a wonderful example of how we can improve lives through controlling the population. I think they should be expanded to cover people. Obviously this is a very controversial topic and where I lose alot of support. However, if a family cannot afford to support itself and relies solely upon the government to care for its daily needs and has more children to increase it’s income from government programs (such is the case in the area where I live) we as a society need to stand up and put a stop to this legacy. I suggest mandatory sterilization of lifetime welfare recipients as a solution. Many people I realize wil have strong opposition to this proposal be it religious or otherwise. My response is simple if you want the freedom to choose take responsibility of yourself and your family and you will have any choice you wish.
Have you had yourself spayed yet?
Sterilize poor people, brown and black people. Most of them don’t want children, anyway. As long as the sterilization is done in a way that doesn’t interfere with having sex, such as irradiating testicles, they will be able to have all the entertainment sex they want with no risk of procreating.
I hope that sicko HenryS has found other past times other than spewing his racist vitriol on your blog.
Interesting to come and read this after the election 2016. I’m 53 and I never had kids, along with many of my friends. Much of the reason was that I never got married, and I suspect most people in my age bracket still thought you were supposed to get married then have kids. Also in my age bracket, we are the women who can’t find enough men who could support a family without help us also having full time jobs. The divorce rate skyrocketed. Not a great time to get married and have kids.
I’m not arguing the past or the bible. Religion ideals wrap up in government action is another debate. This is just to get the discussion going. If you want support from both sides we need to look at the times and America. I’ll get to rape and medical abortion issues in a minute. I’m am speaking about a healthy adult. The choice, embryo or mother.
There is so much contraception available now including the morning after pill. No adult, responsible, consenting woman should get pregnant if she didn’t want to. So the right feels all these abortions are unnecessary, a means of birth control and even to non-religious people, excessive and vulgar.
1. Make birth control free and accessible to anyone who needs it.
2. People who are irresponsible or “forgot” their birth control should pay according to income (some subsidy here) for the procedure. Early on, a D/C procedure relatively inexpensive. I’m speaking about both parents paying. Maybe a course in social responsibility. I don’t know but Whatever the sanctions there needs be some to deter careless behavior. We need to put the breaks on these “inconvenient” pregnancies.They offend nearly everyone. We’re going to lose the far right but can’t please everyone. Most people, I think, will see it as a move in the right direction.
3. The right is pro-birth and not pro- life. Once that child is born, they don’t care how that child or mother fares. For women who opt for adoption, we need social catchment for the child. Qualify social services for the child, foster care, adoption, maybe even orphanages but more like group homes or boarding school.
4. Medical abortions usually infers the mother or parents want the child. That should absolutely be a decision for the family. The public needs to butt out.
5. Rape. No matter if it is an adult or child, incest, date rape, dark alleyway, your own home no one can know the mental and emotional agony associated with the pregnancy. The women’s life has been forcibly changed. If its a minor, physically her bones are not fully formed and there will be life long issues with her spine and pelvis. These are women who were not responsible for the forced intercourse. Blame the rapist and sanctions should be severe. Mission, stop rape and rape culture in institutions. This must be the women’s decision.
Ok. Not perfect but what do you think?
The BIRTH CONTROL thread has less than 20 comments
Move there?
You move we follow
Here is bloomberg on the effect of Trump’s trade machinations.
I still think it is a BAD idea. I think that Bloomberg is WRONG in that the effect will be larger.
However, my guess ouija board read observation, is that we are NOT jumping into a full blown trade war and that even if Bloomburg is of by a factor of 2, This is not going to tank the economy.
That does not mean it is not dangerous.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-05/trump-s-trade-feud-still-seen-making-mild-dent-in-global-economy
Ok, I am responding to dduck over here since word press responds better here.
dduck, what I am referring to with the VA is not political. It is incompetence and mismanagement. Employees not being fired for years after they were found to be hiding backlogged registration records. Administrators being reassigned from VA facilities that were determinded to be mismanaged instead of being fired for years.Maybe now they’re firing people, but I have not heard of this happening.
As another example of government not being as efficient as private industry. Our local town has two person garbagebtrucks. One driving and one grabbing the trash cans and dumping the can into the truck. The county has a contract with private waste management companies. They have one person in the truck. The truck is equipped with arms that reach out, grab the can and dumps the trash into the truck. 1/2 the personnel cost doing the same job.
Can anyone imagine government constructing bridges and roads😂😂😂😂😨??! We would still be driving route 66 from Chicago to LA.
One does not need to be Libertarian to understand what government does good. And what it should not be involved with.
Incentives not only matter – they are the driving force of human improvement.
When I bought my first apartment building it came with a private trash contract.
It cost me $300/quarter. For that the hauler stopped at the building went to the back where the trash cans were gathered the cans dumped them and returned them.
The city found I had bought the building and forced me to cancel the contract – because that was only for grandfathered properties or 5 unit of more commercial ones – I have only 4 units.
I now have the city – they pick up on the street. The “trash cop” follows the city. If there are any recycles in the regular trash – I get fined. If the trash is in the back not on the street I get fined.
The city law says I am required to provide trash service but the tenants are required to use it and are responsible for recylcing and taking trash out. Does not matter. The DJ still makes me pay the fine.
And this all costs me MORE.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/06/trump-signs-law-expanding-vets-healthcare-choices/673906002/
Interesting. Like a lot, I had not read this anywhere or heard it in the news. Moving in the right direction.
It’s all tied together, government, private and politics all driven by money and that equals s—- .
That drive to be better off is also what not merely makes one person rich, it is what makes all of us better off.
Absolutley we have to figure out the best structure for society, for government to maximize the positive impact of self interest, and to minimize the negative.
But we WANT people to want to be better off to have a better life to make more money.
Atta Boy Trumpski..
Keep rocking the boat
“And the devil will drag you under
By the sharp lapel of your checkered coat
Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down
Sit down you’re rocking the boat”
“The European Union (EU) is expected to place additional duties on U.S. imports starting in July in response to Trump’s tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, according to Reuters.
EU members have given support for a plan that would set 25 percent duties on up to $3.3 billion worth of U.S. goods, Reuters reported.”
US Exports to the EU are 105B/year, US Imports are 159B.
25% of 3.3B is less that 1B.
I am absolutely opposes to Trumps protectionism.
But the current total maximum estimated cost by Wall Street – including retaliation is a 15 basis point increase in inflation. That is %0.15.
Again this is all a bad idea – the real danger is that it will turn into a “trade war” as the effects of the actual tarrifs currently being imposed are tiny. But if a cycle starts the effects increase exponentially.
A 25% tax increase on 3% of US exports is a small impact. It will likely drive that portion fo exports down – possibly by as much as 1/2 A reduction of US exports to the EU of 1.5B is tiny.
A reduction of US exports to the EU of 50B is a big problem – especially if the reduction is beyond just the EU.
One of the major factors in the Great depression was that US exports pretty much ground to a complete stop in a very short time. The US went from having a massive trade surplus with europe to almost no exports at all. Most US exports at the time were in agriculture. The effect on US farms was catastrophic. Worse the 20’s were a huge period of farm automation – the wide spread adoption of tractors increased production and decreased labor costs. It decreased food prices and increased profits. The entire world was better for it.
But the collapse of exports left farmers with food but no one to sell it to, and debt from their purchases of tractors and no way to pay it.
Smoot-Hawley was not solely responsible for this. It is probable that as Europe entered the depression itself that US imports dropped. But Smoot-Hawley did not help. It certainly made things worse.
There are few if any economists that think that even unilateral free trade is not superior to protectionism.
The primary disagreement is over the scale of the negative impacts of protectionism.
Jay,
There is an enormous political problem with protectionism.
That is that it is politically attractive to a large body – particularly of working class voters.
Trump’s 2016 victory was not the result of Facebook Russians.
The single largest factor was that Trump moved enough rust belt working class democrats to vote for Trump to win PA, OH. WI, MI and nearly MN.
While there are alot of factors that drove that, Trumps promises of protectionist trade policies were a big factor. That combined with the fact that democrats not only could not articulate the great value to all americans – even those in the rust belt of free trade, but quite honestly democrats are not free traders. They too are protectionist – they just have chosen protectionist policies that do not favor the rust belt.
I will absolutely agree with you that Trump’s or anyone else’s protectionism is wrong.
But it has proven politically very effective for Trump.
What appears to be the good news – I hope is that what he has done is quite small.
The response has been quite small. But it has been politically effective. Trump’s trade policies ARE going to have an effect on the 2018 election – some negative, some positive. But probably net positive for Both Trump and republicans.
Further China is already squirming – they just offered Trump 70B/yr in increased Trade to drop the tarriffs – that is an increase that is almost HALF as large as our Trade with the EU.
One of the real great dangers here in the Game Trump is playing is that though the US economy is actually strong and growing the world economy is fragile.
China is absolutely dependent economically on exports to the US The drop as a consequence of the 2008-2009 recession was devestting for china. Worse it produces serious political unrest.
The good news is that Trump has China, the EU and much of the world over a barrel with respect to Trade. The bad news is that if he is not careful winning is losing. A recession in the EU and/or China would harm the US economy. It probably would NOT do more than bring us back to Obama levels of growth. But Trump will be blamed even if people do not understand how.
The other news is that If Trump gets concessions from other countries and drops his tarrifs, He gets to have his cake and eat it too. He will look strong to those blue collar democrats in the rust belt – he will look strong to the entire country, and if he does so without tanking the economy Democrats are in trouble.
“”Stand beside her, and guide her, Through the night, with a light from above”…From the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam, God Bless America, My home sweet home….”
Written by Irving Berlin…immigrant.
What do Graham (R), Ryan (R), Burr (R), Gowdy (R) and Schiff (D) have in common?
All have seen the classified documents. All now have publicly knocked down the “spygate” conspiracy that Trump and others have pushed for weeks.
The unproven Trump claim continues to pollute the truth.
And TRUMPANZEES continue to spout it.
No one who has seen the docs say they support Trump’s claims. But he keeps making it.
Fu*k them and the horse they rode in on.
Jay, Jay, Jay…. “Fu*k them and the horse they rode in on.”
Please, seeing you on that horse would be worse than Trumps sexual misconduct😂😂😂😂😈😈😈!
Remember, if you lie long enough and continue to lie enough, people will begin to believe the lie.
A lie is a lie. A politician is a politician. Those are interchangable in my mind. As liars, there are those like Burr, Warner and Manchin, then there are those like Trump and Pelosi. Trump lies about a spy. Pelosi blamed the tax cuts for SS problems. Both are totally meant to mislead the voters and are repeated multiple times to make it true.
Before you respond, remember I said I would vote for Manchin over Trump. But there is a line I will not cross on the progressive scale. I wont buy the progressive cool aide, nor Trumps. (And remember where the cool aide drinking occurred)
Sorry Ron but Halper was a SPY. Whatever else Trump has lied about, he has not lied about that.
The FBI/DOJ guidelines does not use the word SPY anywhere.
In the context of the FBI “spy” and “informant” mean the same thing.
In the courts the term used is usually government agent.
Spy, informant OR undercover agent. Whatever you want to call it, all law enforcement agencies have been using these tactics to uncover crime in most all types of companies and government agencies.
What makes a political campaign suspected of collusion any different. I am not so far Libertarian that I dont believe law enforcement should not be using any constitutionally acceptable way to identify crime. Even SCOTUS plants people in demonstrations to identify problems before they occur.
Sorry, if Trump did nothing wrong, then he should be telling Americans he did nothing wrong, that law enforcement suspected something, found nothing wrong and if they suspect criminal activity in any company or organuzation, he supports their investigating.
There are many things I disagree with government, but undercover stings, informants and law enforcement working in businesses like accounting to identify tax fraud or placing informants in medical facilities to identify Medicare fraud are not part of that issue.
You are correct – this is a valid law enforcement technique.
So is a predawn raid with automatic weapons and bursting down doors.
But we do not do that on a whim. We have rules, and law and the constitution to guide us.
The DOJ/FBI guidelines reflect those rules and laws, and the constitution.
I have noted there is actually far more basis for concluding that the Clinton campaign was colluding with the Russians, with the Ukrainians even arguably the DNC was “colluding” with Pakistan.
But no spies or informants were used against the DNC or HFA.
If you can not objectively grasp that the spying on the Trump campaign was improper, then perhaps you can understand it by comparision.
Manafort has ties to the Russian side of Ukrainian politics – not directly to Russia. But still inarguably ties. He received money from them.
Manafort was only part of the Trump campaign for about a month
Podesta has direct ties to Russians directly tied to Putin and he has received money from them.
Podesta was part of the clinton campaign from the begining.
Bill Clinton received money directly from influential russians. He and Hillary have every important Russian on speed dial including probably Putin.
Both campaigns sought dirt on each other from the Russians.
Carter Page was actually used by FBI to catch atleast 2 russian spies.
He was interviewed by the FBI about that – not about the Trump campaign in March 2016 BEFORE he joined the Trump campaign.
The FBI did not suspect him of being a russian agent a few days before joining the Trump campaign – but purportedly did a few days later.
The FBI did not open a counter intelligence operation against the Clinton campaign.
It did open one against Trump. It should be crystal clear that they weighed similar evidence – evidence overall more suspicious with respect to Clinton differently.
They looked at weaker evidence and found reason to proceed and stronger evidence and did not.
This is not about Trump or the Trump campaign.
This is about the misuse of the FBI for political purposes.
The FBI/DOJ did not come close to following its own rules.
It also did not come close to behaving politically neutrally.
But we are not done there. The flow of information and direction did NOT as is normal flow from the bottom up. The Clinton foundation investigation that was tanked from the top – started with agents in New York – not DC, it started from agents in the field not at the top of the pyramid. It started from the evidence, not from a desire to “get a political opponent”
Conversely we know that at the very latest – in March 2016 The Obama administration – Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, possibly Jarret or even Obama himself, Rice, Powers were involved in this.
There is further evidence this started in later 2015 not early 2016 and again started at the top.
We further know this administration has had no problems targetting political opponents – that is what Lerhner was doing at the IRS – where she was also involved in leaking the tax returns of political enemies
We know that CIA under Obama was actually spying on congress – and was caught.
Even Fienstein was furious.
We know that the Obama administration was spying on hostile journalists.
Some of this we can even tie to the whitehouse.
We have every reason to beleive – both from the facts and from the pattern of conduct that the Obama administration was politically corrupt. .
The articles of impeachment for Nixon include
Trying to use the CIA to investigate political opponents.
Trying to get information from tax returns from the IRS to use for political purposes.
Trying to use the Secret Service and FBI to investigate political opponents.
The articles of impeachment against Nixon could be used asis against Obama – except that Obama did not to our knowledge have anything to do with a burglarly – thought there are some questions regarding how the surveilance of Rosen and Attkins were conducted
The “I did nothing wrong and therefore you are free to investigate out the whazzoo”
Is not and never has been the standard for investigations in the US.
We do not investigate our citizens without sufficient cause.
The right to privacy and specifically the 4th amendment mean we have the right to be left alone – not until something thinks we did something – but until there is evidence that it is more likely than not that we did something.
This is not about Trump, it is about whether we live in a police state.
The argument you seem to me making is that innocent people must allow themselves to be investigated. Only the guilty are bothered by invasions of their privacy.
That is not this country – or it was not supposed to be.
Suspected of criminal activity has a meaning, while it is not required that be proven to start an investigation, the standard is higher than I think that.
As an example – “my neighbor is a terrorist” – is not enough to start an investigation.
“my neighbor has alot of fertilizer stacked up outside his house is – if the FBI can confirm the presence of the fertilizer.
Vague statements of suspicion are not enough and you would not want them to be.
After 2 years of investigation – what I have seen of evidence TODAY is barely enough to get a warrant – for SOME people, for SOME things.
Though actually it is worse than that because increasingly there are a few things that are actually WEAKER now than a few months ago.
Worse we increasingly know what the FBI knew and when it knew it – and they have never had close to enough to justify what they were doing at the tim.
Trump has been telling people from DAY ONE that he did nothing wrong.
But no – he should not be saying FBI/DOJ/Mueller can go wherever they please.
Private individuals and organizations have the right to privacy – that should be a tautology.
The government does not.
You say Trump should allow the FBI to dig wherever they please.
In fact he has done close to exactly that. While he has been publicly nasty, Trump has not actually resisted a single request for information from Mueller.
Whitewater lasted forever because Clinton fought everything – relatively quietly.
But absolutely everything.
Trump’s lawyers have noted – that Mueller has the entirety of the transistion teams records – despite the fact that is improper and likely illegal.
They have the campaigns entire records, they have millions of documents from the whitehouse.
Nixon fought everything. Reagan fought, Bush I fought, Clinton fought everything like a tiger.
Trump has not taken a single Manafort request to court yet.
He has threatened and drawn lines in the sand, but he has not acted.
AT THE SAME TIME
DOJ/FBI have fought tooth and nail every request by congress or every FOIA request.
They have fought and lost. The have fought lost and still resisted. They have redacted almost everything. They have been caught redacting the embarrasing information – such as the cost of McCabes table, rather than things that have any connection to sources and methods.
They have fought and resisted despite the fact that the President, and the AG, and the FBI director have demanded cooperation.
Rosenstein has baldly asserted an individual power to determine who gets to see what – a power that neither congress nor the AG, nor the president can overrule and one found nowhere in the constitution.
If there is any “obstruction of justice” it is by DOJ/FBI.
BTW while the 18 usc 15xx obstrcution laws do not apply to Trump they do apply to DOJ/FBI.
Failure to provide congress with infomation they demand as part of a congressional hearing is
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – it meets every element of the law.
To deprive information to congress, Rosenstein would have to assert an exective priviledge – natonal security is an executive priviledge. But all executive priviledges belong SOLELY to the president.
The government may not target people to investigate them for tax fraud absent a credible allegation or evidence that they are engaged in doing so.
As an example the FBI can not send an informant into CHUP to find out if they are engaged in medicare fraud.
But if medicare find evidence of questionable billings, or someone from inside CHUP comes forward, or some other credible evidence of medicare fraud is provided to them – they can.
If I walk into the FBI and say – I think CHUP is engaged in medicare fraud – that is not enough.
The same would apply to IRS investigations.
Please read the actual statements and interviews of these people.
Gowdy was horribly cherry picked – in an interview where he damned Comey and McCabe and said Trump was justifiably angry about what had been done to him, the ONE LINE that the FBI had done nothing wrong became for idiots like you a rejection of every other word Gowdy said.
Graham has EXPLICITLY called for Rosenstein to recuse.
Ryan’s statement had LOTS of qualifiers in it that you fail to mention.
Schiff is without integrity and credibility.
He claimed more than a year ago that he had seen PROOF of collusion.
It has been over a year, everything in creation has leaked most of which have proven false.
That you beleive Schiff about anything challenges your own credibility.
And again – why are we rehashing all of this.
You complain about the frequency of my posts, but any time anyone says “argh!Trump” on twitter we get a long series of these
“see there is someone else saying bad things about trump” posts.
Guess what we all know that people in politics spin things all the time.
Get over it.
You’re as full of crap as ever.
Even Shepherd Smith at Fox just disagreed, again, with your idiotic POV.
He reported the same list of spygate naysayers, adding at the end that Fox News (not Fox Propaganda) agreed, there was/is no truth in the accusation. Then he shrugged and said, ‘but there are some who still don’t get it.’ And shrugged again in frustration at their stupidity.
You truly are worthy of those kinds of shrugs, Dave.
The gowdy clip is readily available on Youtube. It is about 7m long. Most of it is a defense of Trump, and attack on the DOJ/FBI handling of Trump.
You fixate on a single line that purportedly negates the entire rest of the interview.
Gowdy has repeatedly excorriated Comey, McCabe and others at the top of DOJ/FBI,
He has also made it clear that he is attacking misconduct by individuals not the institutions.
Gowdy has also said the Mueller investigation should be allowed to complete but that he expects based on what Mueller has actually made public that Mueller will find nothing.
Ryan’s actual quited remarks are not nearly what you claim.
As I noted Graham is calling for Rosenstein to Recuse
What these people have actually said is readily available.
Your arguments are completely insane – they are these twisted double hearsay appeals to authority out of context.
I disagree with Gowdy – I do not think the Mueller investigation is constitutional, and I do not think Mueller is the right person to be heading it.
Any investigation of Trump or the Trump campaign MUST be conducted by congress or someone under congress.
Any counter intelligence investigation can be conducted by the normal FBI.
I also think Gowdy is far too deferential to institutions.
But I like Gowdy alot, and he is right about an awful lot.
I would remind you that Gowdy is the ACTUAL author of the “nunes memo’
You do not get to pretend Gowdy is some non-partisan expert in one breath and then condemn him has highly partisan in another.
With respect to “spying”.
Go read the DOJ/FBI guidelines. Find the part where the DOJ/FBI talks about “spying”
You will not find it. Because the word “spy” does not occur.
The DOJ/FBI describes that as using “informants”.
You are engaged in a bad semantic game.
It is especially bad because Halper is a CIA/MI6 asset. Most of us think SPY when we thing CIA/MI6. Almost everyone whose name crops up in the UK anti-Trump operation is a “SPY”.
Finally the specific word is not particularly important.
Again go back to the DOJ/FBI manual. Several FBI counter intelligence agents have come forward.
The DOJ/FBI has rigorous guidlines for every step in the process. Those steps WERE NOT FOLLOWED.
In Strzok/Pages texts is a long rant related to another case specifically about congress handicapping the DOJ/FBI with rules.
Strzok wanted to interview someone. but that person had a lawyer. Page suggested getting a “source” outside the FBI to talk to him. Strzok respond that he could not do that as congress had made it illegal. That the FBI was forbidden to do through sources what thy were forbidden to do directly.
We are about to get IG Horrowitz’s report on the Clinton investigation.
Many Trump supporters are expecting a damning indictment.
I will wait for the report.
But it has already leaked that it is very hard on Comey and McCabe and Lynch.
and the conduct of the investigation.
There is ZERO reason to beleive that the Trump investigation was conducted with any less political bias or corruption than the Clinton investigation.
I am not interested in double standards.
One law – the same for everyone.
That was my comment, hit the send too fast..
Dave, you have no problem with this, right.?
“
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday that would allow states to regulate marijuana without federal interference. “
Warren and Gardner, who both represent states with legal recreational pot, introduced the legislation, known as Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, as a response to the Trump administration’s hard-line stance against the drug.
Jay you ask Dave, but I will also chime in.
I fully support this, but it does not go far enough unless it fully decriminalizes growing, selling, distributing, transporting, possession and money transactions from that product in any form at the federal level. Yes, let the states control at their level.
But since compromise is required to even get a small step forward, its a good start.
Wonder how much cartel money will flow into some do-gooder organization set up by the cartels specifically to address social issues for the sole purpose to keep prohibition on marijuana. Can you image the billions they will lose with all states relaxing the laws?
My problem would be that it does not go far enough.
I would get rid of drug laws ENTIRELY.
State and federal.
But that is not going to happen.
So this is atleast a first step.
I hope this passes – but I doubt it.
There are too many D’s and R’s opposed.
It is another of those issuess that have both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition.
Well well well.. all three of us in agreement!
I am usually consistent in my comments that one can not pick and choose the laws they want to follow. Dont like the law, change it. But when state and federal law conflict, then you can choose and that makes no sense.
My wife and I are going up to Eureka, in Northern CA next month.
Guess what the largest ‘growing’ business is up there?
Want me to buy you some local Brownies?
What has that done to the illegal growing that was taking place in remote areas up north. I remember a few years ago PBS did a piece on the pot growing on remote areas and how one could get shot being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I monitor the local Eureka paper on line.
Yes, still illegal growers who occasionally are busted.
I guess their prices are lower than the licensed places, and no prescription or registering is required.
I don’t imbibe that kinda recreational drug.. I’m Irish Whiskey, with beer chasers.
But if I learn anything more about the pot trade, I’ll let you know. 😼
Trump has said he will sign the Warren/Corker bill if it gets to him.
You would have to mail them to me and that is a federal crime.
Further my State PA has only legalized medical use and is being ridiculously anal about it.
Finally, though I will probably have a brownie when I can do so legally,
I personally have very little interest in drugs.
I do not think I have ever been drunk in my life – though I was atleast impaired 3 times.
I have never used any illegal drug.
I did get “high” on demerol, when at 25 doctors took a chainsaw to my chest and reomoved a part of my right lung. I still remember the demerol to this day and can understand why people would take opiates – the Demerol was incredible.
I have also had Morphine for surgery twice in my life – I do not remember it at all.
This is a Dog and Pony Show.
The US will get nothing but ‘the check’s in the Mail” concession, which Trump will inflate into Fox News peacock prancing and Dave will parse into Noble Prize rationalizations
Sorry Jay – but I do not have high expectations for this summit.
I have high hopes and low expectations.
Brennan was not ever FBI director, but he is correct that NK could wreak havoc on Seol.
The first 48 hours of a new korean war would have more casualties than all US engagements from Vietnam to the present – even if it did not go nuclear, and that is the BEST CASE.
I do not think Trump should get a Peace Prize – though he might get one regardless of my thoughts. I do not think Obama should have gotten one either.
I think Trump could easily blow this.
But I give him props for trying.
I think there is a small possibility of a quick deal that ultimately amounts to the rapid disolution of NK while Min and family walk away very wealthy and protected.
The odds of that are small and it will not appear that way initially no matter what is agreed to.
More likely there will be endless talks and at best tiny steps forward.
But that is better than further nuclear development.
From what I read NK wants a deal, China wants a deal, Trump wants a deal Japan wants a deal,
SK wants a deal.
There are 3 large areas:
China, SK. NK, and Trump want US forces out of SK.
China wants to diminish the US role in Asia and enhance its own.
Trump just wants the troops out.
The US, SK, China, Japan want the nukes out.
No one in Asia wants a nuclear NK.
Kim has what is essentialy one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the most advanced people. He wants his people to join the modern world.
It is likely if he can not manage that he will lose power one way or another.
Emanuel Macron today:
“The American President may not mind being isolated, but neither do we mind signing a 6 country agreement if need be. Because these 6 countries represent values, they represent an economic market which has the weight of history behind it and which is now a true international force.”
What a wonderful role model Trump is for future diplomacy with allies.
Trump is like the drunk uncle who shows up to a family dinner and gets abusive with his relatives because he doesn’t like the seating arrangements:
The economies of the entire G-7 – except the US are fragile and either in or teetering on recession at the moment. While the US economy would be hurt but not likely go into recession as a result of any of this.
The economic leverage Trump has is enormous.
Macrone is posturing and the european leaders know it.
See, my criticism of Dufus Donald is mild…
I honestly do not know what to say.
Except maybe that if Kim is 100 times the negotiator Donald is, then he is 10,000 times the negotiator Obama was.
Trump may blow this.
Obama could not even get it started.
So, pontificate.
Tell me what positive outcomes you see for the US, and the resulting negatives for what we will give up to make Donnie Popinjay prance
There is plenty of analysis out there that you can read.
We do not know enough about haw bad things are in NK and how fraught with risk Kim’s position is. Though there hints that NK is in trouble.
Last time they were in serious trouble a million people died before we knew.
What we do know is that China wants a deal, and China has incredible leverage with Kim and for the first time has been prepared to use it.
China wants:
To both be and be perceived as a huge power in Asia.
I think a deal require China to publicly get alot of credit – particularly domestically.
US forces out of Korea completely that is both and actual threat and a symbolic threat to China and its self image in Asia.
I beleive NK, SK also want that. Trump wants that. Japan does not want that. US State, defense, and intelligence do not want that.
It will be interesting to see how that resolves.
Nukes out of Korea.
What China wants with respect to the Korea’s is complex too.
Its perfect world solution would unify Korea and have Korea as a powerful chinese ally.
But a unified Korea is also a threat.
SK has an economy that is 2T – about 1/8 that of China with a fraction of the population.
They have a very high economic freedom rank.
If NK and SK unified and NK raised rapidly to SK standards that would be a 4T economy right next to them. That would be like having TWO Japans (plus Tiawan) right next door.
That could be good or very bad for china.
China wants LESS us influence in Asia and more chinese influence.
—–
So what are YOU prepared to deal ?
You avoided answering my question: about US benefits.
I can tell you what I think the US benefits of a deal are.
All benefits are contingent on reaching an agtreement.
I do not expect that from Singapore.
Regardless, are you really saying there is nothing that the US COULD want ?
This could become a bad deal. But it is not yet, because there is no deal.
Can this be true?
Or totally false?
(Remember, Trump has appeared in two or three soft core porn movies)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/391159-brzezinski-trump-friend-told-me-his-biggest-complaint-is-he
I do not care.
Nor do I beleive that Brezinsky knows.
This would be sufficient evidence for an investigation.
Jay, heard about new water rules in CA. 55 gallons a day. Do they monitor that daily or is it an average of 55 per day (1600 per month, 4800 per quarter). Are almond growers restricted in the amount they can draw?
What I find so interesting is some of the taxes in CA impact those that the progressives say they support. Seems like this hits the poorer families since they are the ones with the larger families requiring more water than the rich old farts or those with just a couple kids. Even if the “,fines” are spread, the higher users are still paying more and they are still larger families.
“Fine” = tax and has Jerry Brown ever seen a tax he doesnt love?
You need to get water into a free market.
Where you pay for what you use.
That will encourtage people to conserve – consistent with the cost.
It will also encourage innovative efforts to produce more water.
Desalinization is an infinite source of water limited only by current costs.
Tell people they can profit selling water and they will find a way to reduce the cost.
The entire purpose of free market is to distribute and eliminate scarcity.
Nothing is more effective.
IF CA moved water to the market there would likely be a brief spike in water prices, but over the long run they would decline and the issue would fade from our consciousness.
Moving water to a free market would also mean that water would be used proportionate to its value. Farmers would use more or less – depending on the value water added to their crops.
It is possible that CA farming would decline substantially – in favor of bring in produce from places where water was cheaper. It is also possible that CA farming would increase – a high demand for water for farms would drive more innovative ways to get water.
Putting water into a market would effect watering grass, pools, golf clubs, ….
It would make all consumers of water scale their consumption relative to the value of that water for their specific use.
President Konpromat
You really will not let go. Trump authorized US forces in syria to engage russian forces that interfered with US operations. In other words he told US pilots they could KILL Russians if they interfered.
Does that sound like a Russian puppet ?
The entirely of Trump Mideast policy is innimical to russian interests.
Contra the left the US under Obama was actually moving TOWARDS better relations with Russia prior to the election. The punishment of Russia only started AFTER the left lost unexpectedly.
Who do you think the Uranium One Deal was with ?
Do you understand that John Podesta alone has more russian ties and investment than the entire Trump campaign ?
Forgive me if you addressed this in another subsequent message, but dont forget that Obama let Russia take Crimea and the eastern 1/2 of Ukraine and basically did nothing. The worst was a “now now, bad boy” slap on the hand with sanctions of individuals with substantial resources and influence who provided material support to the Russian leadership and any bank that supported them.
And before anyone ask, I said many times here that military support short of boots on the ground should have been provided and it was not for the most part.
But then this is Trump and he will catch holy hell from never-Trumpers while those same individuals gave Obama a pass on Crimea.
Not only did Obama allow Russia to take Crimea, but afterwords he allowed them to buy control of 1/5 of US uranium.
If anyone was Putin’s puppet Obama was.
All this “Oh my god Russia” stuff started Nov. 9th.
It is disengenuous. The only anti-Trump/antu-Russia people who are the slightest genuine are Neo-Conns. Most of ijust drowning in hypocracy over Russia.
They would forgive Russia anything in a heartbeat EXCEPT their delusion that Russia is responsible for Trump.
There ya go again, as full of shit as ever.
Russia has control of 20% of Uranium that can only be sold INSIDE AMERICAN BORDERS.They can’t even determine the price, that’s determined by the market.
“Uranium One, which is now wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. But U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase the vast majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers, according to the EIA.”
And what exactly are you accusing Obama of NOT DOING.?
Not initiating a military conflict? Even McCain who was critical of the Obama non response admitted that there was no military option that made sense in the Crimea. But Obama did get Russia dumped from the G-8 in punishment.
Now Putin’s Puppet wants them back in.
And in exchange for what?
Is he bargaining for their removal from Crimea?
No.
Is he bargaining with them to cease interfearing in our future election?
No. Most. Likely. The. Opposite.
It’s a payback for past help and future help.
Anyone with a rational mind (that leaves you out) by now knows Russian has compromising kompromat on Traitorous trump.
And to remind you what Trump’s initial response was to the Russian invasion, here’s his tweet at the time:
.@realDonaldTrump: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
“Russia has control of 20% of Uranium that can only be sold INSIDE AMERICAN BORDERS.They can’t even determine the price, that’s determined by the market.”
1), I do not care – how is that not getting deeper in bed with Russia than letting them back in the G7 ?
The outrage over Russia is fake. Lefties love Russia, except when they are falsely blaming it for ruining their election. And that is the point. If Clinton had won she would be fawning over Russia.
2). You are correct that the U1 deal lines sales to inside the US. You are incorrect that the deal is being followed.
3). You completely missunderstand all remarks about the U1 deal.
I do not actually care about the details of the deal itself. I do not oppose it.
But I do care about the political corruption associated with the deal.
I do care about hiding that corruption from congress. I do care about idiot leftists claiming they hate Russia and that Trump is evil for not hating Russia the way they do, when but fo the election of Trump they would be in bed with Russia and as little as 3 years ago they were (and actually still are).
It is called hypocracy.
Clinton is actually responsible for triggering the coup that resulted in the Russian invasion of Crimea.
No I did not support war with Russia over the Ukraine – but if you actually follow the history the US – under Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama provided the Ukrainians with an implicit agreement to defend them when we forced Ukraine to turn control of Nukes in Ukraine back to Russia, and force the Ukraine to turn over control of militaty and naval bases and the fleet in Ukraine to Russia at the collapse of the USSR.
We essentially deprived them of the tools of self defense and deterence and then were surprised when Russia bullied them arround militarily.
This is true throughout the region – Georgia was being invaded during to 2008 election.
McCain did say we could not put boots on the ground.
That is NOT our only choice.
And McCain did not say – cosey up to Russia like a whore – which is what we did under Obama.
Yes Obama has rarely taken a few negative actions towards Russia. But so did Neville Chamberlain regarding Germany.
The point is you can not fault Trump for overall being TOUGHER on Russia than Obama.
Trump has disembowered Russia in the mideast.
He has helped the EU reduce their dependence on Russia Natural Gas, in some instanes providing a US guaratee of gas supplies.
Frankly I think Trump is crassly using Russia and Putin not the otherway arround.
He grasps that Putin is ambitious and is trying to steer those ambitions in ways that serves Trump.
Russia re-entering the G8/7 disempowers the EU and makes dealing with individual nations easier. Trump emphasized bilateral rather than multi-laterall negotiations.
Russia in the EU make it easier for Trump to negotiate direction with the UK. And later Frane and Germany.
A unified EU has enormous power negotiating with the US.
Any individual nation is at great disadvantage negotiating with the US.
It is also far easier to reach bi-lateral than multi-lateral deals
You claim to know alot that we not only have no evidence of, but is increasingly unlikely each day.
We KNOW that no matter how you spin it Russia did not collude with Trump via Carter Page Papadoulis, Manafort or Trump Jr. In fact we know that Mueller has not indicted anyone on the Trump campaign for anything actually related to Russia, and that he has thus far found no meaningful ties to Russia.
While cursory exaniniation of the Clinton campaign finds far more.
You claim to know something – what you claim to know requires that things that have been diligently searched for but not found are still somehow true.
What you claim to know is less credible than Grassy Knowl consiracy theories.
#Russia’s state TV:
Dean of Moscow state University:
“The EU is coming apart at the seams —thanks to American God & voters, Trump is smashing it with a sledgehammer. That’s why Putin says he isn’t trying to weaken the EU. Why would he bother? Trump is doing all the work for him.”
The EU is coming apart at the seems.
But neither Trump nor Russia are significant factors.
The failure of the EU was predicted widely at its inception, it has been a miracle that it has survived this long.
The largest problem with the EU is that its financial problems are too large for Germany to fix.
In the long list of EU problems – Trump does not make the list.
It should be expected that Trump will be odd man out at the G7 – as nearly all the G7 is headed into Recession while the US has strengthening growth.
Trump and the rest of the G7 have completely different goals and problems.
I suspect Trump is aware of this. As much as Trump’s protectionist threats terrify me, Trump holds a huge club – Trump can threaten to screw up global trade and the biggest losers will be everybody else.
I would expect the G7 to bitch and moan, but I expect that they will give Trump much of what he wants. They have a choices between bad and worse. giving Trump what he wants is the least bad alternative.
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) excoriated President Trump on Friday for calling on Russia to be invited back to the Group of Seven, blasting the move as the “antithesis” of principled realism and “a sure path to diminishing America’s leadership in the world.”
He became the third Republican senator to condemn Trump’s statement that the G-7, a group of major industrial powers, should not be meeting this weekend in Quebec without Russia.
McCain contrasted Trump’s friendly words for Russia to his hard-line negotiating tactics with allies such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union on trade.
“The president has inexplicably shown our adversaries the deference and esteem that should be reserved for our closest allies,” McCain said in a statement.
“Those nations that share our values and have sacrificed alongside us for decades are being treated with contempt. This is the antithesis of so-called ‘principled realism’ and a sure path to diminishing America’s leadership in the world,” he added.”
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on Friday slammed President Trump’s call to reinstate Russia in the G-7, a group of major industrial powers.
“This is weak. Putin is not our friend and he is not the President’s buddy,” Sasse said in a statement, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin, after Trump said that Russia should participate in the G-7 summit.
We will see just how upset the mainline GOP is with Trump and his foreign policies toward Russia, the EU and trade. That will happen in the fall of 2019 if its going to happen.
Will the leadership of the GOP unite behind ONE candidate to challenge Trump for the GOP nomination and find a way to keep 10 others off ballots so its Trump v one Republican.
That candidate can run on a GOP agenda of continued domestic growth with a return of support for European allies. ie sensible foreign policy.
As for the EU crumbling, Trump has nothing to do with that. They brought that on because Brussels began governing like Washington DC. Shoving policies down countries throats they refused to follow or shoving economic policies they disliked. Britian had Brexit due to immigration and other issues and Italy wants to leave due to economic policies. The nice thing they have is voters can vote and approve leaving the EU. We are stuck with DC shoving dung down our throats and we have no alternative although we have the tenth amendment that is basically impotent today.
What will matter is what Trump accomplishes of consequence.
I do not presume to know Trump’s exact thinking regarding Russia and the G7 – bu my guess is that it is a deliberate effort to weaken the G7.
Obama was a multilateralist – as were most US leaders since Bush I.
Trump is a unilateralist. He wants direct 1-1 negotiations with individual nations.
You can argue the merits of either arrangement, but the US has far more leverage in unilateral negotiations.
Trump is now talking of scrapping NAFTA for separate agreements with Mexico and Canada.
That is very Trumpian.
You can expect that Trump will try to weaken groups like NATO, G7, TPP, …in favor of either unilateral negotiations or multilateral negotiations outside of groups.
Putin is not our friend. In fact no nation in the G7 can be truly said to be out friend.
Our most friendly relations are the other anglo nations – UK, CA, NZ, AU
India has a larger economy than Russia and Nukes – though Russia has more nukes than any other country – including the US.
India has no borders with any G7 countries – Russia does,
India is connected to England but not the rest of the EU or G7, Russia is.
Just to be clear – I do not care about about the G7 or about whether Russia is in or out.
You want to beleive keeping them out is good – OK, make an argument.
I think the in argument is better than the out argument,
but the entire debate is of very low consequence.
You don’t care if Russia is in or out because you’re a Dunce.
This is what one of your heros has to say about it. Imagine him staring you in the face while he’s saying it, the veins in his neck throbbing with contempt for your Dunce delusions:
“You don’t care if Russia is in or out because you’re a Dunce.”
I do not care because I do nto think the G7 matters much.
“This is what one of your heros has to say about it.”
Nothing McCarthy is saying was not also true at the time Obama inked the U1 deal.
You seem to think there are only two choices – Russia the ally or Russia our mortal enemy.
Russia acts in Russia interests, The US acts in the US interests – we hope, that was not true under Obama. Sometimes we agree sometimes we don’t.
Russia has behaved very badly – Iran has too. So have the Saudi’s. …..
The russian economy is inconsequential. Russian Trade is insignificant,
Why shouldn’t trump want Russia in the G7 ?
Once you get past your false narative on the election, while Russia should be dealt with carefully Russian interests and US interests sometime align.
I would further note Russia is a permanant member of the UN Security council – nothing is accomplished without them. Excluding Russia today makes no sense.
I like McCain, he is still wrong.
Yo, boob, whose interests align more?
Ours with Russia?
Or ours with the G-7 nations?
You really are an idiotic jerk off.
“Yo, boob, whose interests align more?”
Do I care ? Do we only talk to and work with countries whose interests are aligned with ours ?
We are working with China to reign in NK – btw Russian has some small influence with NK also.
“Or ours with the G-7 nations?”
On some issues – we are closer to the G7 on others Russia.
Most ot the time our interests are ours, and theirs are theirs.
I know I’m hypercritical of Trump, but one thing I have to admit, he’s certainly loyal to the country that elected him:
“Russia orchestrated an attempted assassination with a chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom, our most powerful ally. Shortly thereafter, Trump has labeled Britain a national security threat while calling to reward Russia with renewed international legitimacy.”
@brianklaas
It was not a “chemical weapon” it was a poison.
While political assassination is fully consistent with Putin the post histeria analysis suggests non-russian sources.
All this is complex – as with the DNC hacking, because just as even script kiddies through out the world can make a hack look like it came from Russia, Russia can make one look like it did not.
The same is true of political assassination.
The primary evidence against Russia is Cui Bono
This is among your most STUPIDO comments.
And is why I find you to be a ridiculous Pedantic Putz, Dave.
They were ‘poisoned’ by a ‘chemical’ nerve agent.
And who describes it as a chemical nerve agent poisoning?
Everyone with a functioning brain, including Vil Mirzayanov, the Russian emigre to the U.S. and chemical weapons specialist who helped develop the poison.
No jay the comment is not stupid – you just do not follow the news past the first splashy headlines.
The poison used according to Porton Downs was of Russian origen and of unusual purity.
Russia has demanded a review by interntional experts and denies responsibility.
Putin absolutely has the motive and the means, and Putin has a history of political assassination and of long memories.
Those things alone mean it is likely Russia did it.
But this stuff is far harder to prove than you think.
There are questions about the poison used and the IK has good reason to blame Russia no matter who did it.
Further as noted in the DNC hacking conditions today are such that it is impossible to trace these things to a specific country using scientific evidence – because the ability toi fake evidence or run a false flag operation is so ubiquitous that no truly capable expert will tie any act to another nation based on technical evidence – it is far too easy to fake. or setup.
Further there are experts now claiming the poison did not come from Russia.
Because of the technical issues there are infinite possibilities.
The poison might no be russian and russia still might have done it..
The poison might be russian and still Russia may not have done it.
BTW you do know the chemical weapons attack on Duoma was almost certainly a fraud.
There are no actual outside eyewitnesses, the video’s are altered and inconsistent with claims,
The scale was tiny compared to what was claimed.
This is not being reported, because no one wants to here that Assad mught not have used chemical weapons.
You really are clueless as to how hard it truly is to establish responsibility purely from technical evidence when powerful nation states are involved.
The most compelling evidence is that this is Putin’s style, russia has motive, and no one else does.
That is really all the evidence that is no easily faked or double faked.
Free markets work – baltic edition.
The rules for college aid disincentivize savings, IRA’s investment, and work in the parents of college students.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4032
This is what the petulant insecure anus-brain President just said:
“Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!”
That after saying hours earlier that his relationships with Trudeau and the other G-7 members was a ‘10’ …
That you don’t admit how deleterious to our diplomatic and economic interests this pompous asshole is speaks volumes of your own phlegmatic density.
I hope a flock of Canadian geese drops some of their internal exports on Trump’s head. That my equalize the trade deficit, since we export more to Canada than they do to us.
“Canada is currently our 2nd largest goods trading partner with $582.4 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2017. Goods exports totaled $282.5 billion; goods imports totaled $300.0 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $17.5 billion in 2017.”
Does this guy ever speak the truth?
“Does this guy ever speak the truth? ”
Yep, at least once.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/a-guide-to-understanding-the-dairy-dispute-between-the-us-andcanada/article34802291/
If NAFTA is about trade and the F stands for “free”, why the 270% tariff on dairy?
Free is free! Its not free where I say its free and tariffs to protect my countries farmers.
If we cant sell our dairy cheaper in Canada, then why should they be able to sell steel in America and destroy our steel industry.
Free trade IS free trade. We ship a car to Europe, 20% tariff. They ship one here, 2%. Why the difference. Shipped to China, 25%, Buicks produced in China and sold here, 0%. Why the difference?
I dont support trade wars, but at some point why do we bend over and let them screw our companies with tariffs and we let theirs in free?
If this were Obama, everyone would think he was wonderful looking out for American companies.
Relax, Chill. did you expect something from the G7 ?
I didn’t.
I do not expect anything from Singapore either – beyond more talks.
I doubt that Trump’s relationships with the G7 are a 10.
Nor do I think that Obama;s better relations with foriegn leades had any value with respect to US interests.
I am concerned about Trump’s protectionist traits – and I always have been, and I watch it closely.
I would note that the entire G7 and the entire EU is highly protectionist.
I linked the financial analysis of Trump’s Tarrif increases already – 0.15% increase in inflation – if they all occurr and theyre is no agreement.
Looks like China and Trump are going to reach and agreement.
I expect that Trump and Canada will too.
One of the reasons I expected nothing from G7 is that is the wrong forum for Trump.
It is an environment he can get ganged up on.
One-One the US has far more power.
I will bet that Trump negotiates deals with Canada, China, the UK. and the rest have to fall in.
Trudeau is an idiot, he can go rejoin person kind.
But in the end he is going to work a deal with Trump. It is in Canada’s interest.
I do not think Trump cares much about Macron. France is not especially useful to us.
Merkel and May are more important.
Ultimately there will be a deal with the UK as well as with Germany.
According to Larry Kudlow – Trudeau blew things up for his own political gain.
That the negotiations went very well and Trump’s offer of a completely free trade deal was not something after things blew up, but being actively discussed and close tot he direction that the G7 was headed – Until Trudeau’s Press conference.
Kidlow says that Trump and everyone was getting along well in private and making great progress.
Just to be clear – Trudeau is free to say whatever he wants to the press.
But what you say has consequences.
Trump was headed directly from the G7 to Singapore.
Kudlow says that Trump’s response to Trudeau and the G7 was to a large extent driven by the impending NK summit.
That Trudeau’s press conference left unanswered would leave Trump in a weak position with Kim Un.
By walking away from the G7 agreement – something Kudlow says (and most agree) will ultimately be resolved anyway, Trump send Kim a message that he will walk away from any deal that he does nto like. That no one has him over a barrel.
You can disagree with that assessment. And if you get elected President you will get to make the decision.
I do not think the Kudlow interview was very good. But if you get past the fact that Kudlow is uncomforatable in front of the camera as a government representative rather than as a pundit, he points were good.
Russia is an equal opportunity disturber/influencer.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
You idiots seem to think Russia – a third rate economy, is somehow satan incarnate and able to do what Trump and Clinton are not able to – win lost elections.
I guess we are going to see much more of this – “oh my godm there are only 3 degress of separation between person X and Putin for a long time to come.
An idiot response from an idiot.
It’s useless to try to reason with idiots, ddduck.
Doubly fruitless when it’s an erudite idiot like Dave: arguing with him is like contesting people like John Hathorne the Salem magistrate-prosecutor who sent witches to death in exquisitely phrased legal rationalizations that now, from our historical perspective, reek of asinine judgement-corrupting assumptions
Trump is the enemy.
As are those who back him.
Words have meaning.
Reason is not linking to every tweet by every #nevertrumper on the internet demonstrating that they are still #nevertrumpers.
It is not frothing at the mouth and taking offense and claiming that absolutely everything Trump does is the end of the world as we know it.
Reason, logic, facts are immutable They do not change over time.
Errors in logic and reasoning are demonstrable, they are not questions of faith.
No Trump is not the enemy. That is an assinine assertion. It is the same garbage of those who push a war on drugs or poverty or this garbage about Russia.
People use words like Enemy and War when they seek to justify the use force when it would not otherwise be justifiable.
Trump was elected, without your vote, without mine. He is president.
You can remove him in 2020, or by appeachment.
In the meantime he remains president.
You are free to oppose his policices and actions – and to act legitimately to thwart them.
But the use of emotionally loaded language is just an effort to justify going beyond the actions you are permitted to do.
It is also an effort to avoid reason, logic, facts.
You are no different from the drug warriors. You are no different from Trump allowing the pretense that every immigrant is a criminal and every muslim a terrorist.
Trudeau, Macron, Merkell, May – government other countries not this one.
They are at the summit to protect their own countries and address their own problems.
It is in the US interests and Trumps to cooperate – where cooperation is mutually beneficial.
It is not in the US or Trump’s interest to cooperate for no reason at all.
The US is not responsible for and should not interfere in the problems of Germany or France.
If you wish to argue that Trump should have “cooperated” with the rest of the G7 – WHY ?
Make an Argument. What is the benefit to the US ?
You constantly make this argument that Trump’s abrasiveness is destructive of US interests.
How so ?
Is your neighbor entitled to your cooperation as a right ?
If your neighbor wants to borrow your lawn mower – there may be good reason to agree to do so.
But there is no right or obligation.
I am not sure that Trump is right about all his choices. But whether he is right or wrong depends on facts, and us interests. Not some bizarre construct of solidarity.
None of these countries are our friends – no matter what we say. Nor are they are enemies.
Our interests are often aligned and sometimes not.
Exactly the same is true of Russia.
Do make an argument – on based on facts and reason. and logic.
You are the one with the connection to Hathorne
Do you have an argument ?
Have you ever had an argument ?
Have you ever had anything but ad hominem ?
Trump is a threat to our security, our livelihoods, our future.
Anyone with a functioning cerebellum knows it:
“Trump is a threat to our security, our livelihoods, our future.
Anyone with a functioning cerebellum knows it:”
And yet, taxes go down, jobs go up the economy is growing.
It this is “a threat to our security, our livelihoods, our future.”
Please sir can I have more.
I am pretty sure a functioning Cerebellum precludes seeking poverty, high taxes and a stagnant economy,
Asserting something does nto make it true.
For what it’s worth I only see one idiot on this thread. Others with whom I disagree have their views and I respect them, and if I wish, can have a discussion with.
Talking to a written tower of Babel is not my idea of discourse.
Your not interested in any discussion where you are expected to make an argument to support your positions.
You claim not to be on the left but you have internalized the same post modernist bunk that all arguments are equal – well except those you do not like.
And cut the crap.oblique insults when everyone knows who and what you are talking about just makes you look cowardly.
If you have an issue or an opponion – make your best argument for it.
One of the purposes of free speach and free exchange is to test idea and opinions.
If you are unwilling to argue your positions, if you are unwilling to subject them to criticism why bother to speak ?
Or did I stumble into a group therapy session ?
Discourse, discussion, political or other debate is to determine what ideas, viewpoints positions hold up to scrutiny, to logic, to reason, to facts.
If you want to express your viewpoint without disent, without debate, without criticism – find a therapist.
If you think your views have merit you should want them to be subject to relentless criticism to see if they hold up.
John McCain just now:
“To our allies: bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization & supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values. Americans stand with you, even if our president doesn’t.”
Have you taken your head out of your ass yet Dave?
When was the last time so major members of the party in power were publically announcing disgust with their president.?
“To our allies: bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization”
I can agree with that.
“supportive of alliances based on 70 years”:
George Washington would differ – and infact did, read his fairwell address, I am with Washington.
“Americans stand with you, even if our president doesn’t.”
False binary, or black and white fallacy.
“Have you taken your head out of your ass yet Dave?”
Ad hominem.
“When was the last time so major members of the party in power were publically announcing disgust with their president.?”
Bill Clinton – or am I wrong, were democrats so in the tank they supported a perjuring rapist engaged in federal workplace sexual misconduct.
Regardless, you seem to think there is only one possibility with regard to Trump,
To beleive that not only is everything he does wrong – but it is all the impending end of the world.
I am not happy about Trump on Trade.
But it is not the end of the world.
It is unlikely that Trump’s mishandling of trade will be as harmfull as say PPACA.
It is even possible that it will ultimately work towards good.
Trump asked the G7 to eliminate all tarriffs on everything.
They balked. In that instance Trump was right and the entire G7 was wrong.
Given that the G7 refused the right thing, we are no longer arguing about free trade – the G7 removed that from the table.
We are just arguing about what combination of Tarrifs we are going to have.
There is no basis for concluding what Trump wants is not supperior to the alternative.
Trump is also looking for a political win for his base.
Interestingly Trump’s base is smarter than you.
US Blue collar workers do not want protectionism.
The want a “level playing field”.
Trump would have no problem declaring victory with an agreement with the G7 to eliminate all tarrifs, and US workers would cheer him.
American workers beleive they will always win a “fair fight”
It does not matter if that is true – though mostly it is.
Further Trump’s eliminate all Tarrifs offer was like the churchill story
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Trump established that the conflicts are not about a desire for free trade.
Mr. Anti-oblique speaks up. Wow what anger, the only thing you missed saying was “there is a special place in hell for me”.
LMAO, you (not oblique) are not worth arguing with, I am not a masochist.
With respect to McCain. Trump not only proposed dropping all tarriffs to zero in response to Trudeau, but according to Kudlow had been arguing for that from the start.
The proponent of Free Trade at the G7 was Trump, its enemy was Trudeau.
McCain can not seem to tell who is arguing for what.
I do not Trust Trump and Trade – though I do trust Kudlow.
Nor do I accept Ron’s fighting fire with fire argument.
but whether I accept it or not, that is precisely what Trump is doing.
Given the massive amount of energy and time you put into insulting me,
your claim not to be a masochist and not to wish to waste time arguing with me are false.
I am not unhappy with Trump’s G7 performance.
He called their bluff on Free Trade.
The dishonesty is theirs.
The G7 meeting was not about free trade, or cooperation. It was about the relative protectionist demands of each nation.
Trump has been from the begining seeking to end the US subsidy of the rest of the world.
That is leadership.
As usual, you’re full of crap, misrepresenting what happened because you’re too lazy or too predjuduced or just too dumb to report what happened accurately. That’s why you took Crudlow (yeah I know the correct spelling) at his propagandizing word.
He didn’t call ANY bluff, he petulantly pouted after he left.
Trump agreed to the G7 communique before leaving the summit and then reversed his position on the plane to Singapore. Because his childish ego was upset at the Trredau press remarks following Trump’s impolite early exit.
UNDERSTAND? He reversed for no reason other than his easily deflated ego.
Trump is a SHIT President.
And his apologists like you and Larry stink from the contamination.
Trump lies and bullshits, and you rub it on like cologne.
Kudlow has a decades long reputation as a free market advocate and a free trader.
While I was surprised that Trump asked him to joint his administration, and that he accepted.
He made clear at the time – he had not changed his views and that Trump shared those.
The only issue of disagreement among all of us (on trade) – dd, jay, ron, kudlow, even Trump is the means to the desired end of actual free trade.
But you have no problem with insulting anyone who defends Trump on any issue – even when Trump is right.
“Trump agreed to the G7 communique before leaving the summit and then reversed his position on the plane to Singapore”
I believe you are correct. If Trump had agreed to murder puppies and changed his mind on the way to Singapore – would that produce the same ire in you ?
If Trump had gone through with the Comunique – you would have found something else to be angry about. You were already selling how great Trudeau was and how evil Trump was before this.
I do not understand not signing off on the comunique as my read of it is innoquous and meaningless.
My Guess – and pretty much what Kudlow said is that the problem was not the Comunique, but Trudeau’s subsequent public statements that were in effect a repudiation of what had been agreed in private.
Trump essentially said if Trudeau is not going to agree publicly with what he agreed privately, then neither am I.
If Trump wa childish – Trudeau was more so.
What stinks is your desire to find evil motives in Trump no matter what he does, and no matter who you have to slime to do so, nor what evil you have to elevate to make Trump look bad.
So lets all agree that Trump is a “,shit president” when it comes to personal behaviors and then can we move on?
“Massive amount of energy”? LMAO. It is almost effortless given the wide target you present.
dd you do not even have to read anything I post to create your responses – and there is no evidence you do.
I have never suggested you put any effort into reading or understanding my arguments – clearly you do not.
You bombastic ad hominem does not require thought or understanding.
The work I was refering to i the constant posting of useless insults.
John Dean (He’d know!)
“Trump’s performance at the G7 suggests that Putin owns him.”
Not even slightly a Dean fan.
He was fully complicit in Watergate.
All Dean was, was the crook who grasped he was facing a prizoners dilema and snitched first.
That is not integrity.
Bombastic I be, but not a masochist enough to wade through your wall of bovine excrement.
Ad hominem is still not argument.
Free speach is important. It is so important that you have the right to spray the world with insults.
But value in speech does not come from insult. It is it in ideas, it is in arguments.
There is no value in insults.
Bovine excrement has more value.
Trump is a FUCKING IDIOT who gets WORSE day by day.
A sane voice from Fox responds to his bumbling BS
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/05/almost-seven-in-ten-americans-have-news-fatigue-more-among-republicans/
Seems like there IS something that Americans CAN agree on. Looks like Chicken Little has returned. Doesn’t say much when 80% of those polled say the media does a poor job covering important news. When something bad really happens, many will just say “ho hum, more of the same”.
The consequence of this is that most people – left or right beleive alot of things that are mostly false, and at the same time do not care.
The generic ballot jumped back to +7D – I thought that was a reaction to the Mueller leak of Trump’s lawyer’s memo asserting that Trump could not obstruct because he can pardon himself.
That argument is not actually correct. – it is an extreme form of the The president can not obstruct while excercising constitutional powers – which IS correct.
Regardless, I thought the generic ballot shift was fallout – except that Trump’s Favorables CLIMBED.
I think a majority of people beleive Trump/Russia collusion – but they do not care. Despite the fact that that is about as close to impossible as you can get when you have to try to prove a negative.
Increasingly people beleive the Trump campaign was improperly setup by Obama, but they do not care.
The +7 on the generic ballot for dem’s is interesting. There are 7 democrat senators underwater when matched against “R”, but all that will change come election time. Many races change when you put a name to it. Both parties cant help themselves when it comes to running divisive candidates, so the moderates like Manchin most likely will survive.
“I think a majority of people beleive Trump/Russia collusion – but they do not care.”(,dduck)
I wonder if they dont care or if they are like me waiting for whatever report or indictments are to come since we cant do anything until this whole fiasco runs its course. Much of my family and many friends have just tuned out the national news. The ones keeping up are the “wingers” that are most likely MSNBC or Fox News junkies.
I do not think the Generic ballot numbers mean alot at this point.
However their is reason to wonder about the sudden shift.
Is it an anomally – those do happen.
Or is it a meaningful response to something that has happened ?
As I noted I originally thought it was a response to the leak that Trump’s lawyers had argued he could pardon himself.
While an accurate position, it is not one people wish to hear.
Speaking of it always makes you look guilty – just as Taking the fifth does.
But the next day Trump’s numbers had risen too.
That tends to discount anything related to Trump as the cause.
So far the “tea leaves” suggest that the election is unlikely to change much.
Democrats gaining control in the senate is just not in the cards.
The Senate election is only unfavorable to republicans in one way.
A significant portion of the democratic seats in play are seats that demographically should be republican. If republicans do not pick up seats that is actually a loss and one that will harm them for years. Predictions for the senate remain relatively stable at GOP +2
Though apparently Menedez’s NJ seat is now considered in play and Scott is doing well against Nelson in FL.
The more democratic seats in play the greater democratic financial pressures.
The CA primaries were not a disaster for D’s, but they were not a victory either.
There was a serious risk of getting locked out of all the republican seats they are looking to try and pick up. They avoided that, but it was extremely close which is not good for them.
I would further note that this occured when the Generic ballot was +7D.
Personally I think the +7D is an anomally,
There are going to be alot of things happening between now and labor day.
It is highly unlikely that there will be much activity from Mueller or the House/Senate committees after Labor day.
The IG report on the Clinton investigation is coming out any day and is purportedly damning
That will help Republicans.
Mueller just indicted Klimatov. In this entire mess Klimatov might be the one possible real Russian Spy. That said it is unlikely that Manafort knew that or used him as a back channel to the Kremlin. Klimatov appears to have been spying on Manafort and then the Trump campaign for the Russians.
BTW there is no proof Klimatov is a russian spy, but there is alot of samning circumstantial evidence.
Regardless, indicting Klimatov will result in lots more speculation and harm trump and help Mueller. Though the Klimatov story will fade. Klimatov is not getting extradicted.
Further he could harm Manafort, but not Trump. Manafort was only part of the Trump campaign briefly.
I do not want the US to become Singapore. Though there are many things in which we should be more like Singapore.
But I would note that Singapore refutes the notion that democracy is the best and least corrupt form of government.
Singapore has manage to come from nothing to a standard of living higher than the US.
It has done so via free markets, limited government the most economic freedom in the world.
But it is also not a very democratic country. Interestingly it is also not a very corrupt country.
It is a kind of bizarre libertarian totalitarianism. Successful and appealing in all ways save one.
But aside from using Singapore as a lession to maericans, it is also incredibly appealing to asians.
China has been actively trying to emulate Singapore since Mao died – and relatively successfully.
A totalitarian govenrment – but broad economic freedom.
And yes, I think Trump is sending a message to Kim Un.
It will take decades but North Korea could be Singapore.
And that should appear to Kim.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-north-korea-become-the-next-singapore-26193
“Singapore has manage to come from nothing to a standard of living higher than the US.”
Thats what happens when you have about an $80 billion dollar trade surplus, which equals about 27% of their GDP. And anything going into Singapore gets hit with a 7% tax while stuff coming to America comes in basically duty free based on the phase out of duties with the SFTA.
There’s that “f” for free which is not “free”.
We would have a wonderful economy also if we exported 27% of our goods and charged 7% on everything imported into the USA.
What does it take to dispense with the stupid trade surplus argument.
I do not think there is a single prominent economist that cares about Trade surpluses.
Trade between nations is one of the few zero sum things in economics.
Any trade surplus MUST have a matching capital accounts deficit.
Whatever extra monty Singapore receives from the US, is useless unless spent to aquire wealth.
US Money must ultimately be spent in the US.
If Singapore does nto balance its trade then it must invest in the US in amounts equal to the trade imbalance.
I criticize Trump for this stupidity on Trade – why would I let it pass elesware.
Tarriffs are a big deal – Singapores BTW are LOW.
Singapore did not prosper from a trade imbalance but they did prosper from free markets and relatively free trade.
They have nearly all the halmarks of a libertarian minarchy – they could be smaller still.
Except that Singapore does not have political freedom.
I think the political freedom is incredibly important.
But Hong Kong, Singapore and China have demonstrated that increasing economic freedom brings about increasing prosperity and standard of living – even without political freedom.
They also demonstrate something else that John Stuart Mill noted almost 200 years ago.
Democracy may be one of the most intrusive and oppressive forms of government.
Singaporeans may not have political freedom but they are more free otherwise.
They have far more limited and less intrusive government.
A monarch can enforce political obediance – it they otherwise allow significant individual liberty.
But if a monarch infringes on individual liberty – the blame is focused on a single target – the monarch.
When a democracy is opressive and intrusive who do you blame ? The People ?
you are left with despair.
The monarch must respond if the people become angry about infringements on their rights.
The infringements must be far larger to develope the anger necescary to motivate change in a democracy.
Ok lets say I buy the economist cool aide that trade deficits are good, that Singapore has to invest in assets and the money come back. Likewise China.
So we buy billions of widgets from country X. It takes them 1 employee to produce 1000 widgets who make a middle class salary. We buy 1,000,000 widgets a year, so 1000 FTE’S earn income. Likewise there are many more companies doing the same generating products that increase the countries GDP.
Country X has American dollars due to their trade surplus. Country X comes to America and buys office buildings, luxury hotels, shopping centers and buys American bonds of various maturities. They also buy large blocks of American company stocks.
How does the money that came back help create jobs and generate increases in GDP? Everything they bought already existed.
Trade deficits are not “good” they are neutral.
I have covered this many times.
If we give the Chineses $700B in greenslips of paper and they give us 700B in goods.
We are ahead. Because they have lots of slips of green paper.
They can only buy goods directly or indirectly from us, or buy something else from us with them.
Typically they invest or buy our debt. The latter is not great, but it is better than no one buying our debt.
Regardless Trade deficits mean the other party got lots of money. If they do not spend it somehow, and specifically somehow that is spending to get something from the US – then they just gave us goods for free.
Adam Smith discovered this exploring the relationship between Spain and England from about 1500 forward – Spain collected all the worlds gold and silver (money) england Focused on goods.
Spain kept getting poorer and poorer even though they had ever more gold and silver.
Money is not wealth. It is something that you hope you can convert to wealth. If you can not or do not it has no value.
So they put a 25% tariff on a Chevy going into China, basically making a Chevy unaffordable for their population. We produce fewer Chevys. So fewer jobs making Chevy’s. They require any industry in China to be 51% owned by China. GM agrees and begins producing Buicks. Fewer jobs in America producing Buicks. They ship Buicks back to America without Tariffs. Buick sells that car at market price, somewhere around 45K. China has many employed building that Buick and green slips they purchase USA debt with. American has fewer jobs and more debt.
What the hell am I missing here? How the devil has that increased our GDP, tax base and overall health of our economy?
I said Trade Deficits are not a problem.
Tarriffs are a problem.
First “everything they bought already existed” is an assumption.
Though that does not matter.
Further I would not the objective is not to create jobs in the US – though that often occurs as the means to the objective.
The objective is to create wealth in the US, to raise our standard of living.
Lets say in your hypothetical they buy something that already existed.
Then the owner of that thing now has money to do something else – like build new buildings.
If you dump money into the US it is going to do something.
“Further I would not the objective is not to create jobs in the US – though that often occurs as the means to the objective.
The objective is to create wealth in the US, to raise our standard of living.”
Boy does that fit the GOP narrative of support for the rich and screw the middle class. Lets make the rich richer and eliminate jobs in America so we have more on entitlement programs because the jobs are in the Far East. How far can one raise the standard of living for the rich before that has no impact on the American standard of living as a whole?
Back to Adam Smith again.
The rich can not get richer without benefitting the rest of us.
“What does it take to dispense with the stupid trade surplus argument.”
My argument is not trade surplus. My argument is free trade v fair trade. We let your products in “free” and you let our in free. That fair. Not you charge 25% and we bend over and let yours in free!
There is no such thing as fair trade.
When you start talking Tarriffs you are talking UNFREE trade.
YES¡!!!!, YOU FINALLY CAUGHT ON!
“When you start talking Tarriffs you are talking UNFREE trade.”
That is what I have been saying since all this trade crap started.
Now our discussion needs to be how our country gets out from under all the unfair trade we are involved with.
I support fighting fire with fire. How do you fight unfair trade, ie 270% tariffs on dairy going into Canada.
“I support fighting fire with fire. How do you fight unfair trade,”
There is no such thing as unfair trade. Unfree and Unfair are not the same.
Free trade is the means of trade that works best for all.
Unfair presumes that there is a right where there is not.
You have a right to attempt to exchange with anyone you wish (or not).
You do not have a right to buy or sell at the price you want nor even to succeed in buying or selling.
If Canada wishes to make the sale of US milk in Canada egregiously expensive – that is stupid, but it is not an infringement on our rights. It is an infringement by Canada on the rights of its own people.
Our retaliating is merely saying that should we should punish Canada for depriving its people of the best price on milk by depriving our people the best price on steel.
The inevitable result of a Shit Head President:
Our national cultural icons speak out!
I like DeNiro as an actor.
If Broadway wants DeNiro to swear at Trump that is fine by me.
I doubt it will boost views at the awards.
I do not decide my politics based on those of actors I like.
I think Michelle Wolfe’s remarks at the WHCD were offensive – more important they were not funny. But no skin off my teeth. If that is what the WHCD wanted – that is up to them.
I think Roseanne’s tweet about Valeria Jarrett was wierd and a bit offensive.
I also think the response was wierd.
Regardless Roseanne has a long history of bizzarre remarks and actions.
The network should not have been surprised.
I think her show is excellent and offers something missing in network TV.
I do not think it should have been canceled, but that is up to networks.
I think Samantha Bee’s remarks were way out of line.
We usually leave first ladies alone – particularly if they stay out of politics.
But again that is up to networks.
We can find myriads of examples of prominet people behaving badly – alot of them on the left.
I think Trump’s request of NFL athletes to make suggestions regarding Pardon’s was brilliant.
Protesting is fine, but he offered them an opportunity to actually DO SOMETHING about a problem. While at the same time asking for them to do something that came with responsibility.
Ron: “The U.S. uses tariffs to protect a variety of industries from a 350% tariff on tobacco to more 160% on shelled peanuts. In other cases, such as sugar, the U.S. has crafted a complex program to protect domestic industry by limiting imports.”
Plus we had a 292% tariff on Canada’s Bombardier- since rescinded
All countries have unfair tariffs to protect poor folks like Boeing and such.
Regardless of the sniping, support for Free Trade is universal at TNM.
There is even a strong case that Trump’s objective is free trade – atleast that is what he said at G7 and what Kudlow says the US worked for.
The open questions is how to acheive it.
Do we acheive it by “fighting fire with fire” – as Ron and Trump wish.
By drappong all barriers unilaterally as I recomend,
Or by the very negotiations that have resulted in the mess we currently have.
Absolutely . I agree ALL Tarriffs and subsidies are bad, they line the pockets of people who do not need their pockets lined.
Boeing does not need and should not get protection from foreign competitors at the expense of US citizens.
Nor are beet farmers, or corn farmers any more entitled to profit from US protectionist policies at the expense of US citizens.
Note once again that the greed and evil that you wish to blame on private actors, is merely private actors doing what they naturally do – the same as what you and I do, seeking the highest price for what they have to sell – just as we seek the highest price for our labor.
How is a minimum wage law different from a protectionist Tarriff ?
The “evil” comes from government – which uses force to pick and choose who gets the protection they want at the expense of others.
I am not going to get into the political crap of why one country has tariffs and why we have tariffs. My point has always been fair v free trade. If some country allows our beef into their country without tariffs and then we slap large tariffs on their sugar to protect our sugar industry, that is not free and it is not fair.
The more I read about trade and what we pay and what we charge for tariffs, it is about as cloudy as the Russian collusion investigation. About 1/2 of what the media reports is probably true. The other 1/2 is either not reported or untrue.
Come facts should be clear:
All tarriff schemes – ours, theirs, does nto matter:
Benefit government
Help some producers
Harm others.
Harm consumers.
Whether the tarriff is protectionist or retaliatory. They still always have those effects.
Increasing the price of anything without increasing the value – and Tarriffs universally increase prices, makes us less well off. Worse Tarriffs tend to be a regressive tax. They favor the already well off and screw the poor.
I would further note that the “making us less well off” part is unavoidable.
Even if a Tarriff temporarily benefits some producers and some jobs.
It does so at the expense of all of us.
If the US increases a tarrif on steel – that MIGHT increase domestic steel employment.
But it will aslo DECREASE domestic use of steel. Demand curves slope downward is one immutable part of the laws of supply and demand.
So we have more steel production jobs but less consumption of steel AND less jobs in the production of things made from steel.
Even retaliatory tarrifs harm the nation more than they help it.
I agree. And I circle back to many comments earlier. How does one country that has a more open trade environment address protectionist policies of other nations that keep our product out or price them in a manner only a few in those countries can afford.
“How does one country that has a more open trade environment address protectionist policies of other nations that keep our product out or price them in a manner only a few in those countries can afford.”
It doesnt. Tarriff’s and protectionist trade policy does more harm to those imposing them than those they think they are protecting against.
Protectionism MIGHT save a few jobs in one area- but it costs jubs in others, harms consumers and negatively impacts standard of living.
If China or Canada wish to do that to themselves – we should not stop them.
More information on the Trump Trudeau spat.
Canada has a complex system of government supply management.
Even ignoring the US and trade this is just a bad idea.
Government attempts at matching supply and demand have always ended badly.
Contra the media – Canada does NOT impose 270% tarriffs on milk.
The actual tarriff is about 7.5%. The problem is that as production increases Canada’s Tarriffis increase dynamically. They can actually read 331% on milk.
Trump sought (and got) a committment from Trudeau to end Canada’s supply mamangement scheme in 10 years. And then Trudeau publicly renigged. and Trump walked away from the g7.
BTE the arguments for Tarriffs are easy – Trudeau has made them Trump makes them.
They are all still wrong and they inherently pit nations against each other outside the market.
That is bad because competition at the government level leads to the use of force.
We want economic competition, not governments competing through force.
It is easy for us to say – US Steel producers and workers have some right to their jobs or to benefit from what they produce.
But the very conduct we see good in our own country is bad in that of others.
again I agree. So what’s the best way to address these issue.
1. Do what other administration did, sign has deals?
2. Give trade lip service and move on?
3. Make trade an issue and call out other countries that have high tariffs and threaten our own
4. ignore it and hope the problem disappears on its own?
“So what’s the best way to address these issue.”
Lower or eliminate our own tarriffs and subidies and move on.
Other nations can make good or bad choices on their own.
Protectionism is a self punishing act.
There is no need to do anything in response to the protectionism of others.
Trumps a schmuck, and so is DeNiro. Trump leads and others follow to the bottom.
I agree
Just recently James Wolfes – Cheif of security for the Senate Intelligence committee been arrested and charged with lying to federal investigators.
The real crime is leaking. Though as McCarthy notes given the possible 15 year sentence hear, it is possible that DOJ will prosecute the lying and leave the rest alone.
I would prefer they prosecute the real crime. I do not care much if people lie to investigators. Further Wolfes case resembles Flynn’s in that the agents questioning Wolfe knew the answers to the questions they were asking. In otherwords they were looking to get Wolfe to lie so they could charge him. The courts frown on that and the law usually requires that a lie to law enforcement actually impede an incestigation to be prosecutable.
I would prefer Wolfe was prosecuted for his actual crimes.
Regardless, it is very serious when a purportedly non-partisan staffer is leaking private information. It is criminal – even when the information is not classified. This is actually something that can be prosecuted as obstruction of justice as it alerts witnesses – all witnesses to who was called and possibly what was testified so they can conform their own testimoney.
I have some serious problems with the ethics of the journalist involved. Sleeping with a source should get you fired – but that is up to the NYT.
Alot is being made about the FBI ‘spying” on journalists – aparently it is spying if journalists are the target, but not if the Trump campaign is.
I would like more clear answers to questions regarding the FBI’s investigation of the Journalist.
Most of what has appeared thus far is that the jorunalists were only involved tangentially.
That the journalists were exposed by material obtained through Warrants for Wolfe’s information.
If so I have no problem with that.
I will note that The Obama administration sought and recieved warrants on Journalists – Rosen and Atkins, spied on them and identified them in court as Targets. Based on the available evidence that was WRONG.
If the journalists in this instance were the targets – without evidence of criminal complicity – that is wrong.
I would also compare this to Libby. In that instance Fitzgerald hounded – even jailed journalists where BEFORE he was appointed SC – James Comey who appointed him, had already been told by the State Department that Richard Armitage had inadvertently leaked Plames Identity, and CIA had informed Comey that Plame was no longer NOC – i.e. She was on the CIA’s public roster, she was no longer an agent and could not return.
I would note, that based on the facts we have – Carter Page was an agent of the FBI. Wolfe leaking his name was EXACTLY the same as the Plame affair – except that Page’s roll had NOT been made public and prior to the FBI outing him as a target in the Trump investigation, Page could easily have been a future asset of the FBI. In otherwords leaking page’s name and his roll in the 2013 Russia investigation was a crime.
I would note that leaking Halpers identity was also a crime. WSJ Strassel made a point of that which is why she and several other less progressive journalists refused to identify Halper even though it was trivial to figure out who the agent was.
I would separately note that those who were leaking information to NYT about Halper were also committing crimes.
We have a something very bizzarre going on FBI/DOJ/CIA are actually outing their own agents in order to plant stories in the press revealing their own misconduct with the most favorable possible spin – actions that violate myriads of laws. While being unwilling to provide the same information under subpeona from congress and prancing arround claiming that they are protecting national security.
Nunes refuses to meet with DOJ/FBI because in past meetings they have briefed him without providing documents, and then leaked the information to the press blaming Nunes.
Nunes is demanding the documents he subpeonad – NOT more briefings.
Not more game playing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/james-wolfe-leak-investigation-journalists-double-standard/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-democrat-dissents-on-the-mueller-probe-1528497640?emailToken=919657c8219bb75cf716d28815d48896Vm1NYtM3zKDhuCw1S505XphANKiuSRi+QDBzXYt/ADngdpvkTcc7GcZHeMmNQxns3JvW9vSKFVgW/xVZS5rymW5+jUZwt/xUxpToYpcD+cg%3D&reflink=article
Obama records missing from the national archives.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html
This is not to get into a yes/no on the ZTE deal. I dont know enough about that issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-blocks-zte-deal-rebuke-trump-deal-n882196
What is surprising and nice to see is the fact the senate got off their dead McConnell asses and did something that finally stopped a president from acting like a king.
Maybe now they might do something about DACA.
All of this seems stupid to me.
If consumers do not wish to buy ZTE phones – that is their choice.
There are a bunch of complications in this – most of which get the response from me of why is any of this governments business.
Parts of this are claims that ZTE is engaged in corporate espionage – fine don’t buy a ZTE phone.
The US is too fixated on IP. Through to the 80’s the US had the weakest IP laws of any developed nation in the world. That is the period of the radia, TV, Transistor IC, microcomputer,
…….
There is no indication that going from lax IP laws to draconian ones has had any effect.
Even IBM studied the matter and found its IP works is almost all defensive – protection against lawsuits from others. It has little or nothing to fo with innovation.
This is not Governments business.
I have no idea what ZTE did or why. Not interested.
But I am impressed that the senate did something to earn their 6 digit income.
The question of what if anything ZTE may have done is for the courts and consumers.
Not Trump, Not congress.
A bill targeting one person or company is unconsitutional.
It is called a bill of attainder.
“A bill targeting one person or company is unconsitutional.
It is called a bill of attainder.”
You might be right, but when did the constitution begin insuring the rights of foreign citizens and companies?
Nonsense.
Numerous exceptions have been upheld over the years by SCOTUS.
AND of course recently congress passed and Obama signed The Magnitsky Act, which TARGETS SPECIFIC RUSSIANS.
More to the point of your idiotic assertion:
The U.S. Government controls exports of sensitive equipment, software and technology as a means to promote our national security interests and foreign policy objectives. And has for DECADES!
THATS WHATS HAPPENING.. Perfectly legal, you dunce.
No The Magnitsky Act did not target SPECIFIC individuals. It defined acts that were to be punished and empowered the administration to identify those people and punish them,
There is a gigantic gulf between – congress authorizes the executive to identify those people responsible from heinous acts and to levy the following punishment for those acts,
And
Congress fines ZTE $1B or bars ZTE from US sales.
We have addressed this repeatedly – it is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man.
We investigate and punish ACTS, NOT people.
Sometimes our language is unclear, and sometimes we even violate the rule of law.
But we do not investigate Trump, ZTE, Al Capone.
We investigate crimes, and punish whoever we establish is guilty.
That is a part of the difference between the rule of law, and the rule of man
No individuals specified?
You’re either ignorant or a liar.
The Obama administration made public a list of 18 individuals affected by the Act in April 2013.[17][18][19] The people included on the list are:
Artem (aka Artyom) Kuznetsov, a tax investigator for the Moscow division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Pavel Karpov, a senior investigator for the Moscow division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Oleg F. Silchenko, a senior investigator for the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Olga Stepanova, head of Moscow Tax Office No. 28
Yelena Stashina (ru), Tverskoy District Court judge who prolonged Magnitsky’s detention
Andrey Pechegin, deputy head of the investigation supervision division of the general prosecutor’s office
Aleksey Droganov
Yelena Khimina, Moscow tax official
Dmitriy Komnov, head of Butyrka Detention Center
Aleksey Krivoruchko, Tverskoy District Court judge
Oleg Logunov (ru)
Sergei G. Podoprigorov, Tverskoy District Court judge
Ivan Pavlovitch Prokopenko
Dmitri M. Tolchinskiy
Svetlana Ukhnalyova
Natalya V. Vinogradova
Kazbek Dukuzov, Chechen acquitted of the murder of Paul Klebnikov
Lecha Bogatyrov, implicated by Austrian authorities as the murderer of Umar Israilov
Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic[20]
You constantly throw out unverified BS.
JUST like trump.
Dissembling Peas in a Pod.
Again you can not read.
The Magnitsky Act did NOT specify individuals – it can not constitutionally.
As your reference notes, the Obama administration identified the individuals that it felt had violated the act.
You are clueless about what constitutes the rule of law.
The entire POINT is that congress and our law defines CRIMES. The executive and law enforcement then investigate those CRIMES and punish the ACTORS.
What we do not do is punish people looking for or creating the crime that they purportedly committed.
You continually put the cart before the horse, and you do not even grasp that you are doing it,
Nor do you grasp that it matters.
It is immoral, unethical, improper and unconstitutional for government to target PEOPLE.
The rule of law means we define what ACTS are improper and when those ACTS have occurred we punish the actors.
Anytime you START with PEOPLE and then try to find the crime – you are immoral, unethical, unconstitutional and you yourself are criminal.
That is the most egregious possible abuse of power their is.
I would note as a separate and less significant argument that The Magnitsky Act was improper because it is outside the jurisidiction of the US government.
Our congress, our president do not have global jurisdiction, and if you were wise you would not want it.
It is not within the power of the US government to police the world.
It is not the Role of the US government to punish alleged crimes committed to foreign citizens in foreign countries.
It is not merely hubris to do so – it is dangerous.
I am well aware of the US laws regarding the export of technology with national security implications.
These are ludicrously stupid laws.
Have you notices that the more laws we have trying to keep our technological advantages from getting out – the weaker the US gets in the technology area.
One of the areas I deal with in “encryption”. Strong encryption – and the definition of that is anything stronger than a simple substitution cipher like a magic decoder ring, can not be exported from the US.
But the algorithms are published in scientific and mathematical journals.
The end result is the US ends up IMPORTING encryption.
Because you can develop encryption software in the UK, AU, IR, ….
and import it into the US but you can not develop it in the US and export it.
Microsoft has most of it encruption research facilities – outside the US,
You worry about Russian and eastern european hackers – well they have been greatly empowered by our laws. Because the “black hats” are also security experts, and if you can not use americans for a global product – you use poles, and ukrainians, and estonians.
You keep making this argument that because something has been done,
that it is legal. moral, ethical, constitutional.
Here is a pretty good editorial on one aspect of this.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/philosophy-expedience-15961.html
Above ‘nonsense’ remark directed at Dave, re bill of attainder.
Not to Ron.
Congrats to Kim and Trump. A first step or mere publicity. Tune in.
Same could be said for the Geneva Summit in 1985 and Reykjavik in 1986. Can we not wait to see the outcomes before jumping to conclusions? Would you raise your kids to judge the outcome of any issue or debate before the outcome was known? We have one side that NK will become the next Singapore and become the freeist country in the world, and on the other side SK,Japan and all of southeast Asia will be taken over and become part of NK.
I think I might wait awhile before deciding which is true.
dduck, APOLOGIES!!!!! I misread your message since I was so pissed with Word Press removing auto notifications of comments.
Yes, could be all publicity with two huge egotistical assholes or a good first step.
The left turns on itself over Russia
In a story out today Rosenstein apparently threatened the HPSCI with obstruction of Justice charges. And threatened to start subpeona’ing them.
This was NOT part of the investigation into leaks that recently caught Wolfe.
But a response to the House threat to hold Rosenstein in contempt for refusing to turn over documents.
Frankly, Rosenstein’s resignation should have been demanded immediately.
This is also emblematic of the problems in FOJ and with the SC.
They litterally seek to become a fourth branch – and one without any oversight.
They seek to be a law unto themselves.
Alot though not all of this is the consequence of the total lack of cooperation with congress that Obama fostered.
After 8 years it has become institutionalized.
Much of the executive thinks they are not answerable to anyone.
Baloney.
That’s an outright lie, propagated by Trump lizards.
The Deputy Attorney General never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation. Stop lying.
“”The FBI Director, the senior career ethics adviser for the Department, and the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who were all present at this meeting are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false.
“The Deputy Attorney General was making the point — after being threatened with contempt — that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false,” the official added. “That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so.”
Another former US official, also present at the meeting, agreed that at no time did Rosenstein threaten any House staff with a criminal investigation.
Later Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions came to Rosenstein’s defense during an interview with Fox News, saying he was “confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion.”
Rosenstein’s reacted to threats from Nunes & co. To hold him in contempt.
It does not matter how you try to spin this.
Rosenstein has no private right to subpeona congress is he is held in contempt for his public actions. He would have no private ability to issues subpeona’s.
AS deputy AG, the threat is a threat of criminal investigation and prosecution.
Likely things got heated and Rosenstein said things he shouldn’t have.
I would not be surprised if some congressmen did too.
But he is on the wrong side of this issue.
Rosenstein can not assert a claim of executive privildge without the support of the whitehouse – and he would likely loose even if he could.
I have no doubt that Nunes Threatened Rosenstein with Contempt.
While Nunes does not individually have the power to do so, the house does.
Further all it takes from a referal to the house, is a vote of the majority of the majority on the Committee. It would not take all GOP votes, it would not require any democratic votes.
Frankly Nunes, has been restrained on this.
The house held Holder in contempt for much less than Rosenstein.
BTW Nunes has also threatened “Obstruction” – and unlike the Trump claims – Nunes has a real Obstruction charge.
The house is investigating – there is an open proceeding. It is constitutionally empowered to investigate. The whitehouse has not claimed priviledge – and could not, there are no communications with the president involved – executive priviledge only applies to exchanges with the president. National Security and the other “claims of priviledge” are reasons for the house to be cautious. but they are mere speed bumps if congress insists.
There is no national security priviledge that bars information from congress.
Like the president the congress actually has the unilateral power to decided on its own what it thinks is “classified” or not. It rarely excercises that power,
In fact the power belongs to congressmen as INDIVIDUALS.
You can not charge or prosecute a congressmen for any statements made on the floor.
From all that I have read, Rosenstein is a decent and respected person.
He is also wrong, and he has placed himself in a very dangerous predicament.
Well this is going to make heads explode.
“U.S. President Donald Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in reaching an agreement to work toward de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”
Anti-Trumpers as well as Trumps himself.
Now Obama won for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
Since they set the bar so low for Obama, wonder how this will play out
I have lost notification to comments made! Screw Word Press it really sucks. Trying different thingsbto get it back
My hell may come after Trump gets a Nobel Prize, cause then he may start acting erratically.
I see a wild card in all of this. It is the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one and, puerile Trump needs to equal that. I have started to think of him as a childish competitor and he wants to beat Obama at all things, that’s why he seeks to destroy all of Obama’s “accomplishments”. I use quotes, because I was not a fan of the ACA and the way the Iran deal was done, plus other stuff starting out with Obama getting the NPP for doing nothing.
As I said on another thread, I think our problems have gotten worse when Congress was intentionally, or not, cut out of the governing/policy loop.
South Korea/President
Moon Jae-in should get the NPP not Trump.
“As I said on another thread, I think our problems have gotten worse when Congress was intentionally, or not, cut out of the governing/policy loop.”
I think you and I have been consistent in this belief. What is one congresses cake and ice cream is the countries rotten eggs. Congress has allowed individual senators or representatives to either pass legislation or sneak amendments into legislation that has given the president powers they were never intended to have. Until the 30’s, congress had the power to impose taxes and tariffs. Since then, multiple legislative acts have delegated this power to the President. Trump, nor any president, should have that power. They negotiate, they get an agreement, congress signs off. Trump should not be able to impose tariffs under any circumstance. Presidents should not have the power to send any troops into an operation that could result in combat casualities. That belongs to congress. And they could cover special ops like hostage rescue or things like OBL by defining clearly what is combat.
As for Trump reversing what Obama did, fine. Obama should not have had the power he had to govern by EO’S, so reversing them is fine. What one giveth, another taketh away.
While there have been deserving winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
So many are merely politicians who did what we elected them to and expect them to do.
Obama did not even have to do that.
I really do not care if Trump gets a Nobel, it lost any meaning.
“My hell may come after Trump gets a Nobel Prize, cause then he may start acting erratically.”
How does Trump start doing something you have been saying he was doing for 18 months ?
I do not think that Obama cares much about Obama at all – aside from the fact that Obama booby trapped the presidency on exit.
It is Trump’s BASE that cares about Obama, and Trump is making his base happy.
I did not vote for Trump – but I am happy about Trump’s return to government of law, not men.
I am happy about undoing the crap that Obama did that was both wrong and unconstitutional.
Even where I agree with Obama – atleast somewhat, such as immigration.
It is still necescary to follow the law and the constitution.
Get your reps and senators to pass reasonable immigration reform.
What Trump is undoing was done unilaterally. without proper authority, without political support.
And that is what makes it relatively easy to undo – such as ACA and Iran.
Obama could not have gotten the Iran deal through the senate – and all treaties require approval by the Senate.
LMAO. The guy nominated for the NP Literature prize ain’t getting it because of sexual misconduct allegations.
“(CNN)The French photographer at the center of a sexual harassment scandal that forced the postponement of this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature has been charged with two counts of rape, Swedish prosecutor Christina Voigt said in a statement Tuesday.”
Will Trump sail through to the NPP? Stay tuned, liberals can bend into pretzels when they want to.
This was supposed to post here, not above. Another Word Press screw up.
“Erratically” was a joke, most people pick up on that.
And if you think Trump doesn’t care about Obama, you are wrong.
This is the internet, irony, sarcasm, satire … are extremely difficult to sense without clues from facial expressions and tone of voice.
No I do not think Trump cares much about Obama.
There is very little evidence that Trump holds Grudges.
One minute he is calling Kim Un the most evil person in the world, the next he is hugging him and calling him a wonderful person beloved by his people.
Trump cares about Trump. His attacks can be brutal, but he only attackes things things in HIS way.
Trump only cares about Obama to the extent Obama remains in Trump’s way.
Reversing “Obama’s Legacy” is NOT about Obama. It is about Trump. It is about the accolades that gets him from his base.
And you continue to misunderstand both his narrow base and his broader base.
To the more narrow base – he keeps his promises.
You keep saying that Trump is a liar – fixating on cherry picked incongruities between one remark and another. Only those who want to be angry are upset by that.
At the same times his voters see him ticking off campaign promises – like no other politician ever.
I am impressed. He has kept or vigorously tried to keep those promises that I think he should not have.
That means when he actually promises to do something – you should take it seriously.
The Pimp Party In Ascendancy
“The owner of some of the country’s few remaining legal brothels is a step away from claiming a seat in Nevada’s state legislature after he won a Republican primary in a rural district outside Las Vegas on Tuesday.
Dennis Hof, the owner of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch and a handful of other legal brothels and the star of the HBO series “Cathouse,” took 43 percent of the vote on Tuesday. He beat out Assemblyman James Oscarson (R), who claimed 36 percent of the vote, and a third candidate who took 21 percent.
Hof mounted his second bid for public office after state officials proposed banning brothels from operating in two of the seven counties in which they are still legal.
He ran against Oscarson in 2016 as a Libertarian candidate. Oscarson won that race with more than 60 percent of the vote.
This time, Hof cast himself as the “Trump of Pahrump,” his hometown. In April, he campaigned alongside Roger Stone, President Trump’s longtime political adviser. He also sent frequent screeds, jammed with different fonts, sizes and colors, to reporters, calling the news updates “The HOFington Post.”
Republicans… PArty of. Pimp Procurring Legislators and Porn Star Popping Presidents.
Given that I think that our laws criminalizing any form of voluntary exchange are wrong and immoral why do you think I care than Mr. Hof runs brothels ?
My complaint would be that our legislators – particularly Sen Harris has made it their business to shut down the opportunities for women to profit legally without working out of a legal brothel.
In otherwords the left has enabled and financially rewarded Hof.
Happy Birthday Present To You, Despicable Donnie:
Ok maybe tit for tat. Time to charge Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. DOJ can find something.
Absolutely, Ron. Nailing the CF should have been done years ago.
There seems to be an unwritten rule that any previous President or candidate for president is above the law. I thought if it were ever going to change, it would have been Trump changing this so in the future no one could do something knowing they were home free.
But what the hell, I also thought we would learn the truth from Trump about area 51 and the frozen body some say is held there. 😁 Little I know!!
CF is at worst a bad charity.
That is not the business of government.
The issue that matters is that Clinton and her people in state gave favorable treatment to contributions to CF.
The crime is with Clinton and her people – not CF.
If you want to contribute to a bad charity – that is your business,
Whether it is TF or CF
Nor do we have any business pretending we should control what or how charities behave.
That is not the business of government.
How Government behaves is the business of the people.
Giving government favors to CF contributors is politically corrupt, it is criminal, it is an abuse of power. And it should be severely punished.
But it is not CF that did something wrong – it is those in government who abused their power.
Charge the Clinton Foundation for what?
For being an actual positive force of help in the 3rd World?
The Clinton’s didn’t misuse a penny of Foundation money for their own benefit. Not a nickel of it was used to assist Clinton’s campaign, not a dime of the contributions to it resulted in ‘tit for tat’ payoffs political or otherwise to donators.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Clinton Foundation gets a 9 for probity.
Trump’s Foundation, gets a 2.
https://twitter.com/sethhanlon/status/1007316155328065536?s=21
I have no axe to grind with CF.
But please lets not spew this garbage that they are a positive force.
If you think so – donate your own money to them.
But please do not try to sell me that garbage.
They are probably not the worst charity in existance – so many charities are so bad.
And charities in general are horibly ineffective.
I actually like the Gates foundation ALOT.
Yet, as Bill Gates has learned – charity is hard and much of gates spending has been wasted.
Gates efforts in education have taught us some things. BUT what he has done that is successful DOES NOT SCALE.
You can spend a fortune, bring in the best and brightest teachers, social workers and administrators and you can make the poorest schools in the country into the best.
But the ‘best and brightest” are a limited resource. There are only so many of them.
Merely spending lots of money is NOT enough. In fact it may accomplish nothing.
Gates spend 1B to end malaria in Africa. The results – Malaria actually increased as a result to the actions gates took.
And I think Gates really truly is trying to do effective Charity.
The Clinton Foundation is a sham.
But if you wish to give you money to it – that is your business.
What is WRONG, what should result in people going to jail is the state departments disparate treatement of CF donors.
That is political corruption, that is abuse of power, that is criminal and people should go to jail.
It does not matter whether there is a quid pro quo.
Government must apply the law blindly. When it does not those in GOVERNMENT are corrupt.
On a scale of 1-10 the CF gets about a 2-3 – and actually did so, until they blackmailed the organizations rating charities.
But if you wish to beleive that non-sense – that is your business.
Contribute to CF or don’t, contribute to TF or don’t.
But it is not your business of mine what other people do with their own money.
Whether the contribute to TF or CF.
If TF is a 0 and CF is a 10 – so what ? So long as people are making their own choices – why is it your business ?
If you wish to contribute to the flat earth society – that is not my business.
If you wish to contribute to Anti-da or the aryan brotherhood – that is not my business.
Nor is it the business of government.
https://twitter.com/kaivanshroff/status/1007293428508569602?s=21
The CF claims regarding Aides are garbage.
There is no change in the actual cost of Aides drugs to parients,
The is no change in the trend of aids deaths or the rate of new aids cases.
Nothing that CF has done had any actual effect.
Further for the most part CF was a bit player in actions that predate them.
They have for the most part taken credit for the actions of others
Look if you want to beleive otherwise, and you want to contribute to CF – fine.
Nor do I especially wish to piss on CF – because though they are a bad charity.
There are no statistically significant effects of charity in undeveloped countries.
Between charities, NGO’s and government aide we have sunk $1T into africa in aide over the past 40 years, and inarguably it has had NO EFFECT.
There is alot of disreputable conduct in CF – and I would guess TF also.
But the fundimental issue with CF was that contributions to CF lead to better access to the state department.
The fault there lies not with CF – but with those within state who provided that improved access.
The fault is the abuse of power – in this instance trading government power for donations.
It does not matter to me if the Clinton’s never personally benefited – though I think the case can be made that they did.
The law must be applied equally to all. Our government may not look more favorably on contributors to CF. That it did requires the punishment of those in GOVERNMENT who did so.
NOT CF.
I have no idea whether there is any substance to this.
Though I wonder why the NY AG is not going after the Clinton foundation.
I would note that the NY AG’s office has had a horrible record over the past couple of decades.
It has been involved in numerous highy profile political lawsuits – many of which have ended badly.
Several NY AG’s in a row have left in scandal and often as criminals.
The NY AG is the poster boy for the mess that results from unchecked power.
Regardless, if there is something actually wrong with the Trump foundation – go for it.
Though I will still be wondering why it is that the left wields what power it has only to flog its enemies.
It is most definitely LAWLESS when the power of government – any government or part of government is used differently with respect to political enemies than with political friends.
I do not know whether the Trump foundation has acted improperly.
But if it has I would be surprised if it acted half as egregiously as we know the Clinton foundation has.
Investigate TF as you wish. But explain to me why you are not investigating CF ?
Explain to me why you are not horribly politically corrupt for wielding the sword of government power in a hyper partisan manner.
I am distraught at the moment – because quite clearly the Obama administration did all the things that Nixon wanted to do but could not with respect to using the power of government to punish its enemies. And yet there are no Sen. Baker’s on the left willing to stand up and say
This is wrong.
You can not use the awesome power of government for the purpose of protecting your friends and punishing your enemies.
You do not even understand how wrong this is.
This is different from Hitler and the Nazi’s only in degree.
This is litterally evil
After bothering to look into this there is little there, and Trump can (though knowing Trump likely wont) make this go away for 2.8M.
His legal costs fighting it will exceed that.
When we talk CF we are talking hundreds of millions.
BTW the Core claim is that TF was used politically.
And that claim rests on a novel argument.
Trump actively featured TF fund raising events at Political events.
In otherwords candidate Trump used TF and TF publicity to say “look at me, I am a big philanthropists”.
Just to be clear – TG RAISED MONEY as a result of this.
The NY AG is not arguing (mostly) that Trump TOOK money from TF,
But that he RAISED money for TF in a way that benefited him politically.
The 2nd claim is that the Campaign directed TF spending of money.
That appears to be correct. They have emails from Corey Lowendowski directing TF to cut 100K checks – to other charities. Again there was a political benefit for Trump
But the Charity was still engaged in the job of charity.
I would be surprised to discover that TF is a charity that I would find appealing.
But if we are going to argue that Trump’s relationhip with TF was improper because he benefitted politically and TF benefitted from Trump’s politics.
Then TF is a cherry bomb and CF is a hydrogen bomb.
Essentially the NY AG is saying that politicians she does not like can not engage in charity if they also benefit politically.
Trump on Kim: “He loves his people…He wants to do right by them and we got along really well.”
A note to evangelical Christians & other Christians who support Trump: NK is listed as the world’s main persecutor of Christians.
A note to anyone who still defends Trump: Go Robert DiNero Yourself!
“Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
― Winston S. Churchill
The agreement reached in Singapore could prove meaningless. It is little more than a statement of intentions. It is not binding on anyone.
But it does set the starting point of negotiations.
NK has committed to full denuclearization. The US has committed to many other things in return.
Any actual binding deal might be different, or might not occur, but this is a start.
It is more than any other president has gotten.
Yes, Trump is lying about Kim Un.
Would you rather he told the truth and we got no deal ?
Was Obama telling the Truth about Iran ?
I do not think the Iran deal was good enough to have agreed to it.
But I was not opposed to negotiating with Iran.
I may not think the NK deal is worth it when we reach an actual deal.
But I am not opposed to negotiating with NK.
I do not care if Trump calls Kim Un the Messiah if the end result is to end the NK nuclear threat.
Do you actually disagree ?
North Korea’s treatment of Chritians is horrible – they are sent to force labor or killed on the spot.
Of course that is the punishment for everything in NK.
There are estimated to be 300.000 christians in NK – that is less than 1% of the population.
Christians used to be the 2nd largest denomimation in the mideast and north africa.
There were millions.
That was true through to the 1960’s.
Since then persecution – including official persecturion has driven nearly all christians out of the mideast.
Bottom line:
“Justice Dept Inspector General concluded that bias did NOT affect Clinton email investigation, that FBI had PROPER reasons for declining to prosecute her, and that the only improper actions influencing 2016 election were actions that damaged Clinton, not Trump.” @johnharward
Even Tea Party Joe agrees:
Are you actually arguing that Clinton’s illegal conduct and mishandling of top secret information should not have had any effect on the election ?
I guess then Trump’s mysogny should not have had any effect either – that was not even illegal ?
Get a clue. Clinton was an abysmal candidate.
I am not yet sure what the IG said. But what he can say is that those in DOJ/FBI behaved properly or improperly.
What he can not say is what effect it might have had on the election.
Mass telepathy is outside the IG’s ability and I doubt that he engaged in it.
BTW the IG report into the Trump investigation is still outstanding.
“Are you actually arguing that Clinton’s illegal conduct and mishandling of top secret information should not have had any effect on the election ?”
Only a minor effect.
As the investigation has verified, it was not determined to be illegal, and the mishandling was unintentional. Nor did Clinton personally email any ‘secret’ info, almost ALL OF WHICH wasn’t labeled top secret at the time, but retroactively labeled that AFTER the fact.
YOU continue to be an IGNORAMUS unable to distinguish fact from Fox News Fiction.
“Only a minor effect.”
So again you presume to judge for voters how they are to react.
“As the investigation has verified, it was not determined to be illegal”
Please actually read the IG’s report that is NOT what it found.
Comey asserted Clinton’s conduct was illegal. He exercised prosecutorial discretion in chosing not to prosecute it. That is the OPPOSITE of what you are asserting.
The IG report rejects Comey’s authority to make that choice,
but affirms NOT that the decision is correct, but that it is within the scope of what the AG (not Comey) could have decided.
” and the mishandling was unintentional.”
That is an obvious double error on both the IG Comey.
The law does not require it to be intentional.
Republicans throughout the Obama administration worked hard to pass legislation that would restore a default “mens rea” requirement to federal law – democrats rejected that.
Federal law DOES NOT require intentionality. That is WRONG, but it is the state of the law, and you can blame the left for that.
Nearly all state laws do require “mes rea”
That said – even if there was a default requirement of intentionality, a few crimes DO NOT require intentionality. Statutory rape is one example, another is ALL crimes of negligence.
18 cfr 793(f) is a crime of negligence. Comey explicitly FOUND that clinton was extremely reckless. That is a requirement of the law.
Last Clinton’s conduct actually met the legal requirement for intentional – as some of her own emails noted, her purpose in seting up her private email server was to thwart federal record keeping and FOIA laws. While those laws had no criminal penalities – they were still laws, and she INTENTIONALLY violated them.
The “:mens rea requirement” of law DOES NOT require specific intent.
You do not have to intend to “murder col mustard in the dining room with a candle stick” to be guilty of that murder. The only intent required is to do wrong. If you intentionally do one bad thing and the results end up far worse – you meet the mens rea requirement of the law.
“Nor did Clinton personally email any ‘secret’ info”
False and irrelevant – she controlled her email account, it was not used without her direction.
Her staff had their own email accounts.
” almost ALL OF WHICH wasn’t labeled top secret at the time”
Also irrelevant. the Sec State is an originator of classified information. Most of what Clinton did was BORN CLASSIFIED and not declassified until some authority – including her on occasion determined otherwise. Further any information acquired inside of a SCIF – and most of the Sec States suite is a SCIF is automatically deemed classified.
That is why inside the SCIF there is no insecure means of communicating.
In many instances MARKED top secret documents were hand coppied near verbatum from inside the SCIF and walked out to insecure systems and put into emails.
“but retroactively labeled that AFTER the fact.”
Both false and irrelevant. You clearly have never had anything to do with classified information.
Clinton was briefed – just as every single person with a security clearance including her entire staff, that you can not copy, repeat, extract, any information that you acquire inside a SCIF and use it in any form outside that SCIF.
The procedures for dealing with classified information are thorough, and Clinton was briefed on them every year.
She was also told that anything that she produced that incorporated classified information was classified whether marked so or not.
She would have been further informed as an originator – that anything she created was deemed classified at birth – whether marked or not.
She and her entire staff were made fully familiar with this.
This is the Secretary of States office nearly EVERYTHING they do is classified. This is nearly a security intense as NSA and CIA. It is MORE security intense than FBI.
I would further note that the IG’s report reveals what all of us have known for a long time – the vast majority of FBI agents involved in the Clinton investigation beleived that they would have ended up in jail had they done what clinton did.
“YOU continue to be an IGNORAMUS unable to distinguish fact from Fox News Fiction.”
Finally, this is not about fox – which I do not watch. My first assertion – that Clinton’s misconduct would have consequences in the election has NOTHING to do with the FBI or IG or even the law.
It has to do with voters. You seem to think that voters are bound by the determinations of the FBI.
But only when that serves you. You wish voters to be angry enough to vote against Trump for legal conduct, and then entirely disregard conduct of Clinton’s that most of us would end up in jail for, because Comey chose not to prosecute.
Horowitz credited the FBI for looking at past prosecution history. But failed to properly look at that history.
Duetch was prosecuted convicted and had is sentence commuted by Bill Clinton merely for taking a work laptop containing classified information home with him.
There was no transmission of classified information, no placing that information on the internet.
It remained on a secure computer than was unable to connect to the internet.
The only risk was that the laptop would be stolen from his home.
Pertreaus was convicted from bringing notebooks with classified information to his home.
Under circumstances were his ghost writer had access to them.
Clinton’s position as Sec State is somewhat comparable to the CIA director.
Like the CIA director nearly everything Sec. State does is BORN CLASSIFIED
Do you honestly beleive that foriegn governments would not want to know what the state department was up to.
Even things as mundane as the Sec. States calendar are classified – whether marked or not.
Partly because they relate to her security, partly because just knowing who she meets with when is of value to our enemies.
Finally the IG’s report confirms something else that Comey REMOVED from his July 5th statement – several foreign power gained access to classified information on Clinton’s server.
Deutch, Berger, and Petreaus were all convicted for lessor offenses that did not actually compromise security.
Clinton did and did not care.
And that last part is actually damning to her and to you.
You can not escape criminal culpability because you do not care – and that is what you and Comey argued with the lacked intent, claim.
Clinton did not deliberately compromise security – she DID NOT CARE.
I am ignorant because you can not read ?
ie. the IG says the report was biased, tainted, failed to follow procedure, made just about every possible mistake.
And you dwell on the one hint of a conclusion – that you can not actually reach, and that is that despite all the misconduct it reached the right result.
You can not conclude that when you use arsenic to bake a cake – that the results would have been the same if you did not.
I have no problem with the conclusion that the Clinton email investigation harmed Clinton politically. Nor that it benefited Trump politically.
Nor even that certain specific mistakes of Comey’s harmed clinton IMPROPERLY.
But the investigation occurred because Clintons conduct was WRONG. ILLEGAL.
The harm of the investigation to Clinton was her OWN fault.
If you rob a bank, you can expect to be investigated and prosecuted.
Even if you get off – you can not claim persecution.
Frankly if the IG concluded that Clinton should not have been prosecuted – the IG was wrong.
Clinton should have been prosecuted BECAUSE she was Sec State.
If those at the top of government are not accountable, no one is.
There is a long list of people prosecuted during Obama’s tenure for LESS egregious violations that Clinton.
But then the left beleives that the law should be applied differently depending on the person.
Ask Christian Saucier.
“The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists … more than all previous administrations combined.”
— Jake Tapper 2014
Yeah, using an unsecured server was wrong, but not significiently wrong, and NOT illegal according to the report, and to common sense, and clear thinking.
It was no BIG DEAL!
But politically motivated cultists of the right like you continue to bloviate the story because there isn’t much of anything else significant to distract from the Trump crisis we face now.
First the issue is not really the server – though that has additional complications.
There are two independent issues.
The first is using non-governmental accounts to conduct government business.
That is absolutely illegal. It is NOT criminal.
The second is the insecure storage and transmission of classified informaiton – that is criminal.
And both are a big deal.
One of my problems with Horowitz’s report is that he found – though on a far smaller scale than clinton the use of private email for government busines was pervasive within the DOJ/FBI.
He specifically found Comey had sent classified information over the internet.
That should have been the end of the IG’s report. There is no possibility that people who were to a lessor extent breaking the same law as Clinton could possibly objectively investigate her.
That is like asking embezzlers to investigate bank robbers.
During the investigation we learned that Colin powell had done the same as Clinton – on something like 30 occasions.
That seriously disturbed me. While I am not sure the powell example was sufficient to prosecute it was clearly wrong and clearly A BIG DEAL.
And I greately respect Colin Powell.
No one in the US government should be using personal email for government business.
Not in the Obama administration, not in the Trump administration.
I am aware that some on both parties do it – and they should be disciplined and possibily prosecuted.
One of the observations of the IG’s report that I find damning, is that EVERYONE was mishandling classified information, and using personal emails and devices for government work and visa versa.
It specifically notes that Comey sent atleast on marked secret document through private email.
How do you expect people who are engaged in the same conduct as clinton – though maybe to a lessor degree to be capable of finding what is essentially their own conduct to be a crime ?
BTW I addressed this elsewhere but the actual finding by the IG is not as you have reported.
The IG essentially said that the permissible range of discretion was large enough to include the results the FBI reported.
Horriwitz PROPERLY noted, that there is a difference between a bad decision, and a biased decision.
Horrowitz used an extremely narrow standard for bias – not making the distinction between the bias needed to convict an individual, and the bias needed to conclude the investigation was botched.
Horrowitz essentially said that no one in the FBI demonstrate Bias in a way that would allow them to be successfully prosecuted.
BTW Horrowitz DID find that Strzok’s prioritizing the Trump investigation over the Clinton investigation in Oct 2016 was CLEAR BIAS.
Interesting the IG (Mostly) let Comey off the hook. But was damning with respect to the FBI.
FBI SDNYC reported hundreds of thousands of emails on Wiener’s laptop that were implicated in the Clinton investigation in mid Sept. 2016. There was a flurry of activity within the FBI regarding that through Oct. 4. On or before Oct 4. The FBI determined that a warrant was necescary and that they were required to re-open the investigation.
But from Oct. 4 through to very late Oct. nothing happened, everything clinton related died.
No facts changed, the conclusion still was that the FBI needed to get a warrant and look at the emails. Then suddenly in late October the FBI decided that it needed to act.
Horrowitz Damn’s the FBI for sitting on its ass for almost a month.
He exhonerates Comey for that, blaming it on McCabe and Strzok
but then damns Comey for telling congress.
I would strongly suggest that you read the actual report.
Horrowitz addressed bias many many times.
He did not find the investigation was without bias.
He addressed bias in SPECIFIC decisions. the “money quote” that democrats use is the one Horowitz wrote specific to Comey’s decision not to prosecute Clinton.
Conversely in SEVERAL instances – specifically all involving Strzok Horowitz EXPLICITLY stated that he could not rule out bias as a factor in Strzok’s decisions.
Horowitz was very concerned about the long delay associated with finding emails on the Wiener laptop and the FBI seeking warrants and Comey reporting the reopening to congress.
Horowitz found pretty much the entirety of that handled badly and though there were many factors, Horowitz was specifically concerned that Strzok’s anti-trump bias was a factor in his resisting moving from the Trump/Russia investigation back to the Clinton email investigation and that was a major factor in the delay.
Put more simply Horowitz found plenty of evidence of Bias.
But he specifically said that some decisions – while possibly made badly did not show evidence of bias.
Those remarks were specific to individual decisions.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/byron-york-political-bias-infected-fbi-trump-clinton-investigations
Snore…
Yes, e know, you have found one sound byte and you need not read any further.
“[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.”
IG Horowitz.
So are you still saying that Horowitz found no evidence of Bias ?
History has already proved those anti Trump agents heroes.
Trying to stop a Russian puppet criminal money laundering congenital liar from the Presidency is HEROIC medal deserving behavior, like Paul Revere’s Ride! Calling Trump an ‘idiot’ and a ‘douche’ was certainly an accurate assessment. Plaudits for accurate judgement!
But what about the anti Hillary agents, like the ones who slipped Nunes information about Weiner’s laptop? And what about all the FBI agents critical of Obama? Forget about them, right?
So you are endorsing members of the FBI using the power of govenrment to interfere in elections ?
Parsing what you spray is imposible.
Nunes had nothing to do with Weiner’s laptop.
Nunes was informed AFTER the election by someone – probably not in the FBI, of the massive unmasking. That person went to a great deal of difficulty to FOLLOW THE RULES.
In the even you are not aware – congress has legitimate oversight responsibility.
There is nothing at all wrong with informing the chair of the HPSCI of illegal or improper activity in the executive.
Active FBI agents leaking to the press should at the minimum be fired.
Active FBI agents informing congress of misconduct should get medals.
Jay, why do you feel you have to defend the CF. Many feel it abused the rules and benefited the Clinton’s and provided paid parking places for HC’s ex staff. Any way if they did good stuff,. good for them, but they still skirted the law. Trump’s Foundation also abused the rules as do many other foundations, that are little more than piggy banks for powerful rich people.
dhlli spends enormous amounts of time and words rationalizing thieving Trump does, I think that is wrong, and so is defending the Cinton’s just because they happen to be in the Dem Party.
Though I think the role of govenrment in “investigating” private foundations is much less than you do.
Otherwise we agree.
I would care about the behavior of the Trump Foundation – if I donated money to them – I did not.
I would care about the behavior of the Clinton Foundation – if I donated money to them – I did not.
Though I beleive the law should be very light with respect to charities – if they violated legitimate law, they they should be prosecuted for those violations – CF/TF the same.
If they wasted money – that is between them and their donors.
What I care about is whether those in government provided special treatment to people.
It does not matter if they got special treatment because they donated to CF or because they were white and rich.
Given that we mostly agree on this why the ad hominem.
You say Trump is engaged in “theivery”.
I am well aware of real demonstrable misconduct regarding Clinton.
What I am aware of regarding Trump is that he has made lots of enemies who say bad things about him.
Thus far the “evidence” has been pretty thin.
Kushner as an example is going to have to refinance his park avenue building,
The fact that he is trying to do so is not evidence of corruption or theft.
Someone is eventually loaning him the money.
It is even likely he will get a good deal – the building is worth nearly 3B and the loans are only about 200M.
We get these kind of things all over.
Trump’s family continues to run the assorted Trump businesses.
Clearly corruption ?
Actually prove something, and you will get my interest.
If allegations alone are sufficient – why aren’t the clinton’s and half the DNC and Obama administration in Levenworth ?
When you have an actual basis for an investigation – do so.
When that investigation leads somewhere – prosecute.
I don’t defend the CF because the Clintin’s are Dems.
I defend it because it was a positive force for good in the world, until the unfounded lying undermining criticism from the Right sullied it’s reputation.
Take my word, I examined the controversies for a YEAR on line.
I read Everything about it available, not only from the left and right here, but from overseas sources as well. And From reputable other charitable organizations who worked with them on projects, like the Bill Gates and the Bush foundations. All the money that was pouring in went to develop infrastructure and networking models to improve lives in the underveloped nations. That model has now been adopted by other foundations as well— the plan to influence corporations and governments to restructure costs and services in ways that help those in need, not by funneling money directly to the needy.
As to your complaint the Clintons hired former staff for for Foundation management, why is that a problem for you? If they were good political staff workers, wouldnt that recommend them for foundation work as well?
And check out the Foundation management pay scale, which is low compared to national averages.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/clinton-foundation/salaries
“I defend it because it was a positive force for good in the world.”
Everyone involved in foreign aide – including aide to Africa which was alot of what CF has taken credit for has concluded that in massive amounts over 40 years it has had no effect.
The claim that CF was a positive force for good is garbage.
One of the great dilema’s that I have personally faced as a libertarian who beleives that government may not engage in charity but individuals have a duty to, is that charity on the whole is ineffective. All the private charity from the begining of human existance through to the current moment did far less total good than the post Mao decision of the Chinese leaders to tolerate small amounts of economic freedom at the margins.
I would strongly encourage reading https://www.amazon.com/China-Became-Capitalist-Ronald-Coase/dp/1137351438
I still pay for and serve about 1000 meals to homeless shelters each year.
But the evidence is that even Mother Theresa does far less good for the world than those greedy businesses that you deride.
With respect to CF – an actual review of what they have done – is very little.
The openly admit that nearly all of what they do is “organizing” for NGO’s.
That essentially they fund global events where those involved in NGO’s gather and party and talk about all the good they think they are doing.
CF’s involvment in aides drugs in Africa was peripheral. And frankly ineffective.
There has been absolutely no effect on aides trends in africa.
With respect to Haiti given that Haiti is actually worse off for the aide it has received, it is hard not to laugh at any claim that CF was effective their.
More of this god awful stupid fixation on motives.
Are you incapable of understanding that so long as you judge people by motives you will ALWAYS be able to come to whatever conclusion you wish.
CF is good – because you subjectively decide that something that is entirely inside their minds was good – their intentions. Of course people say their intentions were good.
Even Bernie Maddof claimed his intentions were good and people like you beleived him.
TF is bad – because you subjectively decide that its intentions were bad.
Ultimately you are free to beleive whatever you wish.
What you can not seem to conceive is that you can not impose your beleifs on others by force.
That you can not migrate your feelings regarding CF vs. TF into government.
That government is NOT free to make choices based on highly subjective interpretations of the mental state of others.
If you had actually read the things you claimed you read then you would know that what you write is FALSE.
No analysis of CF has EVER found it has any consequential involvement in direct aide.
Their HIGHEST ever direct aide value was 11%, That means 89% of their spending went to some form of administrative expense.
This was at the core of their spat with the charity assessment organizations and the result that those organizations either changed their criteria or refuse to rate CF.
That has damaged our ability to properly asses any charity.
Regardless, CF’s claim is that since much of its work is in sponsering conferences, and training for NGO’s that spending should be counted as “direct aide”.
You can hold whatever view you want regarding the merits of CF sponsoring conferences and trainings. If find it ludicrously stupid and something only the left would buy to expect an organization that has almost no experience actually helping people to teach others how to help people.
If you really wish to compare Clinton Foundation to something comparable – compare them to the Carter Foundation.
Yes, why would we actually wish to help the needy when we can hob knob with the hoi polloi AND get credit for doing good – without actually having to get our hands dirty.
Effective charity is incredibly difficult ,and extremely rare. In the best charitable organizations in the world the likelyhood is that what they do will accomplish nothing.
In most they may actually be destructive.
And you are celebrating that Clinton Foundation has polluted the world of charity such that even more charities are shifting to their model ?
Here is something 2000 years old to read on this subject Matthew 25:31-46
We are not judged on the conferences we organize, or the consciousness raising we engage in, we are not judged on our motives, or thoughts.
We are judged on what we actually DO!.
Did you cloth me, feed me, heal me ?
Not did you go to conferences, and mixers and have drinks with your buddies and discuss all my problems with the best of possible intentions.
There is a reason that prior to CF blackmailing the charity raters that the propertion of direct aide was considered the gold standard for rating a charity.
Because nothing else matters.
Because direct aide is highly inefective. What CF does is completely meaningless.
The Clinton Foundation is NOT the Missionaries of charity – Mother Therressa’s charity – that actually gets their hands dirty.
Sorry jay but your apologist rationalizing about CF is exactly what is wrong with you.
You have been sold a bill of goods, and you are deluding yourself.
Let me ask you a different question – do you give money to charity ?
If so – do you give it to Clinton Foundation – or other similar charites that do not do any real aide ?
If you had $1M that you were required to give to a charity – would you give it to CF or to a group like “Missionaries of Charity”, Catholic Charites, the Mennonite Central Committee.
Giving money to CF is like giving money to a televangelist.
You are free to do so. But do not expect any good to come of it.
You are as deluded as the people who gave to James Baker – who is a really good model to compare to the Clinton’s.
Just to be clear – I do not care much if CF is a good charity or a bad charity.
That is the business of those who contribute to CF.
I do not care that CF is a sinecure for democratic political operatives.
Though there is a serious issue with providing tax deductions to those funding the creation of jobs for out of power political operatives.
But then I beleive taxes should be as low as possible and nothing should be tax deductible – not even charitable giving.
The only consequential issue I care about regarding CF is that while Clinton was Sec State giving to CF was a way of securing preferential treatment at the state department.
That is NOT a CF problem – that is a very serious state department problem
It is political corruption and abuse of power.
It is irrelevant that CF was a charity or whether they were a good charity or a bad one.
All that is relevant is that people dealing with State were not being treated equally before the law.
Trump goes low and some go lower in the rhetorical/junk talk.
Frank Bruni has a GREAT column today that explains why that plays right into Trump’s hands.
I have problems with NYT’s paywall – even though I have an account and can not read the article.
But the premise seems to be that in a war of words Trump is going to win.
I agree.
Bill Maher unfortunately got it right – you want to be Trump – you should be praying for a recession. Is that what you want ?
I had this dilema with Obama and I was fortunate – Obama’s policies failed.
I did not have to confront the possibility that doing all the things I think were wrong brought about prosperity.
Though I will tell you – had Obama managed to do as he did AND brought about 5% intial growth, or 3.5% sustained growth I would have been forced to question my core values.
The war of words with Trump diminishes those attacking him far more than Trump.
My view of you and Jay has declined substantially as a consequence of your frothing denunciations of Trump.
There is alot about Trump not to like. But quite honestly he is LESS vile than Bill Clinton and unfortunately Bill Clinton was a good president.
I did read something interesting about Clinton and the impeachment recently that I found interesting – and democrats should think about.
Clinton to a very large extent governed much like Reagan. He was very fiscally conservative.
BUT as the IC investigation proceeded and as impeachment was taken up, Clinton had to buy allies from those on the left that he had offended.
The result was the later years of the Clinton administration were a shift left from the early ones.
The more Democrats attack Trump, the more Trump is going to be inclinded to NEED support elsewhere. The more Trump is going to kowtow to religious conservatives or other groups.
The left does not seem to understand that if you are committed to Trump’s destruction no matter what – then you have no voice with Trump. He has no reason to give you anything.
And do so in a vocabulary that’s measured, not hysterical. Enough with “idiot” and “moron” (unless you’re directly quoting an administration official). They’re schoolyard and splenetic.
Enough with Hitler, too. Has Trump shown fascistic tendencies? Yes. Is he the second coming of the Third Reich? No. Nor are the spineless Republicans who have enabled him Nazi collaborators, not on the evidence of what has and hasn’t happened so far.
I’m not urging complacency. But when you invoke the darkest historical analogies, you lose many of the very Americans you’re trying to win over. What you’re saying isn’t what they’re seeing. It’s overreach in their eyes.
And when you make the direst predictions, you needlessly put your credibility on the line. The stock market didn’t go into free fall after Trump’s election. We’re not at war with North Korea. I’m not ignoring the grave flaws and galling giveaways in his tax overhaul, and I’m not minimizing his disregard for diplomatic norms, including his unwarranted verbal attacks on American allies. I’m noting that when you extrapolate too wildly into the future, you sometimes wind up distracting people from what’s happening in the here and now.
The more noise, the less discernment. The more fury, the less focus. Proportion and triage are in order, and that means an end, please, to the Melania madness. Floating the idea that she’s a victim of domestic abuse merely supports Trump’s contention that his critics are reflexive and unfettered in their contempt for him and that all of their complaints should be viewed through that lens.
“When they go low, we go high,” said another first lady, Michelle Obama, at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. It’s a fine set of marching orders, disobeyed ever since. It was definitely ignored by those of you in the Manhattan theater where the Tony Awards were held on Sunday. You answered De Niro’s expletives with a standing ovation.
DD – please read my posts – and then your own.
Given your own posts – which pretty much never make and argument and little more than ad hominem, you counsel me to tone down the rhetoric ?
Look in the mirror. I do not need to insult you.
You take insult almost entirely because I characterize specific policies views and ideas.
If I say faith in government is idiotic – you presume I am calling you an idiot.
Whether you like it or not – that is not ad hominem.
The kind of unconstrained faith that the left places in government is idiotic.
There is plenty of evidence of that.
But you call specific people idiots and morons – directly – not merely public figures, but anyone HERE who posts what you do not like. In fact your responses amount to very little more than calling others names.
Do I respect you ? No ! Do I think most of the same things of you as you do me ? Yes.
But my lack of respect for you is not because your arguments are poor. Or your ideas have no foundation. It is because instead of making your case – with relish and lots of adjectives if you must, you jump right to insults.
You fixate on the Hitler reference – you do not seem to recall that goodwin’s law does nto apply when you are discussing real Nazi’s.
Hitler’s germany is the penultimate example of what happens when you shift from the rule of law to the rule of man.
Would it make you feel better if I used Musollini ? Robespierre ? Pol Pot ? Mao ?
In your world it is perfectly acceptable for you to do nothing except insults, it is not acceptable for others to make arguments that leave you FEELING insulted.
Whoops, my, 9:14pm, 6/14, comment above was part of the Bruni opinion piece it gets the flavor of the whole piece.
I responded several times very critically, and I apologize.
Part way through I came to realize that I was confused about what you were saying and who it was directed at. Now I am not even sure that you were saying it.
I stand by my remarks – but NOT at targeting them at you.
@your 4:29 comment: Bruni said this: “Enough with Hitler, too. Has Trump shown fascistic tendencies? Yes. Is he the second coming of the Third Reich? No. Nor are the spineless Republicans who have enabled him Nazi collaborators, not on the evidence of what has and hasn’t happened so far.”
He seems to agree with you. Hmmmm.
Everything is not black and white.
I have criticised Jay, and to a lessor extent you for making things black or white.
Trump is either god or the anti-christ.
There are LOTS of traits in Trump that DEEPLY concern me and I do actually watch what he does carefully.
There is a huge differences from undoing much of what Obama has done – often without any legitimate basis for doing so, and actual authoritarianism.
Obama was much more authoritarian than Trump – atleast thuse far.
But he was also far more soft spoken about it.
Trump is brash and forceful and domineering.
But thus far he has done little that is authoritarian.
I do not like him as a person.
I do not like some of his policies.
I liked Obama as a person – though I am re-assessing that.
But I did not like his policies even more.
Regardless, Obama was a mediocre to poor president.
Trump thus far appears to be Clintonesque.
Though he does not appear to be quite the mysoginist Clinton was,
and he is far less personable.
Regardless, he is well on his way to being a successful president that we all wish we could forget.
Both Clinton and Trump bother me greatly.
I beleive that we should pick good people to be president.
Trump and Clinton are not goof people. But Clinton was a goof president whether I like that or not.
And Trump may be too.
Has Trump acted Fascist ?
Nope.
He has done things I do not agree with. But he is LESS fascist than Obama.
Less fascist than Bush.
Virtually all the conflict between Trump and the left over government and policy has been Trump undoing the overreach of the prior administration.
You may honestly and possibly rightly beleive that the prior administrations actions were good – that is fine. But thy either were NOT lawful, or they were at best not permanent.
Reverting back to the law is ANTI-Fascist.
Even undoing policies that were legitimately imposed by the prior administration but NOT implimented through law – is less “fascist” than imposing them in the first place.
If you beleive that Obama could do what he did as president unilaterally – then undoing it is equally legitimate.
If you do not, then undoing it is ANTI-Fascist.
Trump says alot of things I do not like.
I am interested in what he DOES.
Even god judges us by our actions not our words.
You can not make the distinction between thinking something is a good idea, and deciding that government must impose it by force. You further can not make the distinction between a president acting one what you think is a good idea, and going through the difficult process to make it law.
I support allowing the so called “dreamers” remaining in this country.
But Obama accomplished that at best on his own authority alone, and therefore it can be undone on Trump’s authority alone, or arguably without the legal authority to do so.
The permanent solutions to our immigration conflicts must come through congress and law.
Those solutions are not going to be perfect – and I am going to take offense at them.
And argue against them.
But atleast they will be the law.
Please provide an example of something that Trump has DONE that is fascist, totalitarian ?
That is outside his constitutional authorities as president interpreted much more narrowly than by Obama ?
Just to be clear, my question is not really about Trump. It is actually about you and your perception of the world.
There is alot wrong with Trump. But he has not ACTED as an authoritarian.
Obama actually ACTED authoritarian. He did so with polish and with words that made it appear that he did what he had to, rather than what he was allowed to.
But you are incapable of seeing that. You think that because Trump is inarguably a far less “nice” guy than Obama, that makes him the fascist.
The devil usually approaches you in a nice suit, speaking softly in a soothing and appealing tongue. If the devil came to us as Trump – almost no one would listen.
On the one hand – you see fascism, authoritarianism where there is nothing but coarse speach,
and you do not see it where it is.
There is nothing at all wrong with comparing the lawless approach that the left takes to everything with Hitler and the Nazi’s.
Because the comparison is correct.
The Nazi’s are the example of the end result of the arguments and principles the left is offering.
Or if you prefer the Stalin and the Communists.
When you decide that you can use the awesome power of government to go after people based on their politics, their ideas, your judgement of whether they are good or bad, their religion, their sexual orientation, their race – you have abandoned the rule of law, and you are no different than the nazi’s and the communists, and myriads of others who persecuted their enemies using the power of government.
Is there anyone on the planet that did not know that Huma Abedin was Clinton’s aide, and that Abedin was married to Anthony Wiener in October of 2016 ?
Well Comey told the IG that he did not.
I am reading through parts of the OIG report.
Very early the IG makes Clear that any conclusion that a decision by DOJ/FBI was not improper was not meant to endorse that decision. That the standard the IG used was not was a decision wise, informed, or reasonable, but did the decision fall into the discretion of the person making it, was there evidence of bias or violations of rules, guidelines and procedures.
AS one example the IG found the text between Strzok and Page completely unacceptable and a strong indication of bias.
But the OIG essentially determined that that bias had not effected the investigation, as Strzok made very few final decisions, and as Strzok advocated for greater use of a Grand Jury.
Essentially the IG found that Strzok loathed Trump and adored Clinton, but that Strzok still mostly followed procedures, policies and guidelines and that more so than his superiors advocated for being more aggressive.
It is also pretty clear even in the first 5 pages that the IG would not likely have made the decisions that DOJ/FBI made. But that the IG understands the difference between a bad decision and an obviously politically corrupt one.
I think the IG erred in that respect. The conduct of individuals outside of government should be given the widest lattitude. The conduct of those in government – with respect to criminal prosecutions should also be given the widest lattitude.
But when measured as acts of government those actions should heve the NARROWEST latitude
When we talk about judges – we talk not of impropriety, but of the appearance of impropriety.
The benefit of the doubt for an individual accused of a crime belongs to the individual.
Official actions of government should not receive the benefit of the doubt.
The pittsburg reporter Salena Zito has done excellent work starting during the election analyzing the trump voter and why Trump won.
Those of you who are so ferverently anti-trump do not appear to get this at all.
You have spent more than a decade attacking a large portion of the electorate.
You call them hateful hating haters – you hate them.
Guess what – they got the message.
Trump is a symptom of their response to your hatred of them.
When Trump is attacked – they see themselves as attacked.
When Trump attacks back – they see him as fighting for them.
Trump has been uncannily sensitive to this.
The entire NFL kneeling mess was a huge political victory for him.
My guess is that Trump voters are dominant among serious sports fans.
Con tra the left these people do understand free speech.
They understand that a player kneeling during the anthem is engaged in free speach.
And they understand that government barring speach is not the same as fans angered by speach.
Trump took fans that were already angry and inspired many of them to take the next step – boycott the games.
The NFL was ultimately bound to give the fans what they wanted.
That result empowered sports fans AND it empowered Trump.
He helped them get something that was important to them.
The players then make the mistake of boycotting Trump.
So Trump throws the ball back in their court.
He says
If this is a protest about injustice – bring me people who have been unjustly convicted and
I will pardon them.
If players do not respond – it makes their protest look disengenuous.
Trump is offering them not a way to protest, but a way to correct the problem.
If players do respond they must:
Bring forward the names of people that we will all generally accept as victims of injustice.
Asking for pardons for people where there is not a broad perception of injustice makes you look bad.
Next they must come to the whitehouse and plead their case with Trump.
That is a huge oppertunity for Trump.
I am sure Trump would be absolutely ecstatic to every couple weeks have an NFL player come to the whitehouse with another Alice Johnson to pardon.
https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2018/06/14/swarens-why-president-donald-trump-second-term-great-revolt/694765002/
Scott Adam’s recently made the most poignant observation about the Singapore Summit.
It is not who gave up what that matters.
It is that when Trump was elected the US, and NK, Trump and Kim Un were mortal enemies hurtling towards war.
When Trump left Singaopre the US and NK, Trump and Kim Un had entirely flipped the situation and are looking to cooperate, to be friends.
This is not to say that Kin Un has become the great person Trump flattered him as.
But it is to say that the dynamic is flipped. While Kim can flipp again, it will actually be very hard for him.
Trump’s flattery of Kim may be more aspirational than real.
Interestingly Kim Un did what Arafat was unable to do in 1999, he came to negotiate with a mortal enemy and walked away as “friends”
NK essentially has a US promise of significant aide, and good will – in return for denuclearization and opening up the the rest of the world.
As others have noted – China was also a big winner in this.
The US has agreed that if NK denuclearizes, that the US will vastly reduce its military presence in the region. That is a very big deal for China.
It is also one of the reasons why DoD has never supported a deal like this.
I would further note that this did NOT happen with Iran.
Obama did not go to Iran. Two countries that did not trust each other reached a deal that no one liked. Iran did not even promise what we wanted.
We walked away from the deal as still enemies – who had made a mad deal with each other.
Trump does not have a formal deal yet.
But he has changed attitudes – both Kim Un’s and ours.
If NK does go forward with Denuclearization – do you think that the american people are not going to fully support everything else that Trump promised ?
There are alot of claims that Kim “won” the negotiation.
As Adam’s noted in the best deals everyone walks away thinking they won.
No one walked away from the Iran deal thinking they won.
Everyone thought they lost.
If Kim holds up his part of the bargain – both Kim and the NK people are going to benefit greatly
and so will the rest of us.
Kim is not likely to walk away – because he got alot. Attitudes towards NK changed.
But sustaining that change requires NK to change.
I think Kim knows that.
If not we will be back to threatening to bomb them into oblivion all to soon.
The IG found that not only did the Strzok/Page texts reflect a biased state of mind but also of a willingness to take action.
I find only one serious issue with the IG report – the IG report essentially uses the criminal conviction standard when evaluating the conduct of those it is investigating.
That would be appropriate when recomending charges. It is far to high a bar when evaluating the conduct of government and those in government generally as opposed to in a criminal context.
There is very little that the FBI/DOJ did in the Clinton investigation that would meet the standard necescary for a criminal prosecution.
At the same time Horowirtz’s conclusion that the investigation was rife with errors, but still reached the right outcome and despite the errors was not overall biased is flawed.
The standard for the conduct of government as a whole and the agents individually OUTSIDE the criminal context is the APPEARANCE of bias.
That standard is met 100 times over.
It will be interesting to see what Horowitz does with the Trump investigation, which is ALSO in his list.
The differences between the two are extreme.
There is no conceivable standard of conduct that leaves the actions in both investigations as reasonable.
Well I need some honest feedback, especially from dduck and Jay. Please no “idiot, moral, stupid, ignorant” or other negative comments. Just honest feedback recognizing individuals may have differing opinions.
Here is the issue. Kids of illegals being separated from parents while placed under criminal detention awaiting deportation due to illegal crossing. This has become a huge issue since there are about 2000 now impacted. On the other hand, there are over 8 million kids in America who has a parent in jail. I could not find the number separated from their family in government hands, but even 1% would be 80,000.
So my question due to a heated exchange with my California progressive++ female cousin. Why does this issue become a problem when a small number of individuals are impacted while it is not an issue when it impacts a large number of children who are American citizens. Why is this not something that was identified years ago by interested parties instead of now when illegals broke the law and entered illegally?
I will make my position known once I hear others thoughts.
The fundimental issue with border separations is that Trump is being more aggressive about enforcement – meaning more people are being picked up.
The video showing kids being removed from their parents was from 2014 – i.e. When Obama was president.
Both Obama and Trump followed the law on this.
You can argue that the law is wrong. Then change it. I would likely support that.
There is one other related issue – that is Obama was heavily engaged in “catch and release”.
That meant it took years to resolve each case.
Trump is not releasing the people caught. By doing so he is able to deport much faster.
If you catch somebody at the border, and hold them you can generally deport them in 90 days.
But once you allow them into the rest fo the country the process takes years.
If you catch them and hold them at the border – there are far fewer legal claims available to them.
This also effects the “separation” issue.
Obama would separate too – but then the family would get released in 30 days so nobody cared.
Now they are being deported in 90 days.
Regardless, if you do not like the law as it is – change it.
One of the most fundimental differences between Obama and Trump – one of the reasons this “fascist” crap is just that garbage, is that Trump is following the law closely.
Obama on immigration and many many other things ignored the law.
That is authoritarian.
Just to be clear – I do not agree with alot of our immigration law – including separating parents.
But when I do not like the law – I seek to see it changed – not ignored.
That goes right to the recent IG’s report.
18 USC 793(f) is specifically for instances where there is no intent.
It is hard to conceive of a case that does nto have intent that would be worse than Clinton’s emails.
18 USV 793(e) is the lowest level mishandling of classified documents that requires intent – and frankly Clinton had sufficient intent to meet (e).
But if you are not going to enforce the law – get rid of the law.
Unlike Comey or the IG – I find prosecutorial discretion to be lawless.
If we are not going to enforce the law – get rid of it.
The entire premise of prosecutorial discretion means that the law should be applied factoring in the person. That is a violation of the 14th amendment.
One law, the same law, all people – rich, poor, black, white. All the same.
If you can not do that you are lawless.
Part of the way we get rid of bad laws is by the outrage that occurs when we enforce them.
If you beleive that Clinton’s conduct was acceptable – then you should be trying to change the law.
If you do not, then you are a hypocrit.
Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were law.
So if you were a German then you’d be defending those laws and following the Nazis, until such time that the law was changed, right Dave.
In your stupid world of inane rationalization Law trumps Morality and Justice.
I am not defending any laws.
I am opposed to most of our immigration laws.
These evil laws are YOUR laws – not mine.
I would have opposed the nurenburg laws.
BTW, I am also not opposed to civil disobediance.
If this has you outraged – go to the border and help these people – take them in, hide them.
I would hope I would have hidden the jews.
You think the right thing to do with the nuermberg laws was to “ignore them”
It is OK to have evil laws – if you only enforce them occasionally ?
It is your world that is stupid – not mine.
It is your world that has more laws than people can possibly comprehend.
I want the law enforced 100% all the time – so that you will be OUTRAGED and work to change the law.
I am already fully on board with changing most of our laws.
I am not the one “rationalizing” bad laws.
I oppose them. You are the one with this stupid idea that we should have bad laws, but sometimes ignore them.
Ron, here’s what the ABA has to say. It mirrors my views for the most part.
Click to access ABALetterFamilySeparation%20061218.authcheckdam.pdf
What I find so disturbing is the progressives are so fired up about this issue, but no one says much about kids being removed from a family when parents finally decide the only way to control their child’s daily multiple seizures is through cannabis oil. And then when the state finds out because it is illegal in their state, the child is removed, placed in some other location, taken off the cannabis oil and the seizures return.
Why the double standard?
Ron, as to your statement that American kids are often separated from incarcerated parents you need to put those government responses in context to the nature of the the crimes committed. And of the welfare of the children placed in custody. The children placed in custody in the US are often victims of abuse, or children of drug addicts, or of members of truly dysfunctional families. They generally need to be rescued.
Crossing the border illegally with children to escape poverty, or starvation, or war – or just for a vastly improved life for you and them is understandable, and in our own historical immigrant traditions thought righteous. Snatching young children from the arms of their mothers and tossed into a foreign bureaucratic system is inhumane.
I was brought up to believe punishment should fit the crime.
This accelerated response by the Trump administration is shameful.
Even more shameful are the biblical rationalizations for doing it-coming from the White House spokespersons.
So change the law.
I do not are why the WH says they are doing it.
They are following the law. If you do not like the law – change it.
That is what the rule of law means.
The problem is a fetter campaign issue than fixing the problem
Absolutely – for both parties.
Dear Dummy Dave: what law are you talking about?
Separating kids from asylum seekers or other illegals at the border is A POLICY DECISION, not a law..
You do know the difference, right?
Jay Newsflash!
If you break thenlaw in America and put in jail, they separate you from your kids. What dont you understand about a law( arrested if entering illegally), result of breaking the law ( jail) and kids (placed under the care of the government)
Do you pick and choose what laws you want to follow and believe if caught you will not be prosecuted?
Nope!
You are too trusting of the left and the media.
The POLICY decision is dropping Catch and release which allows the families to stay together.
If they are detained they must be separated,
Obama did this too. Detention was just less frequent.
I would like to be present when a parent who follows progressive logic has a child that has been disciplined by their school for breaking a rule and they ask why they did it. The kid responds ” Its a bad rule and I dont think I should have to follow stupid rules”.
So they try to explain why the kid needs to follow the schools rules and they respond ” but you say that illegal immigrants should not be arrested as the law is written, but I have to follow bad rules? Why?
Tribal politics are really screwing our country when it gets to the point of picking and choosing laws to follow. Gerrymandering that has given us Nunez, Pelosi and the rest of the extremes has done us no favor.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/392562-willie-nelson-christians-should-be-up-in-arms-over-trump-family-separation
Why can’t this get enough support. Dreamer fix, border kids fix, increased border security and other items.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/ryan-offers-to-fix-family-separations-in-doomed-bill.html
No one wants the problem fixed. Why isnt Willie Nelson telling everyone compromise is not bad, even though Dave says it is. Why wont Pelosi buy into it and then when they get control, they can update the law?
I would like to see our laws changed so if you are not a criminal, you agree to learn english , you agree you and your family will not become dependent on any entitlement program designed to support American citizens and you do not get convicted of any felony, then you can stay and work without restrictions. States can determine university cost as they wish.
Why wont the Democrats call the bluff of Trump and the GOP and give them part of their wants while getting the kid problem fixed. I say because the problem is a better campaign issue than the fix to the problem.
Resolving immigration has been in theory possible since 2013.
At that time the complexity was that neither party had a coherent position and 60 votes had to be cobbled from both parties.
Today the parties are not coherent behind a party position.
And no one is budging.
Nothing is going to get 60 votes in the senate.
Further both parties are playing heavily to their base.
There are very few democrats – mostly those in red states that could survive if they voted for those things that Trump and republicans require.
Conversely the republican base is pretty adamant about what they want.
In this particular instance – the real onus is actually on democrats.
Because very few in the country are not sympathetic to dreamers and to familiy separation.
But the core issues for the republican base are:
First they have been lied to repeatedly – by republicans on immigration over and over, and the republican base is going to punish severly any republican that does anything that can be spun as “amnesty” – that is just never going to fly.
I think for many republican congressmen “the wall” is symbolic.
But for an awful lot of the GOP base it is real and they beleive it will work.
Regardless, the core to the republcian base is CONTROL.
Republicans want an end to uncontrolled immigration.
And they have the support of most of the country on that.
There is an obvious compromise – essentially what Ryan is proposing.
And that has the support of a super majority of americans.
But there is no possible bill that is either not vigorously opposed by the GOP base or vigorously opposed by the democratic base.
BOTH parties are actually served by NOT passing any law.
For BOTH parties that keeps their base happy, donations flowing.
We should remember that “the base” for each party is much less than 25% of the country
but it is critical to that party.
So in a few words, we both believe they support ” do whats best for the parties and screw the people and country”
Yes,
I think it would be Trivial to pass an immigration bill that had the support of 70% of the country.
Give the GOP everything they want – wall, rules, blah, blah,
Package in Dreamers, preventing child separation,
and we are done.
I would oppose Everify. but it is popular and will likely pass.
I also oppose some kind of automatic path to citizenship for immigrants.
I beleive it would be easier to come here, but harder to become a citizen.
But an easy path to citizenship for dreamers would likely pass.
There are lots of things like this.
Something like 80% of the country supports voter ID – but the hard left is violently opposed to it and paints it as “voter supression”
@ Ron, 2:27, I’m sorry, but my comment of 9:22, 6/14 was not labelled as part of the Bruni piece. dhlii said he couldn’t get past the paywall, so I provided an excerpt which gets the intent of the piece.
Per your comment above, it is a shame when any kids get separated from parents/relatives, as long as they are really related.
As for the rest, ask the media. The border, and not illegals flying in, seem to be sexier news and subjects for politicians.
I have no answer, though until they figure out how to slow down the exodus from Central America; we can either be hard hearted or callous. with the current political tribal war, it will be difficult.
Meantime, we farmers and businesses are crying for for more workers, and Trump cut the number of worker visas.
At some point, I think, that some of his supporters will be impacted negatively by tariffs, immigration, health care. AND, I don’t think he gives a s— for anything but his image.
Low empathy, as he would say.
My 0.02.
By accident of place of birth some of us win the lottery of life and are born US citizens. That is a tremendous unearned entitlement.
Of course some of us are born smart, some handsome, some talented.
Life is just not fair.
I am highly sympathetic to anyone who wishes to come here and beleive that to a huge extent we should take those who come – with very few restrictions.
But I also beleive in the rule of law. And that is not the current law, and changing it as I would like would cause serious problems elsewhere.
I would like to see near open boarders and an end to the welfare state.
I am not going to get that.
I am angry with those on the left because they are hypocrits.
They claim to want open borders – but not really.
They are unwilling to abandon the welfare state for open borders,
They are unwilling to abandon minimum wage laws.
And they are fully prepared to prosecute businesses for hiring the very immigrants they want to see cross the borders in droves.
I am opposed to everify. If you are available and I wish to buy your labor and we reach an agreement – that is between you and me.
If you actually want people to get hired – you do not make that harder.
I am opposed to separating families period.
But we do it alot. Ron mentioned prison, but it is worse than that.
Each states “children and youth” will yank kids from their parents for little reason at all.
This despite the fact that we KNOW that the state does a far worse job than even abusive parents.
I favor allowing Dreamers to stay.
At the same time I want everyone – left and right to agree on a comprehensive policy.
How many people are we allowing in and then who are they.
If you give Dreamers green cards – who are you going to take them from.
If you give green cards to haitians and nigerians, then you are reducing those to chinese and indians.
I am not interested in the whining of people who will not make tough choices.
“There is no “Democrats’ law” that necessitates separating children from their parents. As people familiar with the rules regarding the handling of young people at the border made clear in interviews on Friday, the separation policy is a function of decisions made by Trump and his team. What’s more, the administration specifically implemented the policy to serve as a deterrent for those thinking about seeking entry to the United States.”
Trump lied, again: ““I hate the children being taken away,” he said. “The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”
OK, So you break the law, say you lie to the FBI, and you are arrested. You have the means to leave and all indications you will when released because they have insurmountable evidence of guilt, so do they keep you or let you out to return for a court date later?
Same with illegals. Catch, release, kids stay with parents. Will they show for their hearing where there is a good chance of deportation?
DD – there is no “democrats law”
There is law.
It should be evident to you from the press cockup – that the original video’s showing kids removed from their parents turned out to be from 2014 that there really is law on this.
What is true is that policy changes that Trump has made – which conform to laws that have nothing to do with separating parents and children are resulting in an increase in the frequency of separations.
AS I understand it one of the big deals is the end of “catch and release”.
If the governnment intercepts someone crossing the border AND continuously detains them, the law is such that it can deport them relatively easily within 90 days.
If however they are released pending deportation hearings – the process can extend to years.
Trump has ended releasing those caught crossing the border.
If they are caught crossing with children – and they are not released – they will be separated.
That is and has been the law.
It occurred less frequently under Obama – because those intercepted were not detained.
BTW this also applies to voluntary “asylum seekers”
And again this is a policy change.
Obama allowed anyone claiming asylum into the country pending hearings on asylum – again dragging the process out for years.
As a consequence the number of people showing up at our borders seeking asylum skyrocketed.
Trump is not releasing asylum seekers pending hearings.
Again, they results in far more rapid disposition of their cases.
The process of deportation is far far simpler if a person is not allowed to enter the country.
The moment someone trying to enter the country is released from detention pending future hearings, they gain a substantial number of legal rights.
Essentially there are far more legal rights for a person who is in the country illegally than for a person who was tried to enter the country illegally.
Regardless, if this bothers you – change the law.
Having a despicable person as President is Despicable !
Do we have to keep trading mildly offensive Trump quotes with offensive Obama quotes ?
Is it possible for you to focus on ACTS not words.
Trump threatened to rain fire and brimstone on Kim Un and called him every vile thing a president can – and they are probably all true.
And it appears that and other factors brought Kim Un to the negotiating table.
Once there Trump is fawning all over him – so long as he is committed to full denuclearization.
The saccharine remarks by Trump about Kim Un are nauseating
At the end of the day – which matters to you ?
What Trump says regarding Kim Un or the possibility of ending a serious nuclear threat.
I would note – NK is much more dangerous to us than Iran.
There is no conflict scenario involving NK that does not end up with far more bloodshed than anything involving Iran. Worse still any conflict with NK could reach the US.
Iran has a long way to go before it can threaten the US.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel – not the US.
NK is a threat to the US.
I hope Trump makes this work.
If he does I do not give a fig what he says to Kim to accomplish that.
Trump has purpoertedly promissed the kitchen sink in return for full verifiable denuclearization.
Further he likely has the chinese heavily on board – because they want US troops out of SK badly.
So there are many good reasons to beleive Trump might get what we want.
And if he does not, we get to eat alot of crow.
I am OK with that.
You ?
Ron: they’re imprisioning parents in one place, and children at another.
Why not detain them in the same facility?
And fast track them out together ASAP?
I guess they are separating kids from parents for risking their kids lives for the same reason that they separate parents that give their epileptic children cannabis that reduces seizures. They both are looked at as breaking the law and risking their childs life.
I have been consistent in my support for immigration reform and cannabis law changes. I have written my useless legislator and my two senators. I am stuck with the do nothing GOP representative or the last two hair brained Pelosi supporting democrats that run on everything that insures the Republican gets over 60% of the vote. There has not been a moderate in this district since the democrats gerrymandered a black district in the early 90’s when they had legislative control of our state government to get a black elected from the state and removed all the left leaning voters from this district. There is not much more I could do to make my positions known.
This is what happens when the extremes take control of each party. It filters down from the federal level all the way to the local level. And as that happens, both the left and right gerrymander federal and state districts to insure their party controls the most districts. And that insures the furthest left or right candidates are elected, resulting in doing whats best for the party and screw the people and country.
“I guess they are separating kids from parents for risking their kids lives for the same reason that they separate parents that give their epileptic children cannabis that reduces seizures. They both are looked at as breaking the law and risking their childs life.”
A horrible false equivalency Ron.
Shame on you for making it.
“A horrible false equivalency Ron.
Shame on you for making it.”
So like all progressives, it is fine to separate kids from parents when they are American citizens doing what is best for the health of their kids, even though government thinks it know better, but heaven help us when the mean ol’ government separates law breaking non citizens from their kids.
Give me a break! Its wrong on both counts, but given a choice, I support Americans before foreigners. Those in central America can stop in Mexico or go south into South America.
Ron, it is not a false equivalence, it is litterally exactly the same thing.
The reason families are being separated is because Sessions is crimnally prosecuting illegal border crossers immediately
Because we define unauthorized immigration as a crime, we can arrest those who do it – just like drug dealers.
If we arrest them – we can not jail their children.
If we arrest them we can deport them much faster.
Yep, even progressives know that, but that does not make favorable news for them. What they claim is a better campaign issue.
The false equivalency is equating separating kids from parents for breaking illegal entry law from children seperated for the breaking of laws we generally agree deserve children be protected from those parents.
If you don’t see that, you’re hopeless. And aligned with cult idiots. And in danger of becoming a Trumpster yourself. Look in the bathroom mirror tonight: is your completion taking on an orange tint.? 😼😼😼
Again no false equivalence.
Crime – Crime.
If there is “general agreement” – change the law. That is how we manafest general agreement.
Otherwise the 14th amendment applies and the law and due process are applied blindly.
That same principles of equal justice that probhibit us from laws targeting blacks, also prohibit laws favoring desireable groups.
I can see that separating families is emotionally disturbing.
I can see that I do not like the law as it is, and would like to see it changed.
I can see that Obama improperly chose not to enforce the law because the outcome troubled him, as it does me.
But we enforce the law blindly, because among other reasons that is how we find out our law is bad and get it changed.
I do NOT support “fixing” bad law by ignoring it.
I will and have argued here repetedly that much of our laws is wrong and needs changed.
In the meantime it is still law, and government must enforce it.
The moral obligation to fix that is OURS.
When you take a job in government you swear to uphold the law.
If you can not do that – quit and change the law.
I am generally opposed to separating children from parents.
Bad parents tend to be better for kids than the state.
But Ron’s equivalence is not false.
Dragging your kids across mexico to the US is dangerous.
Change the law.
Contra DD – this is occuring because the law requires it.
But there is a policy change involved.
We need not separate if we do not detain.
If we do not detain – it takes years to deport.
If we do it takes 90 days.
At its core that is what is going on.
There is also a separate political element that will change this rapidly.
We had a significant increase in asylum seekers under Obama – because Obama relaxed the handling of asylum seekers and immigrants are not stupid.
When they grasp that they can come to the border, ask for asylum and end up in the US for a couple of years, with some hope of more, they do so.
AS Trump cracks down and fasttracks the deportation of unqualified asylum seekers, they number of asylum seekers will drop and the problem will go away.
There is one other complexity.
The US economy is strengthening
Illegal immigration ebbs and flows with the US economy.
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1007731316769599488?s=21
There is no law. If there is, would someone provide a “quote” from the actual text of that law.
Much appreciated.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html
Will this work. There are other sites that have similar info.
BZZT, Wrong.
If you read carefully – even those purportedly debunking this, prove the opposite.
Sessions “Zero-Tolerance” decision – is purportedly a policy decision.
Quite arguably that is false.
The law says people who cross illegally are breaking the law.
Sessions purported “policy” is that there will be 100% prosecutions AT THE BORDER.
If you wish to say that is a “policy decision” – so is prosecuting people for speeding.
Every site I have checked that claims this is a “policy desicision”
Does so on the basis that if Sessions did not prosecute the families would not have to be separated.
Trump/Sessions claim is:
If we enforce the law – i.e. we prosecute those we stop at the border.
Then families will be separated.
And that is the actual law.
The “policy decision” is deciding to enforce the law.
Absolutely Trump can do as Obama did – and not enforce the law, and end up with less family separations.
This is actually quite simple and exactly what I have said in repeated posts before.
If those crossing illegally are detained and prosecuted at the border – which is really what the law requires, and not released then the parents – who are being prosecuted and must be detained, will be separated from their children – who are not being prosecuted.
This is pretty much exactly the same as if the police arrest the parents of a family for drug dealing – the children are not going to be arrested and they are going to be placed somewhere – not in jail with the parents.
Trump/Sessions are legitimately enforcing existing law.
And the result is family separation – just exactly as if parents are arrested for other crimes.
Trump/Sessions are doing this because:
1) Its the law.
2). If illegal immigrants are arrested at the border they can be deported easily and quickly.
Otherwise it takes forever.
Absolutely Trump/Sessions doe not have to do this.
Just as the police can let you off with a warning for speeding,
or they could issue a citation and hope you show.
If two parents are arrested while handling 1 Kilo of Cocaine – do you think they are going to be separated from their kids as they are hauled off to jail ?
Can you cite a law that says – if you arrest the parents for selling cocaine, you must separate them from their kids ?
Are you allowed to throw their kids in jail with them ?
That is what we are dealing with.
To the extent this is a “policy” decision – the decision is to arrest at the borders.
after that decision is made the separation is automatic.
Most of us do not consider deciding to arrest people for breaking the law, a policy decision.
Look, I do not think we should do this.
I do not think crossing the border should be a crime.
But it is, so change the law.
Your cocaine analogy is bullshit false equivalency
“:Your cocaine analogy is bullshit false equivalency”
Nope! and in some cases it is an exact equivalence.
In some cases those separated are literally alleged to be involved in cocaine trafficking.
Bjut regarding the actual situation you are addressing.
There are approx. 9 different forms of border crossing that are defined as federal crimes.
The parents who are being separated from their children are being charged with violating those federal CRIMINAL laws.
Because they are charged with a crime, and because they are either being held without bail or unable to make bail, they are going to JAIL – not detention.
They are being imprisoned.
And we do not typically charge minors with crimes (and if we did we would separate them)
And we do not place uncharged minors in adult jails with their parents.
Again “change the law”
Stop distorting the truth.
Ryan Patrick, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, on family separation: “It is a policy choice by the president and by the attorney general.”
So its catch and release, never to be seen again other than in welfare and Medicaid lines, or put them in jail for deportation.
What is wrong with you? Do you not understand the definition of illegal?
The “policy choice” is to prosecute the crime – not to separate the families.
The separation is a consequence of a politcy choice that should not exist.
If we define something as a crime, then there should be little choice but to prosecute it.
There are only limited justifiable reasons for discretion in law enforcement.
Beyond that you have again the rule of man not law.
If you do not like the law – change it.
Nope, there is no law requiring separation. Actual text from actual law will change my opinion.
I can see it now. Liberal headlines. ” Young boys placed in custody with women detained by ICE” Then the story goes on and on about how boys should not be with women in these conditions. How sexual exploitation and other related issues are present.
The only answer is Obamas catch and release and we are right back to thousands of illegals entering the country.
Change the immigration laws now.
Is this the “democrats law” Trump cited: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/pdf/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partVIII-sec1325.pdf
I don’t the separation clause. Please clip and paste to a comment. Thanks.
Dduck, so it is better to put the parents in jail with their kids than separate them?
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-private-immigrant-jails-boom
If youre housing those kids in Walmart’s you can do the same with the parents – they’re not violent criminals for the most part, and don’t need fortified prison confinement.
Or they could be kept TOGETHER on military bases. That’s a humane solution. And would not EFFECT the time to prosecute them at all.
One thing for certain Obama was much smarter than Trump. Obama made sure he kept on the good side of Mexico. Trump not so much, so look what he got compared to how Obama handled the issue.
There are many things that you could do.
So change the law so you can.
You seem to think that if the law does not work as you wish that you just ignore it and do differently.
That is not how things works.
The minors are by law not guilty of any crime – they have a completely different legal status.
The do not have some rights – because they are minors. The state has some obligations to them – because they are minors.
The legal status of the adults is different – they are accused criminals, they have different rights and the state has different obligations.
House them together and those guarding and administering the facility now have tow different classes of people to deal with and two different sets of rights and obligations.
I am not trying to say that what you want can not be done.
But the PResident is not legally empowered to do whatever – just because this upsets you.
Change the law.
One reason for insisting on that is because there are many possible answers – each with its problems.
We should consciouly choose, not act just to prove we care.
One easy thing to do would be to immediately deport – no detention.
I would be willing to consider allowing children to stay with alleged criminals generally.
Not just border crossers.
But that raises many other issues. Quite often in jails there is little distincition or separation between those charged and those convicted.
I support broad rights and freedoms for those merely charged with a crime – even if we must detain them.
But that is not how our system works. Those detained prior to trial and those convicted are treated almost identically.
Unless you are going to send the children to jail with parents who are charged with crimes, then they must be separated.
Given that the law generally makes it difficult or impossible to charge chilfren with crimes – and even if it did, whould run them throught a different system.
When the parents are charged with a crime and jailed they will be separated from their children.
Ummm,I think if boys were (they are) placed with men, that would be more of a liberal headline. 🙂
If there is evidence of that – then they should have been removed from the case.
Though I strongly suspect that AG Lynch confuses Agents legitimate disgust that Clinton gets away with Criminal conduct they would not.
The Deep and Visceral hatred of some FBI agents is caused by Clinton’s lawlessness and priviledge.
It is the actual duty of law enforcement to try to prove the crimes that are alleged.
@JohnBrennan
“All Americans—not just your supporters—deserve a President who is honest, ethical, selfless, & substantive. Our country faces daunting domestic & international challenges. If there is a scintilla of decency left in you, you would focus on your responsibilities, not on yourself.”
Anyone who isn’t LOUDLY speaking out against Trump like this is an Asshole
Quoting Brennan ? Really ?
Many of those a_______ are fellow Americans that see things from a different angle and viewpoint.
I have a lot of friends who, over the years, have been assholes.
That doesn’t stop me from telling them so.
The time for friendly persuasion over Trump has passed.
Now it’s time to forcefully speak out that the moron has to be removed, and yes, those who don’t concur are ASSHOLES,
Which is precisely what is wrong with you.
You are fully prepared to use force to accomlish your desires without legitimate justification.
Lately on Russian State TV: “Krym nash, Trump nash!” Skabeeva declared to the audience, which in English means “Crimea is ours, Trump is ours!”
Even the Clergy is aghast:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/392605-cardinal-dolan-hits-sessions-use-of-the-bible-to-defend-family
Jay, I get it, but I also agree with Frank Bruni’s article, which said:
“I get that you’re angry. I’m angry, too. But anger isn’t a strategy. Sometimes it’s a trap. When you find yourself spewing four-letter words, you’ve fallen into it. You’ve chosen cheap theatrics over the long game, catharsis over cunning. You think you’re raising your fist when you’re really raising a white flag.
You’re right that Donald Trump is a dangerous and deeply offensive man, and that restraining and containing him are urgent business. You’re wrong about how to go about doing that, or at least you’re letting your emotions get the better of you.
When you answer name-calling with name-calling and tantrums with tantrums, you’re not resisting him. You’re mirroring him. You’re not diminishing him. You’re demeaning yourselves. Many voters don’t hear your arguments or the facts, which are on your side. They just wince at the din.”
So what is it that you want to do with respect to Trump ?
I am serious. I am prefectly happy to discuss limiting the power of the president.
I am almost certain to support most any limits – particularly if they are limits on the president – not specifically limits on Trump, and particularly if they disempower government, not merely the president.
What specifically bothers you regarding Trump and what do you propose to do about it ?
Inarguably the president has the authority to do so.
Our legal system gives prosecutors of all types broad discretion.
If you read Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement he does NOT exhonerate Clinton, he finds her guilty,
and then excercises prosecutorial discretion in not charging her.
I do not beleive the prseident, or any prosecutor SHOULD have that much discretion.
The rule of law requires that we enforce the laws we have.
That would also require that we have far less laws.
I would further note that Trump has the authority to pardon them all.
So obviously he has the authority to solve your problem.
But in only a few ways that we do not find acceptable that actually confirm to the rule of law.
Another example of the kind of dishonest lying mother fuc*ing shit head that #Trumpanzees elected to the presidency:
This is all much ado about nothing.
First the Trump foundation is nothing like the Clinton foundation.
It is tiny comparatively, and it is mostly composed of the Trump family as donors, getting a tax exemption, and then doling out money from the foundation to charities
I would just eliminate all tax exemptions. and get the government out of the business of deciding was is and is not charity.
Absent that – this all looks like the business of the IRS and the NY AG.
$7 bucks. WTF is he the cheapest crook since Fagin, or what (note: sarcasm).
Sliminess is in the Trump Family DNA.
My mother deducted the cost of dog food from her taxes as “security”
Given that we were robbed many times, and the doggs stopped many crimes. I think that was reasonable.
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes and public duty to pay more than the law demands.”
Helvering v. Gregory (1934),
Judge Learned Hand
Fuck anyone who doesn’t speak out against this as Government sponsored Child Abuse:
This book was first published in 1975.
Government sponsored child abuse is nothing new.
Where were you then ?
Which flavovor of dog food did you like the best? 🙂
I like to chew on Trumpanzee shin bones…
Very tasty 😋
Congressman Will Hurd, Republican from Texas, former CIA officer who worked to protect America from external threats:
“In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we should not be using kids as a deterrent policy.”
Why not ?
The alternative is that they become an inducement – which they already are.
Like many many things we do in government the choices we make have unintended consequences.
Obama by discretion greately expanded allowed requests for asylum.
so asylum request skrocketted – including bogus ones.
Why not.
Because it’s inhumane.
This is how we did it for the Cuban Boat exodus:
“Refugees were processed at camps set up in the greater Miami area, generally at decommissioned missile defense sites. Other sites were established at the Orange Bowl and various churches throughout the area. Some sites were established to segregate the refugees until they could be provided with initial processing at places like the Nike-Hercules sites at Key Largo and Krome Avenue. Once initially processed and documented, the refugees were quickly transferred to larger compounds in the metropolitan area so they could be reunited with relatives already living in the US as well as to allow interaction with various social action agencies like Catholic Charities, the American Red Cross, and others. At these initial processing sites the undesirable elements were identified and segregated from the general population.” (Wikipedia)
First – you are absolutely correct that presidents in the past have excercised wide discretion in enforcing the laws.
I absolutely disagree with that.
I want EVERY law fully enforced as close to 100% of the time as possible.
I want those like you OUTRAGED at how evil and inhumane the law is.
And I want to make clear to you that inconsistently applying the law – prosecutorial discretion, is the rule of man not law.
I want you so OUTRAGED that you work with me to change or eliminate the law.
The law is almost always “inhumane”.
As to the boat people. There is a real arguement for asylum for those entering from Cuba.
Most are facing political persecution, not a poor economy.
Further I beleive the law was different at the time.
I would also ask you are the cuban refugees the same as those crossing from mexico ?
Do we treat those fleaing political prosecution who might be killed the same as those who are escaping poverty ?
I am not answering that – I am asking YOU.
AS I noted before there are about 750M people ijn the world who would come to the US if they could.
Either you take them all or you develop “inhumane” laws that specity who and how many of each type you will take.
I am for nearly open borders – and all the other changes that requires.
But I do not beleive you are.
If you are not taking everyone who wishes to come here.
Then the obligation is YOURS to specify who gets to win the lottery and enter the US and who does not.
Absent open borders SOMEBODY is getting screwed. SOMEBODY is getting treated inhumanely.
I am trying to get you out of the emotional and into the rational.
Any approach – even open boarders requires difficult choices.
The left wants to pretend that it can have unlimited immigration – without actually having large numbers of people flood the country.
It is that HYPOCRACY that I find inhumane.
Somebody is going to get screwed, get treated inhumanely.
The left is not willing to take responsibility for tought decisions.
FRankly I do not think you get to opine on them if you are unwilling to make them.
A Baby Jail?
https://twitter.com/richardhine/status/1008169384735657984?s=21
Well I really started a fire storm with the question concerning the separating kids from parents entering illegally. As with the comments here as well as the extremely long debate on Facebook with my cousin and her “,friends”, it is very apparent there are two distinct groups.
1. Those that way the families should be a!lower to stay together, with most of them favoring allowing the parents to report back for a hearing, much like Obama’s catch and release and
2, those that way the law is the law, it is a federal crime to enter illegally and they need to be in jail.
What I find so interesting is the number of people who have decided that we can choose what laws to follow and which ones to ignore. This to me is much more disturbing than the issue at hand.
How long can we go and how far can we go in choosing which laws to follow? Are we not moving toward more civil unrest when we decide we won’t follow laws? Should we ignore people and let them not follow laws? We did not do that during Viet Nam with the draft. Young men rejected the government’s position, but they either served ( and some died) when called, they fled to Canada to avoid the draft or they went to jail. And a few avoided all of this, but legally.
We need to remember men died to protect the country and constitution and we have neither without laws.
I do not like the law as it is and I beleive we can do better.
But we do that by changing the law.
That is important for many reasons.
Understanding that we must do the work necessary to change laws that do not work as we desire is an incentive to get the law right.
I beleive Jay has noted – does’nt Trump have the authority to do this differently.
He does. But he should not, and nether should Obama have.
It should not be the role of prosecutors or president to dictate that we ignore aspects of our laws that we do not like.
I want all of our laws to the greatest extent possible implimented and enforced uniformly as written – until we cry uncle and get rid of the bad ones.
“I beleive Jay has noted – does’nt Trump have the authority to do this differently.
He does. But he should not, and nether should Obama have.”
That IS the problem in this country. NO ONE should have the right to pick and choose which f’in law they want to follow, ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT.
Enough with this crap. Fix the laws if one does not like them!
What law says asylum seekers have to separated from their children?
Why not house parents and children on military bases while they’re being processed?
That’s more humane and less expensive than separation and multiple jails.
Jay, I can continue debating with you until the moon changes to swiss cheese and we will never agree. As long as kids are removed from parents using cannabis to control seizures because it is illegal, then there should be no difference with separating non citizens for breaking the law.
I dont support either, but if one is OK with society today and is not national news, then the other should not be handled any different. CONSISTENCY, enforce laws equally, not ones that fit your political agenda.
Congress is setting on its dead ass to frightened to do anything for fear of losing their careers!
We didn’t take kids away from their parents for DANGEROUSLY transporting them on boats during the Cuban exodus …(see related post to Dave)
Isnt there a difference since Carter opened the USA up to the Cubans and we have had a closed border (with big holes) that make one group invited in and one group ILLEGAL.
Yes,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
We did not, and we do not have to today.
But our laws do treat people fleaing opressive political regimes different from economic refugees.
You are free to try to change that.
Further our laws have changed.
In 1980 the US had an open door for Cuban Refugees – the restriction on immigration from Cuban was On the cuban side.
Castro unlaterally dropped that and over the course of 6 months 125,000 cubans sought asylum in the US – LEGALLY.
We have subsequently changed our laws.
you are free to change them again.
The law does not permit incarcerating children for crimes.
If does not permit incacerating children with their parents when their parents are charged with crimes.
Their parents are being charged with crimes, and they are not being released pending a hearing.
That is what is driving separations.
And that absolutely is the law.
It is a policy choice to charge the parents with a crime.
It is also a policy choice not to release them pending a hearing.
As I disagree with prosecutorial discretion I fully support charging those who have committed a federal crime with that crime all the time 100%.
But I also support considering whether this specific crime should be a crime and possibly changing the law.
In the meantime, I expect that law to be enforced.
Among other reasons because part of the way we get rid of bad laws is to enforce them.
The decisions to incarcerate pending a hearing or release RoR is more complex.
Trump is chosing to incarcerate – because that results in deportation within 90 days in nearly all cases. While RoR release takes years and has a far higher cost.
But again you are free to change the law.
I am not opposed to your suggestions. But they are outside of what the law allows.
These people are being charged with a crime, and they are being held pending a hearing.
We do not house alleged Marijuana dealers in military bases so that they can be with their kids.
You keep saying false equivaence – but it is quite litterally the same – exactly the same. It is even the same laws that are implicated.
So change the law.
We are obligated to enforce laws as written – that is “the rule of law”.
If the law, or the enforcement of the law is inhumane – change the law.
Ron. What the hell are you talking about?
The point was to refute justifying taking kids away because bringing them here was dangerous.
What part of ‘the punishment doesn’t fit the crime’ isnt registering in your brain?
YOUR point and MY point are not the same.
I do not care how this is being justified, or how that justification is being refuted. ‘
I care whether the law is being scrupulously followed
whether it is a constitutional law – on its face
and as applied.
And whether it is a good law.
I do not need to prove my oposition to most US law.
One of the most effective means of getting rid of bad law is to enforce it.
If following the law and separating families and deporting a few dreamers will result in democrats negotiating in good faith with republicans and solving this.
That would make me happy.
“To believe the accusations that Trump colluded with Russia, laundered vast amounts of money and/or put American foreign policy on the auction block in return for the enrichment of his family requires an awkward leap of faith. You have to believe this leader is both profoundly corrupt — far more so than Nixon — and staggeringly sloppy — again more so than Nixon.
This is essentially the portrait that Underwood paints in the detailed accusations against the head of the Trump Foundation: that of a shady huckster who engages in “persistently illegal conduct” and is buffoonishly sloppy along the way. “
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-16/new-york-s-trump-lawsuit-may-be-a-map-for-mueller
The standard for a criminal investigation is NOT the seriousness of the charges – I can allege that you are a peodphile that will not get you investigated.
It is the credibility of the charges.
What is increasingly evident as we move forward is that there is not today, and never has been a credible basis even to investigate Trump Russia collusion.
Much of what has taken us two years to pry out of FBI/DOJ was know to them from the start:
The Steele Dossier is “salacious and unverified” and remains so.
There is no credible connection between Trump and Russian that rises to the level needed for an investigation.
Trump’s campaign involvement with Russia was LESS than Clinton’s.
The DBI/DOJ knew this from the start.
The charges are serious – they are also without credibility
The person quoted beleives alot of things that are either impossible or highly improbable.
As to the TF suite – it is going to fizzle.
TF is a pretty typical family charitable trust common among wealthy families.
It has ZERO overhead, it pays no salaries. The Trump family contributes to it and they direct where the money goes.
You are never going to get criminal conduct – as you can with CF, because its donors are confined to the Trump family – you have no victims.
The best you can manage is back taxes, penalties and interest if distributions were handled improperly.
Frankly given the tiny amount that is being challenged the Trump family should just settle and make the thing go away.
But you are not getting very far with TF, because TF’s total distributions each year are less than the clintons are provided by CF for air travel.
Rather than the smoking gun, the TF lawsuit is a demonstration of how bad things are for the left.
They are busy poking and proding in small family foundations – in the hopes of what – finding $7 checks to the boy scouts for Baron Trump’s membership ?
Yes, that is stupid, but chasing after it makes the left look even stupider.
dduck12 • 2 hours ago
To me, the Trump “policy” is a terrorist one, and as far as I know his worst yet.
I hope it shakes more voters out of the trees, including all the religious folks.
Still not a policy.
We separate children from their parents when the parents are charged with dealing dope.
It is the law.
Maybe Donald will take them out for Big Macs later.
I would separately note that the entire problem would be solved if these people chose not to come.
But they do not.
It is far harder for me to get outraged when people chose to do something knowing what the results will be.
I would legalize drugs – even heroin, Even if that meant more overdoses.
Devin Nunes just said this week that in September 2016, “good FBI agents” came to him and told him they’d found the Weiner laptop with Huma-Clinton emails.
Does Trump agree that those agents shouldn’t have leaked? bit.ly/2ygPrms
When an agent of the FBI comes to a congressmen – particularly the chair of the HPSCI to report misconduct.
That is NOT leaking.
Nunes is BTW a member of the Intelligence “gang of 8”.
“Title 50 U.S.C. § 3091(a)(1) to “ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title.” However, under “extraordinary circumstances”, when the President thinks “it is essential to limit access” to information about a covert action, 50 U.S.C. § 3093(c)(2) allows the President to limit reporting to the Gang of Eight.”
Nunes is essentially precleared BY LAW for ANYTHING.
The HPSCI is precleared BY LAW for most things.
This will become more relevant if DOJ/FBI do not comply with the HPSCI subpeona’s
Your full of 💩 suggesting ANY FBI agent at their own inclination can reveal whatever the fuck they want at any time to a particular senatorial committee.
If you don’t understand that’s LEAKING, your brain is LEAKING urine-stained liquids.
“Your full of suggesting ANY FBI agent at their own inclination can reveal whatever the fuck they want at any time to a particular senatorial committee.
If you don’t understand that’s LEAKING, your brain is LEAKING urine-stained liquids.”
Nope. It is actually the law.
What is “stupid” is the implications of the approach you are advocating.
You are saying that if an FBI (or other member of government) sees something that they beleive (or know) is wrong, that they are obligated to remain silent about it.
No only are there several laws that say otherwise, the constitution essentially does.
Congress has total oversight over the executive. Pretty much the only thing that the executive has a right to keep from congress is the private communications of advisors with the president.
That is it, that is the limits of executive priviledge.
Beyond that congress has a constitutional right to know whatever it wishes about the executive.
Separetely there is actual law that REQUIRES the executive to affirmatively notify congress of a variety of different things. Those laws were EXPLICITLY violated during Obama’s administration in numerous ways – one of which was that the Gang of 8 was NOT informed of the Trump/Russia investigation and that was required by 50 U.S.C. § 3093(c)(2). and 50 U.S.C. § 3091(a)(1)
Finally there are whistleblower laws which protect those in government when they report government misconduct – and that would include reporting it to congressmen.
Why SO MANY coverup lies about Russian meetings?
Is there a believable explanation?
https://apnews.com/be1e7e9c23f84068a29e625b0ba4b105
Did you actually read the article you linked ?
Stone and Caputo met with an AMERICAN who claimed to have dirt on Clinton and demanded money for it.
Stone and Caputo refused to pay for dirt on Clinton.
We are still trying to ascertain more about the american – but Stone and Caputo beleive it was an FBI informant known to all but left wing nuts as a SPY.
While Greenberg purportedly told reporters his is not an FBI informant the fact that Mueller knew more about the meeting than Caputo or Stone strongly suggests that Greenberg WAS an operative.
The other alternative is that he was a Clinton campaign false flag.
No one has “lied” about this.
Do you think Stone and Caputo must disclose every meetting they have ever had with any americans during the 2016 campaign – otherwise they are lying ?
It is because you use this idiotic definition of “LIE” that you have no credibility when you spout of about lies.
Both Stone and Caputo considered him RUSSIAN You rationalizing dweeb. Did you read the fucking emails or not?
“How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote. Both referred to him as Russian. He speaks and writes with a Russian accent. He lived most of his life in Russia. His associate in the meeting was Russian.
In order to be able to enter the US he required immigration entry approval:
‘He attached to the statement government documents outlining his immigration history. Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a “significant public benefit parole.”
Does an American citizen need permission to re-enter the US.
You are a clannish, clownish, and creepily misinformed Trumpanzee convert.
“Both Stone and Caputo considered him RUSSIAN ”
No Jay they did not.
The received the information ABOUT him from a russian business contact.
They were at one point lead to beleive that the information CAME from Russia.
They were also lead to believe it came from NSA.
I would sugest that YOU might wish to learn to read.
This is really no different from the Steele Dossier – EXCEPT that Stone and Caputo refused to pay for the information.
Steele received and paid for dirt on Trump from Russians and sold it to the DNC and HFA.
Stone and Caputo were told by a Russian business contact that Greenburg AN AMERICAN, had dirt from Russia on Clinton. Greenberg wanted $2M and Stone and Caputo said no.
What I see here is that the Trump campaign was more moral and ethical than the Clintons,
Regardless there was no contact with any agent of the Russian govenrment.
Further Stone and Caputo have NEVER had any oblifgation to “report” this
In fact as THEY have noted, they completely forgot it until the Halper story broke.
Both Stone and Caputo are deeply and justifiably suspicious that this was EITHER a HFA setup or an FBI setup.
And I suspect that is true.
As this is playing out it appears that EVERY alleged contact between the Trump campaign and “russian agents” was a setup either by the FBI/CIA/MI6 or by HFA/FushionGPS
That is where this is all headed Jay.
What happens if greenberg is connected to FBI/CIA or to HFA ?
What happens if the entire Trump/Russia collusion thing turns out to be an FBO/CIA or HFA sting operation that failed ?
Remember we have Strzok’s later 2015 text about OCUNUS lures – what do you think those were ?-
Sorry, Jay but the problem is yours.
I will be happy to accept your standard – every peson in a US political campaign must report every contact with a suspected foreign national.
John Podesta would be in jail for decades.
Do you think Steele is a US citizen ?
What of the Ukrainians that HFA was in bed with ?
I guess everyone on HFA who watched John Oliver must disclose,
Grow up get a clue.
While I would prefer limited sane rules, whatever rules you make – they must apply the SAME for everyone – republican. democrat, green.
Stein had dinner with Putin during the campaign – was the FBI spying on her ?
Podesta has millions invested in Russia and contacts with Russian businessmen every day – many of whom are kremlin connected – was FBI spying on Podesta/HFA.
The Clinton email investigation was conducted by almost the exact same people as the Trump/Russia investigation – that alone is troubling. We know that the FBI in NY was barred from investigating CF. We know that it is highly unusual for the FBI to run an investigation from DC. \\
Regardless we know that the Clinton investigation was in pretty much every possible way conducted radically differently from the Trump investigation.
About all they have in common is that both leaked like a seive.
The one was public, the other private.
The one involved warants and spies and early morning guns drawn raids,
The other involve immunity deals, entirely voluntary arrangments, even targets serving as lawyers for other targets.
The one involved stonewalling and destruction of evidence the other involved providing the FBI/DOJ with millions of pages of documents.
The one involved actual breaches of National Security – we now KNOW the FBI was aware that TWO Hostile foreign powers accessed Clinton’s emails. And that Obama and Clinton communicated over insecure channels about Russia while Clinton was in Russia.
We know know that the FBI confined the Clinton investigation to Clinton – because the entire State Department under Clitnon was completely clueless about classified information and national security.
@PopeHat sums it up…
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1008812656088629248?s=21
Over 20K children – 8% of fostercare are children who are put into foster care when their parents are arrested.
This is children being removed from US citizens.
What Trumpanzees believe is shaped by the repetition of Trump’s lies.
Lies repeated become truth to their minds.
“The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure.[1] This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University.[2][3] When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new, unrepeated, statements, leading people believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The illusory truth effect has also been linked to “hindsight bias”, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received.”
Wikipedia…
Your Villenove study is just an echo of Goebels statement
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
I beleive Goebels said that in 1938 – that is long before 1977.
I would further note that Goebels intelligently notes that such lies can only be maintained when people can be isolated from the consequences of the lie.
Or a variation of Lincoln’s – you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Big lies endlessly repeated ultimately blow up in the faces of those telling them.
Because a lie always contradicts the truth – reality, and the lie can only be maintained so long as people can be shielded from confronting that conflict.
Right now this is FAR MORE damaging to the left then the right.
The IG just revealed the Clinton email investigation was a sham.
While the IG was unwilling to go so far as to claim it was sytemically biased or that it reflected a conspiracy – he did not actually rule out either.
There is a difference between “I did not find evidence of” and “there can not be”.
Regardless Horowitz dammed the investigation. He dammed key players in it.
But most importantly he destroyer the claim of both the left and right that the DOJ/FBI was still institutionally sound. They are NOT. They can not be trusted to run ANY serious investigation.
I would have prefered that the IG found they were too tainted with Bias to do so,
but it does not matter – he still found their were too dysfunctional to properly conduct a major investigation.
The lie that we can trust DOJ/FBI has been destroyed and by extension we can not trust Mueller either.
While I generally think that there is something to the Villeneuva study you cite.
Aside from the fact that you myrsterious seem to want to presume it only aplies to Trump – that the media and the left do not repeat lies to us
there is the separate problem that as with many of the seminal works in psychology it has come under attack and been severely weakened.
We have a massive problem with science in general at the moment, but psycholoy (food, medicine and climate science) appear be other major manifestations.
The actual gold standard of science is reproduceablitly. it is for this reason that we demand all data, all methods all algorithm’s everything necescary to reproduce any study.
In the past 50 years peer review has become a substitute for reproduceablity.
As a consequence less and less papers are producing the information needed to reproduce them.
The result is poorer and poorer science.
Several years ago the entire area of psychological “priming” was thoroughtly debunked.
Your Villeneuva study is on the periphery of work on priming and is therefore suspect.
Regardless, “priming” has proven to be scientific garbage.
Even flagships of psychology – the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram study have been demonstrated to involve fraud. While there is still evidence that there is something to be gleaned from that work, the conclusions are not nearly so solid as we presumed.
Anyway, my point is that your comment is an abuse of science. Even though I think it is likely that repetition makes it easier to accept a lie for a while. that is not the same as having been proven, nor can you jump from that to Trump is successfully indoctrinating people while CNN is not.
Trump joins other cruel Americans with his policy. Both slaves and indigenous Indians had their children sold away, or in the case of Indians sent to strict Indian schools where their culture and language were off limits.
That’s your company Trump.
Trump joins the ordinary enforcement of our laws.
Each year over 20000 children are separated from their parents because their parents are charged with crimes. This is 8% of foster care.
This is happening to US citizens dozens of times a day.
What is occuring at the border is not unique. It is the norm when our laws are followed.
What is unique is that Trump is following the law.
So weak, so off the facts. The slave’s mother committed a crime? No.
The Indian children’s parents committed a crime defending their freedom and their kids forced into white man schools.
Trump is not a law follower, he like the slave owners and Indian overseers is acting like a dictator and makes policy.
Some of you are becoming extreme apologists.
“So weak, so off the facts. The slave’s mother committed a crime? No.
The Indian children’s parents committed a crime defending their freedom and their kids forced into white man schools.”
I have no idea what facts you are refering to.
If you are a US citizen – black, white, whatever, and you commit a crime, and you have children
You will be separated from them.
That occurs to 20,000+ children in the US each year. More each day than are being separated at the border, 8% of the US children in foster care.
In he US slavery ended 150+ years ago.
I would imaging a tiny portion of those separated in the US are indian.
Regardless, if you wish to condem what occured in the past – fine.
Trurmp was not alive then – neither was I.
“Trump is not a law follower”
Yes, actually he is. So long as crossing into the US outside of a border control point is a crime, those who do so are criminals, and we do not incarcerate crimninals with their children.
You are free to change that, by changing that law. But Trump is not actually free to change the law by wishing it was different. I know that is a hard concept for you to grasp as Obama did it all the time. Regardless it is still true.
“:he like the slave owners and Indian overseers is acting like a dictator and makes policy.
Some of you are becoming extreme apologists.:”
Yes, make bizzare nonsensical analogies to slime anyone who disagrees with you.
Get a clue calling everyone who disagreed with you a hateful, hating hater, is how you got Trump in the first place. Repeating the same mistake will not improve things.
Regardless it is hypocritical and offensive.
DHS Sec. Neilson has confirmed immigrants that come to a border checkpoint and as for assylum are detained AS FAMILIES but not separated.
Asking for asylum is NOT a crime, whether you qualify or not.
Asking for asylum and being turned down and deported does NOT negatively impact your changes of getting accepted through any other legal approach.
Illegally crossing is a crime. If you are caught, you will be criminally prosecuted.
No where in the US are alleged criminals being held prior to hearings being incarcerated with their children.
there are separate issues because:
A strengthening economy is increasing the number of illegal immigrants.
The broad legalization of pot in the US has driven the mexican cartels to seek other forms of revenue – opoids, and human trafficing. It is now virtually impossible to get to the border without the assistance of the Cartels, Further the cartels are flooding the border with illegal immigrants as a means to occupy the border patrols while they transport drugs.
Border patrol agenst are aware that while they are dealing with a flood of illegal immigrants, minutes away drugs are being transported accross the border openly.
The point is simple. The Mexican cartels can read the news.
They know what provokes americans and they actively seek to take advantage of our press to improve their ability to transport drugs.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddler-cage-photo/
It is quite common for left wing memes to rest on fakery.
The separation of children from their families is heart rending.
But the law is not what feels good.
I support open borders. I understand the consequences of that.
I understand that it is not consistent with the welfare state.
I understand that comes with good and bad, and I accept that..
I am not especically interested in the rants of those who are arguing their feelings.
Who have no thought for the consequences of changing whatever offends their feelings.
Decisions based entirely on feelings tend to carry massive moral hazard.
If you allow your feelings to drive immigration law – you provide a trivial means for those who want diferent law, or to exploit your feelings to do so.
The combination of the improving economic conditions in the US and Obama policies regarding things like separation of children, what is the basis for asylum, catch and release. and the legalization of marujuana have all combined to alter radically what occurs on our southern border.
Today most illegal crossings are managed by cartels, and used to provide cover for cross border transportation of opiates. Those seeking to cross the border have adapted their choices to accomidate the policies of the Obama administration – which is why your heart strings are being plucked. give things time and the changed enforcement will alter the behavior of border crossers.
In the meantime if you want to change the law – change the law
but please contemplate the consequences of doing so.
“In the meantime if you want to change the law – change the law
but please contemplate the consequences of doing so.” BS!
Holler that meme all you want, it is fallacious, and you know the Reps won’t change any laws these days.
There have been numerous efforts by republicans to address immigration law.
I beleive just about every republican proposal has give democrats what they wanted regarding Dreamers. Newer proposals are addressing the problem of familiy separation.
There has been a deal on immigration since Trump was elected that 80% of americans can live with.
But Republicans are not passing another of these mass amnesty bills that we have had each decade. Amnesty now, resolution of the problems that required amnesty later – really never.
If what the left wants is open borders – I will join you in asking for that.
But do it openly and not hypocritically.
If it is true that democrats are not after Open Borders – then what is wrong with what Republicans are asking for in return for addressing dreamers and family separation ?
I do not agree with everything the republicans want. But I can live with most of it.
And I am the one who is typically unwilling to compromise.
But there are no actual issues of principle here – we are not getting open borders, so I want whatever I can get, and I am prepared to live with what Republicans want in return.
I do not think that the “wall” will have the magical properties Republicans beleive.
SO WHAT ? It is a waste of money – but as government boondoggles go it is a SMALL waste of money.
Is there a problem with authorizing more immigration judges and courts ?
Do you have some principled opposition to that ?
What part of the most egregious republican demand is so heinous you can not agree to it to get other things you want ?
We have been fighiting over immigration for nearly a decade.
There have been easy deals to be made throughout that time.
Republicans have never been the problem
Democrats believed when Republicans were in the minority and they only needed a few republican votes – that they should not have to compromise.
Now they are in the minority – Republicans are still offering compromise.
Democrats still think they will get everything.
Sorry DD – Trump is not the problem here – YOU are.
“Sorry DD – Trump is not the problem here – YOU are.”
You topped yourself with that one.
Money Laundering Makes The World Go Round…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article210477439.html
So your story is that you are offended because a company that sells realestate
sold realestate ?
Why is this even a story ?
Why do you care. ?
Every transaction in this article occured before 2010, most over 10 years ago.
Every transaction was legal.
Every transaction was before any sanctions.
I get tired of this “money laundering” garbage.
If a buyer or seller is also a participant in some actual crime, charge them.
Otherwise NO ONE should be obligated to pry into the past activities of buyers or sellers in voluntary transactions of any kind.
Real “Money Laundering” is specific – despite Mueller’s it requires that the money involved is the profits from a US crime.
But even real money launder laws are improper as they presume that buyers and sellers are required to investigate those they do business with – to become agents of the government.
You do not care if Trump was knowingly involved in money laundering?
Really?
“You do not care if Trump was knowingly involved in money laundering?
Really?”
You blurr so many errors into short sentences it is incredible.
Have you stopped beating your wife ?
1). Money laundering is something very specific.
The article you linked to might have used the worlds money laundering, but it did not report on actual money laundering.
2). “knowingly” came out of thin air.
3). US laws that apply to non-US citizens outside the US are constitutionally and otherwise meaningless. The US can not create law based on thee actions of non-US citizens outside the US and somehow apply that indirectly to US citizens.
4).. I would find all money launder laws unconstitutional.
5). My above remarks are specific to legality. What “I care about” is entirely different.
Nothing in the article you linked to bothered me. Rich people buying expensive things from other rich people is not something that drives my to protest.
6). Some things Trump has done actually do bother me. Sufficient that I did not vote for him.
But conduct that bothers me and conduct that is ilegal and not inherently the same.
Nor am I obligated to care about you latest Trump meltdown just because I did care about some other.
Conservative/Republican/Trumpanzee Claims Of Widespread Illegal Votor Fraud Proved Bullshit.
https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial
What nonsense.
As Kobach indicated before the case – he does nto expect to win with this judge. He expects to win on appeal.
SCOTUS has already ruled on a variation on this issue. The motor voter act is NOT implicated by states efforts to preclude ineligable voters from voting.
Further the inability to prove voter fraud – which is NOT a requirement to pass a law or for the law to be legaly and is not even a legitimate issue within the domain of the courts, is made impossible because the left has barred every possible effort to obtain trustworthy data.
We do know as FACT that at myriads of precincts throughout the country more people vote each election than are registered.
We actually have massive amounts of data that something is wrong with out voting – while being prohibited from knowing precisely what.
In NH in just one single area 6500 voters – enough to change the outcome of both the 2016 presidential race AND the 2016 senatorial race, were from first time NH voters claiming to be NH residents who provided no proof of NH residence and whose residence could not be verified 3, 6, 9 months after the election.
It is HIGHLY likely that most of those are out of date college students.
Who either chose to vote in NH rather than the state they are residence of or worse still may have voted TWICE.
I can go on and on. Whether you like it or not there is plenty of evidence of voter fraud
Worse still we have situations like the 2000 election that were decided by a bit more than 100 votes in FL. Very close elections are becoming increasingly common.
Elections where our confidence in the outcome is +- 10,000 votes are not acceptable.
But there is not a state in this country that has voting laws sufficient to determine that the number of inelligible voters are small.
Why do you and the left even care ?
Why are you willing to fight to the death over voter ID laws ?
Not only do the overwhelming majority of americans – 80% support them.
But the overwhelming majority of minorites – even black 70% support voter ID laws.
Only the Democratic party and the extreme left of the country oppose voter ID laws.
Regardless the logic of this court is incredibly STUPID.
It is a GIVEN that as the law stands it is NOT POSSIBLE to tell the citizenship or voter eligibility of voters.
If the law precludes you from having the proof that Fraud exists,
the fact that you can not produce proof of fraud is meaningless.
There is BTW myriads of evidence that Fraud is possible and easy.
And there is plenty of evidence that something is seriously wrong with much voting.
Further the left constantly tells me that the state need not demonstrate a true reason for passing legislation.
I’m in favor of registration laws that are balanced and just.
I’m not in favor of exaggerated claims of illegal voting that have proved to be bullshit.
The judge said the evidence provided was WEAK. YOU THINK SHE WAS LYING 🤥.?.?
“I’m in favor of registration laws that are balanced and just.”
The model voter ID law is.
It requires a government photo ID or any of a list of alternatives – usually including student and business ID’s that have:
A photo
A SS#
An expiration date.
In the event that a voter does NOT have a qualifying ID, it allows them to vote provisionally, if they will sign an affidavit that specifies that the are who they say they are.
That is pretty much it.
That is what the nutcases on the left are fighting against.
That is what idiots like you do not think is balanced and just.
BTW – what the F does “balanced” even mean in this context ?
Allows enough invalid votes ?
What is being “balanced” ?
“I’m not in favor of exaggerated claims of illegal voting that have proved to be bullshit.”:
Guess what, the world does not care what you “favor”.
The actual facts are that no claims have been proved “bullshit:”
The counter of the left is that most claims of fraud can not be proven.
That is correct, because there is no means to be able to tell whether any vote is fraudulent or not.
!00% of votes could be fraudulent. !00% could be legitimate.
There is absolutely no means to tell.
In fact absent voter ID laws, anything that you can conceive of to try to determine directly whether votes are fraudulent or not is illegal.
“he judge said the evidence provided was WEAK. YOU THINK SHE WAS LYING”
No I think she is an idiot. Given the laws that govern voting it is currently no possible to establish whether there is significant fraud or not.
Please explain to me any way that would not violate existing voting laws for determining whether there was voter fraud ?
There is none. The best that we can do is look for anomalies that make no sense.
Such as more votes than there are registered voters in a precinct – happens with a reasonable frequency.
Look through voter registrations for people who do not exist or are dead.
We know that most states voter registration rolls contant large numbers of people who are not legitimate voters. They have died, they are fake names, they have moved,
Until just this Supreme court Term most states have not even been able to remove the names of voters who have likely moved – unless the voter actually responds to a request from the state saying they moved.
Jay, you really do not understand how bad our voter registration rolls and how trivial it is to vote illegally.
It is very nearly impossible to know whether a voter has voted illegally.
And the left has fought every single effort to try to find out the scale of the problem.
Trump formed a voting commision to look into voting issues.
One issue was going to be Russian and other cyber fraud.
We do not even have decent data on whether our voting machines have been hacked or can be easily hacked.
The commision was going to look into that.
It was going to look into hacking the voter registration databases – which purportedly the Russian’s tried in 2016.
But the commission also was looking into actual voting records.
They asked each state to provide the commission with the same records that the provide to political parties – many states refused. The commission agreed to pay for the records.
Many states refused. Remember this is data that the State RNC, or DNC or probably even the libertarian party has no problem getting. But the presidential voting commision had to sue to try to get, and judges like the same idiot you are citing blocked some of their requests.
Exactly how is it that you can deprive a presidential commission of public data ?
Anyway after running into a number of brick walls and a complete lack of cooperation from blue states and from democrats on the commission Trump disbanded the commission.
So our chance to try and find out – shot.
The left is AFRAID to even look at the problem.
BTW there is a legitimate basis for voter ID and other anit=fraud measures – even if there actually is very little fraud.
And that is to assure voters that the election is “Balanced and just”.
There does not need to be actual fraud to have a problem.
There just needs to be enough people who beleive or fear that there was fraud.
The validity of an election rests on the voters beleif in the “balance and justness” of the election.
If voters do not beleive the outcome – whether there is actually anything wrong or not we have a serious problem.
Just look at the mess we have now. Those on the left beleive that the 2016 election does not reflect the true votes of the electorate.
As a result we have sniping and fighting and all kinds of nonsense.
The left, right all of us are NOT entitled to the outcome we want.
But we are entitled to an outcome we can have faith reflects the actual votes of real voters.
While this idiocy from the left that russian facebook adds changed the election is lunacy – because even if it were true it would be meaningless. you can not demand a different outcome because you have convinced yourself that but for Russian influence your neighbor would have voted differently, and incapable of grasping that even if true that would still be a legitimate outcome.
Regardless, you see the results of peoples lack of faith in an election.
It is not important that we get the outcome we want in an election.
It is absolutely critical that we can beleive that the results reflect real votes cast buy real live people.
And as someone who vocerifously demands legal rulings be obeyed (you’ve been spouting that POV concerning child immigrant separation ((though it turns out Trump indeed CAN ignore whatever imagined law you and he were referring to)) are you going to demand Kobach follow the law as determined by the Judge’s ruling?
“Two days after a federal judge overturned his documentary proof-of-citizenship law and ordered him to register eligible voters, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is openly defying the court’s order.
According to the Topeka Capital Journal, Kobach’s elections director instructed county clerks to continue demanding proof-of-citizenship from anyone registering to vote until they receive written instruction otherwise. A spokeswoman for Kobach said his office is still reviewing the 118-page ruling, which clearly finds the law unconstitutional and orders Kobach to attend six hours of legal classes for violating rules of civil procedure.”
If Kobach refuses to comply on either instruction, will you demand his arrest?
You continuously MISREPRESENT my positions.
The rule of law has TWO critical components.
That the laws be universal, that they are applied to all, and they are applied as written, and when we do not like them we are free to change them.
That the laws are just and justified. That whatever laws is made it is a legitimate use of force.
BOTH of those criteria must be met to have the rule of law.
I absolutley attack many instances where one or the other of those criteria are not met.
But the fact that in a given conflict I fixate on the fact that the laws must be uniformly applied and enforced. does not mean that they must not ALSO be justified and limited.
When you fixate on only one of two criteria you misrepresent my views.
I.E. you lie about them.
You AVOIDED answering the question.
The Judge ruled.
The Gov is ignoring the ruling.
You stubbornly insisted that if we didn’t want children separated at the border we had to get the law changed, but until then it should be enforced. Seems you were full of crap about that; and are flip flopping that assertion here.
“You AVOIDED answering the question.
The Judge ruled.
The Gov is ignoring the ruling.”
I did not “avoid” answering your question.
I need to be a bit careful about what I write – because you interpret narrow things broadly.
Judges can not make law. They can not create crimes.
Those parts of the Judges ruling that apply individually to kobach and his attorney’s.
are likely outside of the judges jurisdiction – she can refer the matter to the state bar.
With respect to what the state voter registration offices must do – they must follow the court’s ruling – though again that may not mean doing what you expect. I would have to read the ruling, and any law that is relevant to it. But likely Kobach must do as directly quite quickly – or get a stay pending appeal – which it is highly likely he will get.
Do yes, I do expect that any judges orders will be followed – within the legitimate scope of their jurisdiction.
I also expect that when judges are found to have exceeded their authority they will be disciplined too, and even removed. We have seen numerous instances in the past year where the decisions of individual federal courts have presumed to have national scope, and not merely been egregiously wrong, but the have been knowingly egregiously wrong.
As an example Trump’s immigration EO’s have been found constitutiional.
There was never any real doubt of that.
The contrary decisions of lower courts never should have happened.
They were knowlingly obstructionist.
“You stubbornly insisted that if we didn’t want children separated at the border we had to get the law changed, but until then it should be enforced. Seems you were full of crap about that; and are flip flopping that assertion here.”
I have not change my view on that. Trump has chosen for political reasons to to order a remedy that is outside the law. I understand why he did that. But he is wrong. Just as Obama was weong when he did the same thing.
One of the ways we get bad laws changed is by enforcing them.
I have stated repeatedly that only a very limited amount of prosecutorial discretion is justifiable.
As an example a police officer who is writing a traffic ticket and called to respond to a burglary need not finish the traffic ticket.
But to the extent possible our law enforcement should enforce all our laws all the time, blind to who they are being applied to.
Our prosecutors should enforce all our laws all the time.
Our president should enforce all our laws all the time.
Again I want to say that is the rule of law. And it is of critical importance.
Because it is a major part of how we get rid of bad laws.
What we do not want – is Trump or DHS deciding when and who to enforce the laws against.
We do not want what we had in 2016 – where the DOJ/FBI made a hash of multiple investigations because they were not following the laws, or the rules.
We can play games pretending that the IG said that the massive misconduct had no effect.
That is one of few judgements of the IG that is wrong.
Regardless, we do not want a repeat of that mess in 2020 or 2024.
We do not want one party to be able to weild the power of the federal government as a weapon against the other.
We avoid that by sticking to the rule of law:
Follow the laws we have – religiously, and precisely.
Where we do not like the outcome or the way they work – change the law.
Though this does not produce perfect results. It is the best we can do, and increases the impetus to get rid of bad laws.
Trump’s EO reduces the pressure on congress to change the law.
That is a bad thing.
Trump issued an EO – which is better atleast than Obama did,
But it is actually still wrong.
“Two days after a federal judge overturned his documentary proof-of-citizenship law and ordered him to register eligible voters, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is openly defying the court’s order.”
I have no idea what the judge did – but it is not what you described.
Judges do not “overturn documentary proof”.
Nor can I make sense of the rest of your claim.
If the judge ordered Kobach to “register eligible voters” Kobach can ask voters to demonstrate they are eligible.
Regardless, your prose is so mangled and so certainly completely disconnected from anything that is going on that trying to answer your comment is impossible.
Registration and voter ID are DISCTINCT.
Voter ID laws only apply on election day. Kobach can NOT be defying the court as there is no election at this moment.
He is almost certainly appealing.
And given that SCOTUS has already found every voter ID that has come before it constitutional,
and every effort to clean up voter registration roles constitutuonal – there is little doubt Kobach will prevail.
As to the Judge – I know nothing about this judge – but since Trump was elected we have had myriads of judges ruling against extablished SCOTUS decisions, and this clearly sounds like one of those. That would make the court, not Kobach lawless.
That said if Kobach is actually dong something that some judge has ordered him not to, and they order is actually in effect, then I oppose whatever he is doing.
But I highly doubt that is the actual fact.
Jay, what is your opinion on voter registration and what is required. The constitution did not have anything about voting and left that up to the states. Then amendments were added to allow women, minorities and 18 year old individuals to vote, but it still gives most states the leaway on identifying those that can vote.
Although NC has had a number of issues about voting, today you register showing a drivers license or give your last 4 digits of your SS number. If you have neither, some other proof of residence such as a utility bill in your name can be used. Nothing requires proof of citizenship and since there are not that many illegals (about 500,000), it does not appear to be an issue with national elections.
But I wonder in states like CA, what is the requirement to register? Since we have such a divided country and there is so much hatred today, would it be unreasonable to believe a group may be created to get illegals registered and get them to vote in mass?
I dont think it is happening, but after this election with all the election fraud believed to have occurred, what would stop this from happening? I think it would be very easy to have 10 million illegals registered effecting the national and local elections. I trust the political party organizers about as much as I trust government itself. And Pelosi is on the top of the trust list right there with Trump.
The constitution left voting to state legislatures and congress.
Not to the states.
SCOTUS has interpretted the constutitions explicit references to state legislatures to mean the entirety of state government.
While I would have no problem with the constitution delegating voting to the state as a whole.
It did not. Read the constitution as it is written,
Change it if you do not like it.
But when you pretend one qualification away because you want it to mean something else.
you damage the entire constitution.
Please excuse my ignorance. When I said the way the constitution was written giving “the states” the responsibility for determining voter eligibility, I was thinking that anything the states came up with had to be approved by the state legislative division. I am not sure how “the states” would do except by a governor EO. Do states even allow that as NC does not. And if you read most historian documents, many also state the constitution left that “up to the states” English syntax was not one of my stronger assets.
The language in the constitution leaves issues of voting to congress and the state legislatures.
Elsewhere in the constitution when it means the states – ie. something is delegated to the state as a whole however that state government is constructed the constitution says “state” not ‘state legislature”.
I do not beleive this issue came before the courts until the 20th century, when SCOTUS decided that “state legislature” in the constitution means “state government”.
As I have said repeatedly, you must take the text of the constitution as written.
As an example in this case, by rulling that the constitution really meant “states” not “state legislatures”, SCOTUS has precluded completely the alternative.
How would you amend the constitution ? Amendment XXX – “No We really mean State Legislature” ?
When you interpret the words of the law or constitution as they are written – if the meaning is not what we wish – it can always be changed by changing the words in the law or amending the constitution.
The moment you read the meaning differently from the words as written, you make it impossible to reach some meanings.
By reading “state legislature” to mean “state” SCOTUS has forever precluded the ability for the constitution to delegate anything solely to the state legislatures.
While I do not personally take that as a huge deal – I really do not care whether voting rules are the responsibility of the state or the state legislature, there are myriads of other ways the court has done the same and read either more meaning into the text than was there or read meaning out.
It does not matter whether I like the way SCOTUS decided the constitution should work better.
But doing so, they have foreclosed completely not merely the possibilty that they are wrong, but even the possibility of correcting that error.
We are debating different forms of originalism or textualism.
The objective of statutory of constitutional interpretation is to define rules that will allow any moderately intelligent jurist to reach the same meaning as every other jurist consistently regardless of their personal politics regardless of the issue so long as they follow the rules of interpretation.
It is NOT actually necescary they the meaning they reach reflect the intentions of the authors.
What is necescary is that a year after the law/amendment is written or a century later the rules of interpretation produce the same result AND that the rules for interpretation allow the text to be changed to reach any possible result.
Using the meaning of words as they were at the time the law/amendment was written is the constraint that assures that the interpretation is the same in a decade or a century.
Refering to the intentions of the authors (rather than the what the words would have meant to them) is an error – because different jurists can divine the intentions of the authors differently, and most laws are crafted by meany people who did not intend the same thing.
But the narrow form of textualism I have offered (and in fact any scheme of statutory interpretation) does not provide an answer 100% of the time – though narrow textuallism does far more frequiently than anything else. After the plain text and the dictionary prove insufficient, the next layer is the understanding of those that the law would have applied to – the people of the time it was written. That is why the Federalist papers are for more important than the notes of Madison of the framers. The federalist papers (and to a lessor extent the anti-federalist papers) tell us what the constitution was sold to the people of the time as meaning.
So that is the next layer. And if that does nto give you an answer the next level is natural law – and natural law requires the greatest room for individual liberty and the least power for government.
The point of all these rules for statutory interpretation is not some fealty to the framers, or to natural law, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the wishes of living constitutionalists or any other group that the constitution mean something different that what following the rules produces.
The point is to come as close as possible to a clear set of rules that will produce the same results for any given text even if applied by radically different people with entirely different ideologies – so long as they carefully follow the same rules.
The role of SCOTUS – and Jurists in general with respect to the law, is NOT to decide what the law should mean, or how it should work, or even whether it does work.
It is to provide a single answer for what it says that is consistent, and is suffiiciently well defined and narrow that when we do not like the result will will not only be able to change the law/constitution but we will know exactly how to change it to get the result we want.
Any form of statutory interpretation that treats two different expressions as the same, must fail, as it precludes some possible outcome.
If the constitution says “state legislatures” it must be interpreted to mean exactly that, no more no less, because otherwise it will never be possible to write and part of the constitution to actually mean “state legislatures”.
Given the poor quality of your remarks I had to actually look this up.
Kobach is requiring ID to register. Not to vote.
The Federal Judge found the law unconstitutional.
This is much like numerous federal courts found Trump’s immigration EO unconstitutional, which it plainly was not, and SCOTUS overruled.
SCOTUS has not as of yet, ruled on precisely this issue that I know of, though it is actually possible that they may have decades ago.
If they did with near certainty the approved requests for proof of citizenship.
The Federal Judges order appears to be based on the Motor Votor law.
The left has been arguing that some broad language in the Motor Voter law prohibts the states from further regulation of voter registration.
Just about a week ago SCOTUS called BUNK on that idiocy.
But this judges decisions still seems to rest on that spurious claim,
Regardless, Kobach is likely obligated to follow the courts order – until it is stayed – which it almost certainly will be and successfully appealed.
As noted SCOTUS has found every states Voter ID law constitutional.
It has just found the specific Motor Votor law this judge cited does not bar the State from regulating voter registrations. Which should have been the end of this case.
But Kobach is still required to obey this law.
That said there have been so many lunatic stupid left wing nut judicial rulings since Trump took office we need to impeach a few judges – this one would be a start,
In the meantime Koback can seek a stay and appeal.
And he will certainly win.
And how much legal re-education should the judge in this case have to endure for running afoul of SCOTUS precident that is barely a week or two old ?
with few exceptions you do not arrest people for violating court orders.
The judge can hold Kobach in contempt.
The judge could fine him.
That would be an extremely unwise thing to do. As a heavy handed judicial action from a judge that in 99.99% likely to lose on appeal makes the judge look far more stupid than Kobach.
The decision below is not EXACTLY the same, but it is incredibly close.
In the recent SCOTUS case the motor votor act was used to try to bad Ohio from purging its voter registrations – removing ineligable voters.
In this case Kansas is seeking to keep ineligable voters off the rolls.
The argument that they are violating the Motor Voter laws is the same and fails in the same way.
Your judge is going to get overturned – likely quickly.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rule-for-ohio-in-voter-registration-dispute/
When the GOP stood for what I believed in. The changes since created something I have no idea how to support. That is why I became a Libertarian.
Civilized Canada Moves Forward with the Times,
Canada legalises recreational cannabis use http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44543286
Wow! Something from you I can agree with.
In the US an odd coalitions – Sessions, Trump, Corker and Warren seeks to pass a law that restricts the federal government from enforcing more stringent Federal Marijuana laws on states that have legalized Marijuana in some form.
Why can’t we get that passed ?
WELL, WELL, WELL, the spokesman for this company must have attended Trump’s school for lying abilities. Really, you dont want laws changed to restrict CBD oil being used? BS x3!! Another example of big pharma screwing people by getting restrictive laws passed, eliminating products with affordable cost and replacing those with products that require parents to make choices between medication and other needed items. Once it happens, then the illegal distribution continues and the crime elements control the distribution and profits.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-back-1st-pot-derived-medicine-55994015
Without defending “big pharma”.
The fundimental problem is still with Government.
Big Pharma without renting the power of government has no ability to “eliminating products with affordable cost and replacing those with products that require parents to make choices between medication and other needed items.”
That requires government.
Instead of being outraged at “big Pharma” why aren’t you outraged at government ?
“Instead of being outraged at “big Pharma” why aren’t you outraged at government ?”
Because you have much more faith in pharmacy companies than I do. I blame both and dont like government involved to the level it is, but I also do not trust companies to do the right thing all the time when the choice is between profit and safety. How many times have we heard about companies covering up issues until someone stumbles upon the problem and exposes it.
I do not “have faith” in them.
They are just powerless without government.
I know the progressive left will find excuses, but just add this to the list of mysterious deaths associated with the Clintons.
http://www.neonnettle.com/features/1398-fbi-agent-who-exposed-hillary-clinton-s-cover-up-found-dead
Please alert us when a less biased news organization covers this story.
If anyone actually cares about the actual law r3garding illegal immigration the article below would be helpfull – as well as a 2014 29 page document from Obama’s DHS.
But somethings to note.
Zero Tolerance started with Obama in 2014.
Family separations started with Obama in 2014.
Contra what I, the media, and posters here has said
Family separation is NOT policy.
It is NOT merely a consequence of charging those caught at the border with a crime.
It is actually written into the law.
If Course the law is smeared all over and complex – and at the same time as it requites family separation in a number of cases, it simultaneously asserts that DHS shoulr strive to keep families together.
I would further note that familiy separation increases the odds of a minor being allowed to remain in the US permanently by a factor of 4 – or more.
When a minor is separated form their parents they are subsequently BY LAW treated as “unaccompanied minors” and that group has by far the highest chance of being allowed to remain in the US permanently – about 20% compared to 2% or less for those crossing illegally, and 5% or less for those requesting asylum at a border checkpoint.
One other difference between the actual law and what I have represented.
Is that those crossing outside of border checkpoints can request assylum and will receive and asylum hearing. But they are still treated as criminals (those asking for assylum at a border checkpoint are NOT) and requests for asylum by those crossing illegally are little more than speed bumps to deportation, while those asking for asylum at border crossings have both higher odds and more legal process available to them.
I would note further that all the rules change depending on whether the illegal immigrant comes from a country with a border contiguous to the US – Canada and Mexico or elsewhere – central america.
Almost every provision of the law is significantly different depending on that.
With those from contiguous countries reciving substantial preferential treatment.
Why would any president order the cyber security department to stand down? I ask that because if there is nothing of interest happening, would he even be informed of their activities? If there was something of concern taking place, especially since cyber security experts had warned for sometime about Russian interference in economic and election issues, why would he order a stand down when an election was coming up?
Drip, drip, drip. Does anyone really care anymore?
oops, here is the link
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html
TheObama Dems were too stupid and too “fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged. “
The problem with the conduct of the Obama administration during the 2016 election (and before) is that it was nearly entirely driven by politics, not the law.
One o the IG’s major criticisms of Comey was that he was busing doing politcal calculations regarding how he should do his job.
While I beleive that Clinton should have been indicted – that there was enough to do so in 2015 and that would have forced the D’s to find a better candidate – whether it is Obama or Lynch or Yates or Comey, the enirety of the Obama administration was running its last few years based on protecting Clinton and preparing for her coming presidency.
I do not know why you do not understand how WRONG that is.
Thanks for the link Ron.
Extremely disturbing revelations. Dems are as stupid as Reps with regard to Russia and other bad actors on the cyber front.
This is the time to STEP UP our defenses and offenses, not to cut back.
I think like Nuland we need a super agency and perhaps a new cabinet post.
Are you listening Trump, just don’t appoint one more of your idiot ass kissers to any post.
dduck, Sounds good, but how do you remove politics from any cabinet post? When you have issues like those that took place with the FBI, how do we preclude this from eventually infiltrating all agencies that should be non po!itical? I have no idea, but when we have law enforcement making decisions based on political motivation and we have presidents ordering a stand down on cyber security for political reasons, one can only question how long can a democracy survive.
“but how do you remove politics from any cabinet post?”
You follow the law as it is, not how you wish it were.
And when it proves wrong you change the law.
The only russian actions of consequence during the election – the attacks on voter registration and voting machines, are quite simple to fix.
They do not need a cabinet position.
We have way too many of those anyway.
“I think like Nuland we need a super agency and perhaps a new cabinet post.”
Please no!!!!!!.
I really do not give a damn about Russia Facebook posts.
It is no more interesting that the fact that John Oliver has a media platform to opine about our politics.
It is stupid to try to pretend that we can or should silence some selected set of external voices.
But government has a relevant – actually critical role in protecting the actual voting process.
Thus far there is no evidence that Russia actually succeed in hoacking voter registrations, or voting machines. But they did try and we do have a serious need to deal with that.
But that is not a very big problem to fix. Eliminate computer voting machines.
There are other voting reforms we should look at. But most of what needs done regarding voting is not hard.
But democrats fight all efforts to secure voting.
While it is possible the Obama stand down was to preclude Trump from getting fodder for his “rigged” election claim.
It is as likely or more so that the D’s do not want scrutiny of our election process.
It is a very small step from Russians attacked our Voter Registration systems to – I guess we need voter ID.
Trump just propsed sweeping government reform. Consolidation, and the elimination of cabinet posts.
While I have problems with some of the specifics.
The general thought is correct.
We need less cabinet posts, less agencies, and less duplication.
Everything associated with food should be in one place.
Everytbing associated with environmental regulation in another.
Everything associated with govenrment housing in one place.
Eliminate as much as possible, and merge the rest
Read the IG report – the reasons given for pretty much everything that was done make little or no sense.
It is my understanding that the Whitehouse – possibly Obama killed all the CyberSecurity stuff to avoid claims by Trump that the election was rigged.
I do not beleive our election laws should do anything at all to restrict anyone on the planet from speaking in any way regarding elections. We advocate and often speak in the elections of other countries and that is a good thing.
HOWEVER, attempts to hack our computers – particularly those involved in voter registration and worse still those involved in voting should be taken incrediblyseriously. Thwarted and punished.
Trump’s presidential election comission was going to look into that along with trying to document as best as we are able the actual prevalnce of voter fraud.
Democratic states refused to cooperate and democrats walked out of the commission effectively killing it.
I take governments role in voting extremely seriously.
My work is with computers and I think that voting should NOT be done by computer.
Regardless there arew three fundimental principles to elections.
First it must ALWAYS be possible for independent groups like the press to go back and veryfy the count from the actual ballots – not from data in machines but from actual paper ballots.
So long as that is possible we need care much less about the integrity of the rest of the voting system. There is no reason to play games with the way votes are counted if it is highly likely you will get caught.
The next is that every single system of anything has error – and usually a reasonably well understood error rate.
We should not be fighting in court or any other way over any election whose results are within the margin of error for the system.
Whenever that occurs we should not be recounting. A recount inside the margin of error is meaningless.
We should have a runnoff. get fixing close elections out of the hands of politicians and back into the hands of the voters.
The last absolutely paramount issue is that rational voters must the ability to have confidence in the results.
They need not agree – but the overwhelming majority of people must atleast grudgingly accept the results.
I have more recently added “rational voter” because the left’s nonsensical beleif this election was stolen from them is a serious problem – as noted when people do not accept the results of an election there are very serious problems.
But when people do not accept the results for irrational reasons the problem is not solveable.
We have a very serious problem at the moment because quite honestly I do not think the left would have accepted any result where they did not win – Russia, Comey, the DNC emails, no matter what there would have been an excuse.
When you are unhappy with the results of an election you can work to thwart within the law the efforts of those who were elected, But when you challenge the legitimacy of the election that is quite different.
Government only exists at the consent of the governed.
Whe sufficient people do not consent we have a problem. that must be addressed.
When those who do not accept the results do so for irrational reasons, and are incapable of accepting that they lost, we are dancing very near anarchy
“Government only exists at the consent of the governed.”
I wonder if part of the problem is the inability of those chosen to govern are incapable of doing so. We again saw that yesterday with congress punting the immigration issue.
Could it be that once those chosen to govern can no longer do so, those giving consent begin taking things into their own hands.
One can look at Trump from many different angles. I think he could care less if he is a one term president if he can accomplish a few absolutely needed changes. One is the trade issues which I know you do not think exist, but I do. He is forcing other countries to negotiations on trade. Basically he wants open borders for trade. We send a car to you without tariffs and you send us a car without tariffs. None of this no tariffs on a Chinese made Buick Envision sent here, but 15%-25% on cars going into China. Two, the outdated immigration policies that need major overhauls. He is being as hard line on these issues as he can and is forcing congress to do something on immigration (which they are not). Its the art of making a deal. “I bring you my best deal and I can walk away if you do not accept”. And finally his dismantling as many prior regulations by previous administrations as possible. It takes longer to put them into effect that shutting them down. Once he eliminates them, it will take the next president many months to get them back working again.
We have had a problem with parties accepting elections since 2000. Bush defeats Gore, but many will not accept the fact that many recounts show Bush winning Florida. The Republicans could not accept the fact that a black man with no experience won the election, so they did everything possible to undermine him. And now the same play book is being used on Trump.
With respect to Trade – Trump’s games teriffy me.
We are dancing ever closer to a Trade war – and everyone will lose.
The “right” answer is to lower our trade barriers unilaterally.
All that said – if the end results of Trump’s Trade bullying is lower tarriffs all arround – I can not complain – much.
According to Kidlow and Navarro – the at the G7 the US negotiated and everyone aggreed to reducing all Tarriffs to 3.5% all arround, and eliminating government subsidies.
The wheels came off when Truedeau – after progress towards that deal was reached held a press conference where he said the opposite of what he said in negotiations.
That is when Trump walked out.
I do not beleive Trump. I do not beleive Navarro. But I do beleive Larry Kudlow and that is what he said happened.
We see similar things elsewhere, Trump takes whatever anyone thought he starting position was and takes several larges steps away from that.
Then he negotiates, forcing his opponents to negotiate him towards his initial position.
In essence Trump negotiates to compromise on getting what he actually wants,
rather than compromising on something slightly less.
And he appears to be pretty good at this.
As much as my fears o a Trade war are.
Trump is holding the aces.
The US economy is strengthening.
That of EU and China is fragile.
The US can take more hits than China or the EU can.
There were strong signs that China was looking for a face saving way out.
but that seems to have passed.
“Trump is holding the aces.”
Had this occurred back when Ross Perot was talking about the sucking sound of jobs flowing to Mexico, as well as years prior with far east imports, maybe we would not be in a weakened position where a trade war would have such an impact. Now we have an issue where China can screw over our car makers by slapping a huge tariff on them and the only recourse is to bend over( like all previous presidents have done ) or risk a trade war, as Trump has done. How we fix that one issue. Buikd an Envision in America. Who the hell wants a Chinese pieces of junk anyway if they really knew where it was built!
I do not want to try to re-analyze the past.
The fact is that Manfacturing in the US has increased significantly every years since the 50’s.
But Manufacturing jobs have declined.
We actually has something similar in coal mining – I think we are still mining as much coal as ever but we are using a fraction to the people to do so.
One of the difficult things to grasp is that this is GOOD
Producing more value with less human effort is REQUIRED to raise standard of living.
what is necescary is to stay out of the way of putting those who lose their jobs because we increase efficiency back to work.
All the things we do that make it harder to start new buinesses are a significant impediment to that.
If you have lost your job to improved efficiency – you are NOT likey getting the same job back
You are going to have to be employed doing something new.
And new things require keeping government out of the way.
Absent interference the free market will always find a use for available human resources.
“One of the difficult things to grasp is that this is GOOD”
So using your philosophy, we have the technology today to develop and make components and software for electronic devices with many hundred thousands employed in America. We sell that technology worldwide, including China. Going forward, China buys it, does analysis on the products, copies that product, begins producing clones of those products, builds plants using profits from trade tariffs to produce these products, sells those products worldwide at the same price or close to the same price as the American product, puts 25% tariffs on our products shipped to China to protect their company and effectively eliminates 10s of thousand of American jobs. And America allows the products using pirated technology imported free of tariffs.
Do I have that right?
Why do you think you can own and idea ? How do you intend to both profit from an idea and keep it secret at the same time ?
You are fixated on intellectual property. For most of US history the US has had extremely weak Intellectual property laws compared to the rest of Europe.
We grew and prospered by doing to europe what china is trying to do to us.
By having our own ideas and by borrowing and improving on the ideas of others.
We went through this same nonsense with Japan.
We spent decades claiming they were stealing from us.
In the end Japan does better than us at many things. In some narrow areas it is even more inventive.
But by far the worlds most creative country remains the US. The Japanese could not change that. Our fears of the japaneses did not change that.
The Chinese will not change that.
It is possible for other countries to eclipse the US – and that may someday happen. But it will not occur because they ripped off our technology. That will occur when some other nation offers its people more freedom that we do for a long enough sustained period.
I talk often here about how well Singapore does economically – and in many ways it is more free and more prosperous. Further per capita they are the most intelligent people on the planet.
But even though Singapore is in many ways more free than the US, it is not as politically free, it is not as diverse, it is not as culturally free and as a consequence it is fat less creating that the US.
My life is in technology. China “ripping off” the US should be a greater harm to me than any other group in this country. But it is not. I am not threatened by China or India or anywhere else in the world.
If they take our ideas and produce them more cheaply or even improve them – and BTW just as the Japanese did they do improve them. That is life – we are all better off.
I am very near the top of my profession. The most important project I am working on is a way to radically increase the number of people capable of doing the work that I do.
We do not and never will have a shortage of ideas. We have a shortage of the people capable of making them happen. Whether that is the people like me who write some of the most difficult code in the world, or whether it is people like Bezos, or Musk or Gates or Jobs who take the ideas of others and make them happen.
I know Bill Gates, I met him and had dinner with him when Microsoft was much smaller.
I am not trying to knock him, but he is not that brilliant – he is not as good at what I do as I am – and what he is famous for is littlerally what I do.
But he is one of the richest men in the world – not because he can write code or come up with new ideas – lost of people can do that. But because he can make them happen.
It is far far far easier to do that in the US.
China can “steal” ideas from the US – that assures they will ALWAYS be behind.
Your arguments presumes that ideas are zero sum. That if someone develops a better mousetrap and someone else takes that idea and makes it better or cheaper, they some theft has occured, that somehow the world is worse off – but it is not, it is better off.
If the Chinese produce light bulbs that are cheaper and cheaper to operate and last longer and are otherwise better – and that improvement costs a few thousand american jobs – at GE.
It still makes everyone in the world – including americans otherwise better off.
In my own profession I am doing things I could not do 10 years ago. I could not afford to, nor did the resources exist.
Partly that is because I can buy the things I need to do the job for a tiny fraction of what they used to cost. Because I have software tools that are very good and free – from CERN as well as from places in the US,.
The major project I am working on today is a way to do for software development what things like 3D printers do for hardware manufacture. To expand the number of people who can do the work I do exponentially.
By your logic I am making myself poor. By mine I am making everyone better off.
Creating things in not zero sum. I want China (and India, and …) to produce as much value as possible
If they do so by “stealing” some of our ideas, so what. There is no shortage of ideas.
I have cited Julian Simon’s “the Ultimate Resource” many times.
There is only one form of scarcity we can not trivially overcome.
That is the limit to the number of ideas that Humans can impliment.
It is not conceiving of ideas that is the problem. It is not producing them.
It is going from an idea to something tangible.
If the chinese take some of our ideas and make them happen – that gives us the ability to bring other ideas to production.
You are worried about something that is not a problem.
You are engaged in zero sim thinking about something that is not zero sum.
Tarriff’s do not scre over US car makers – there is no right to sell something anywhere.
Tarrifs screw over the chinese people – they are essentially a sales tax – paid by consumers.
The chines people must either pay more for what they want or buy something they do not want.
Regardless it is the chinese that lose.
When we raise tarrifs we screw our own people.
Dave, you have missed my point of view, so I will put it more clearly.
Your comment “Tarrifs screw over the chinese people – they are essentially a sales tax – paid by consumers”
I DONT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE CHINESE PEOPLE!
Clear enough????
I care about the person that does not have a good paying auto manufacturing job because we import the Envision without tariffs, while an American produced car get a huge tariff attached in China.
Put a tariff on the Envision, increase the price, Americans buy something else, China produces fewer Envisions, Chinese lose jobs, too bad.
Ron;
I do not “miss your point of view” it is just wrong.
I do not care about the chinese workers – nor all that much about US workers.
If you were capable of doing well as an autoworker, you are capable of doing well as something else.
If you do not understand that there is always some other use for your skills or that you can develop new skills of value – then you are in trouble,
You fixate on Chinese making Envisions.
How would things be differnet if the same vehicles were built in the US – by robots ?
The process of raising standard of living will ALWAYS mean fewer people producing the same or greater value.
The very technology you are so afraid the chinese will steal MUST reduce the number of people producing the same amount of value. If it does not then it has no value.
If we could change the world to restore the US auto dominance to what is was in the 50’s.
To force building cars using large amounts of high paid labor in the US
No matter how many jobs you created – we would be POORER.
We do not get wealthy by creating more jobs,
We raise our standard of living bu producing MORE will LESS human resources.
As a bonus that frees labor to be used for other purposes.
US unemployment right now is teetering below 4% – that is below the level required for the market to operate efficiently.
Beleive it or not unemployment going too low causes inflation without producing value.
We have some headroom – because labor force participation is still lower than it should be.
But not infinite headroom.
If you moved massive numbers of jobs miraculouusly from China Howe are you going to find the people to do them ?
I will bet money Trump is re-elected in 2020.
I know everyone here thinks that is not happening.
but I think that the high decible ranting by the left is making it hard to hear that an awful lot of people are happy and ignoring what is going on in DC.
I think an attitudes survey came out recently – and everyone except democrats is happier than they have been in a long time.
Trump is not appealing to democrats, or the people ranting at him.
His voters and potential voters are people who are not speaking out.
Trump is never getting the votes of the left.
He is not even trying.
I found the recent immigration kerfluffle interesting.
While Trump caved – and I think he had to – having the facts and the law is not good enough when you lose peoples hearts.
I can rant all I want that we must make public decisions with our minds not our hearts – but I can not change the fact that sometimes Human behavior is just not consistent with that.
Anyway there was a serious political danger – both for Trump 2020 and republicans 2018.
This issue was far more important for women than men.
And the fortunes of the GOP in 2018 and Trump in 2020 rest on not losing the women’s vote.
All that said – in the midst of the immigration fight the Generic ballot gap CLOSED, and Trump’s approval rose.
I am guessing that is lag, or the effects of the IG report.
Because the separation issue was cutting emotionally hard against.
2000 was a serious threat to government.
I was begging one of the two to capiitulate, I did not care who.
I think the logic in the SCOTUS decision was crap, But I think the justices knew this fight had to end.
After than I disagree. Democrats were not happy, but they accepted Bush as president.
The same is true of republicans and obama.
There were some personal attacks on Bush and Obama. And some were nasty. But they were not near as broad and deep as now.
Further people attacked Obama personally, and they fought him on policy.
But the challenges to his legitimacy were very small.
Same with Bush.
The attacks on Trump are about his person, his legitimacy and his policy.
And more the former than the latter.
I would further note, I do not mostly think the anger of the left is about Trump.
Trump just makes it worse.
The livid is livid because they lost.
They did not beleive that was possible.
The extreme left bought Clinton, not because they liked her,
but because they were told that Warren and Sanders were not electable.
And that Clinton would win by 20pts.
They get rolled into betting on the sure thing – and Clinton chocked.
And they could not beleive that happened.
The comey rants, the certainty that Russia did it, are all because they could not accept the outcome.
Trump surprised me in beating the other GOP candidates.
But Republicans winning in 2016 I think was a foregone conclusion.
Ron, I’m sure you must have respect for this guy’s opinion.
My advice:follow his advice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-the-gop-this-november/2018/06/22/a6378306-7575-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.47259a090dc7
Jay, what did he say? All I get is a request for money to read. But before you answer if he says to vote for someone other than the GOP based on the title, let me tell you the choice I have. Virginia Foxx, a do nothing, follow the leader, keep your mouth shut, support the president, get reelected Republican. For the Democrats we have Denise Adams, a Winston Salem black council member. Supports one payor health system, supports increasing taxes on those making over $150,000, supports assault rifle ban, supports licensing ALL gun owners (hunting, recreational, protection,etc) and supports requiring all gun owners to undergo certification training yearly to continue qualifying for a gun license. Also supports other gun issues like clips less than 10-15 bullets etc. And there are no others running.
So can you really believe I could ever vote for someone that is left of Pelosi?
I can not get past the WaPo paywall either.
I will be happy to vote for D’s when the D’s offer credible candidates.
I would note that it does not help when D’s run as moderates and centrists, but when elected are steam rolled into toeing the party line.
While to SOME extent this is true of both parties, the GOP has far more senators and representatives with independent streaks.
Whether it is McCain or Rand Paul – there are republicans who will vote against they part for what they beleive. Where are the similar democrats.
Immigration reform would be trivial if either or both parties released their members to vote as they pleased.
There are more than enough votes for a filibuster proof compromise – if senators could vote what they campaigned aying they beleive.
By George F. Will
Opinion writer
June 22 at 4:41 PM
Email the author
Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans — these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively — fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.
The principle: The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.
Consider the melancholy example of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), who wagered his dignity on the patently false proposition that it is possible to have sustained transactions with today’s president, this Vesuvius of mendacities, without being degraded. In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Thomas More, having angered Henry VIII, is on trial for his life. When Richard Rich, whom More had once mentored, commits perjury against More in exchange for the office of attorney general for Wales, More says: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!” Ryan traded his political soul for . . . a tax cut. He who formerly spoke truths about the accelerating crisis of the entitlement system lost everything in the service of a president pledged to preserve the unsustainable status quo.
Ryan and many other Republicans have become the president’s poodles, not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. As explained in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Congressional Republicans (congressional Democrats are equally supine toward Democratic presidents) have no higher ambition than to placate this president. By leaving dormant the powers inherent in their institution, they vitiate the Constitution’s vital principle: the separation of powers.
Recently Sen. Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is retiring , became an exception that illuminates the depressing rule. He proposed a measure by which Congress could retrieve a small portion of the policymaking power that it has, over many decades and under both parties, improvidently delegated to presidents. Congress has done this out of sloth and timidity — to duck hard work and risky choices. Corker’s measure would have required Congress to vote to approve any trade restrictions imposed in the name of “national security.” All Senate Republicans worthy of the conservative label that all Senate Republicans flaunt would privately admit that this is conducive to sound governance and true to the Constitution’s structure. But the Senate would not vote on it — would not allow it to become just the second amendment voted on this year .
This is because the amendment would have peeved the easily peeved president. The Republican-controlled Congress, which waited for Trump to undo by unilateral decree the border folly they could have prevented by actually legislating, is an advertisement for the unimportance of Republican control.
The Trump whisperer regarding immigration is Stephen Miller, 32, whose ascent to eminence began when he became the Savonarola of Santa Monica High School . Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign official who fell from the king’s grace but is crawling back (he works for Mike Pence’s political action committee), recently responded on Fox News to the story of a 10-year-old girl with Down syndrome taken from her parents at the border. Lewandowski replied: “Wah, wah.” Meaningless noise is this administration’s appropriate libretto because, just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump attracts, and is attracted to, louts.
In today’s GOP, which is the president’s plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him. A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate’s machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House. And to those who say, “But the judges, the judges!” the answer is: Article III institutions are not more important than those of Articles I and II combined
I generally like Will.
He has actually become more libertarian with age,
but he is a ferverent emotionally driven anti-trumper.
I have said here repeatedly that I beleive character matters.
I can not vote for someone without character.
Neither of the Clinton’s had character, nor does Trump.
Unfortunately whether I like it or not Clinton was a good Trump.
And though there are reasons to worry, Trump appears to be doing the same.
Bill Clinton may be the worst person to have been President during my lifetime.
Trump is not as bad as wither Nixon or LBJ, possible not much different from Kennedy.
Still personal conduct and effective presidency have little to do with each other.
Obama was a mediocre to poor president. I thought he was a good person, but I increasing am skeptical of that. Regardless his failings were still in political integrity, rather than personal integrity.
Though like Rishard Rich – he sold his soul for power.
Trump is oddly the least and most libertarain president ever.
While I want much much more, he is the most deregulatory president since Carter.
He is the most law abiding president we have.
I do not think he should have capitulated on the immigration issue.
It was one of few rare lawless authoritarian acts on his part.
Those of you who keep saying this is just policy or that is – are advocating FOR authoritarianism.
Demand the law be changed.
At the same time some of Trump’s tactics are very unlibertarian.
His trade bullying is very unlibertarain, and if we end up in a trade war it could be disasterous.
But the end he seems to be aiming for is really free trade. .
“He is the most law abiding president we have”
stupidity is not a jailable crime. you’re free to continue spouting it.
as I’m free to shun you…
Bye bye…
Jay.
Absolutely Trump is “doing” things that offend many people – or more often NOT doing things and thereby offending lost of people.
He is not “breaking the law”.
Ultimately his EO’s have been upheld by SCOTUS – despite ludicrously stupid attacks by leftist lower courts. This is the opposite of Obama who had the worst record with SCOTUS of any president ever. Who had massively more 9-0 losses than any president ever.
We have debated the law regarding immigration. I have provided links to actual law and to long papers on the law written by the Obama administration.
I do not like our immigration laws. I want to see them changed.
But in the meantime, the rule of law, means following the law.
Trump ultimately capitulated on family separation.
He went “lawless” – BTW the “zero tolerance” immigration policy started with Obama in 2014.
Trump did not even create the “policy change” the left is ranting about.
Throughout the federal government Trump and his people are undoing the things the Obama administration did lawlessly.
In some instances – such as the dreamers, I would like to see congress pass laws that approximate what Obama did outside the law.
But in all instances the lawlessness Trump is reversing are things that while haviing some political support for the extreme end of his base, did not have the support necescary to become law.
If you beleive that elections have consequences – as Obama told us. Then you are compelled to accept what Trump is doing as just as legitimate as what Obama did.
If you beleive in the rule of law – then Obama is lawless and Trump is strengthening the rule of law.
The only world in which Obama is more lawful than Trump is the fairy tale world of the left.
I do not always agree with Ryan, but I think he has been a good speaker, and contra Will, I think he has shown integrity that no modern speaker has.
Both parties have their problems. The House Freedom caucus, is both powerful and one of the strongest libertarian forces in congress – while they are “right libertarian” they are still very strongly limited government.
Ryan sits between the Freedom caucus and the larger body of republican moderates.
About half of republicans must win in congressional districts that are pink or purple – not red,.
These are much more moderate. But I would note – moderate is NOT the same as correct.
These republicans are far more willing to compromise and far more willing to support bigger government.
Withing democrats the “moderates” are disappearing.
The country divides into Red, pink purple and blue.
There is less and less purple.
Moderate democrats are a smaller minority than moderate republicans and tend to be bullied into supporting their very blue brothers.
That happens less among republicans.
George is well George, but I agree with him on Trump.
Same with the recently departed Krautheimmer who I had political differences with over the years; he was a severe critic of Trump’s character and mind, both of which he considered sub par and said so in his writing. Amid all the gushing admirations at his death yesterday and today you will notice not one word acknowledging the death from petulant President Prick Head.
Is there anyone defending Trump’s character ?
Ranked in order of Misogyny.
Harvey weinstein
Clinton Bill
Roy Moore
Clinton Hillary
Joe Biden
Al Franken
Donald Trump
Mysogny is not the only evidence of bad character.
But it is an important one.
With respect to Trump’s Mind – I am more with Jordan peterson on Trump.
Like him, don’t, but people who succeed on multiple domains as Trump has tend to be very smart – a particular kind of smart – not George Will’s kind of smart. But still very smart.
Will miss Charles, a true drummer to his own beat.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/06/21/lemonade_stands_the_latest_victim_of_excessive_regulation_110680.html
“One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again. Do we need to keep repeating the same mistakes forever?”
Thomas Sowell
Who had peaceful demonstrators beaten up by his security people in Washington DC, and got away with it?
And also in NYC: http://www.nydailynews.com/…
Wrong, not Trump, it was this nasty piece of work, Erdogon. He may be worse than Trump.
So when did this take place? I have basically tuned out all national news. Just watch local news that has little other than NC coverage.
But this should not surprise anyone since I did read on Facebook that owners of Red Hen restaurants not affiliated with the VA Red Hen have been getting death threats. The tribal divide began with Obama and has become a chasm with the current leadership of Trump, Pelosi, McConnell and Shumer. I blame all of them equally since they all say and do things that does nothing but divide us further.
Where we end up is anyones guess since I dont think we have seen something like this in the past. Even with the Vietnam war protests, the elected officials were not dividing us, it was the war policies and military deaths. The civil war was closer to the divide today since there was hatred involved, much like today. It just happens to be against Hispanic illegal immigrants that the left (north) supports and the conservatives( south) does not. We may not actually become a divided nation, but in reality, that seems to be where we are heading.
I do not understand why you think this is different than Vietnam protests ?
Today and then the divide was atleast partly political.
The only significant differences is that protests against LBJ and Nixon were focused on the war.
The attacks on Trump are because he breaths.
Anything Trump does the left will attack – even If Obama did the same thing.
If you cant tell the difference, then I can not explain it where you will understand as it is very clear to me what the difference is. During the war the protests took place in public forums. The protests were directed toward the policies and toward the government. LBJ and Nixon may have been included, but in California where I grew up and went to college, there was not the hatred between people that were on the different sides of the issue. I dont remember the president staff being refused service. I dont remember the presidents staff being identified by the opposition for service refusal, demonstrations at their homes and personal death threats. I do remember servicemen being singled out and called inhumane, but they also represented then government policies. They were a small group compared to how the left and right hate each other today. Just the fact Clinton called those supporting Trump “,deplorables” supports my thinking. In the past the comment would have been the policies of Trump are deplorable, not the supporters of trump are deplorable.
Obviously there are SOME difference.
Do they matter ? Are they consequential ?
I do think some things are coming to a head. But I am not expecting Civil war.
To few on the left are capable of organized violence.
Further the left today does not grasp that their own conduct is driving a backlash.
The polls are WEIRD at the moment.
The level of Rhetoric ratcheted up over the family separations.
There was purportedly a credible threat to republicans as some in their base were defecting over family separations.
At the same time Trump’s approval is rising.
The generic ballot is narrowing.
Purportedly more people favor immigration.
BUT More people favor stronger boarder controls.
Back to Vietnam vs. today.
V targeted vets – Bad.
V very policy centric.
Today – Targets ANYONE that does not toe the leftist line.
Not only is Trump being attacked, as well as his people, and supporters, and anyone who agrees with him on anything, but even those on the left who are not sufficiently leftist are attacked.
Today is very personal.
This is also why what is occuring now MUST fail.
The level of animosity an the broad targeting assures that over time less and less people will be willing to associate with the left.
Trump alienates those on the left permanently, but most of the rest of us float in an out.
We do not loath Trump and everything he stands for we just disagree on specific issues.
I think that the lefts politics of intolerance is the primary factor in Trump winning.
Clinton’s deplorables comment was just a reflection of that.
But since the election the left has gotten MORE intolerant. And it is very personal.
But that is also why the left must ultimately self-destruct.
There is no “may” about it. Erdagon is the authoritarian that the left accuses Trump of being.
In the US we have not had government sanctioned political violence.
We have lots of private political violence – mostly from the left – such as the weather underground, the SLA, in the past or AntiFa currently.
Aside from events such as refusing to seat Sanders – which was not violent and legitimate, we also have private olitical harrassment that is ilegitmate fromt he left – such as silencing speakers, and many instances destroying, burning and beating people up.
We can argue about whether the “nazi” Groups are right or left, or whether they instigate violence or merely provoke it from others before responding.
But inarguably they are tiny in comparison to that on the left.
The protests against Bondi and Sec. DHS have crossed the line – but only barely.
There is a difference between what happened to Sanders at Red Hen and What happened to Bondi and Nielsen both instances went beyond protesting to disturbing the peace.
I am also disturbed by protests that target people in their homes.
Regardless I would encourage the left to protest PEACEFULLY.
But Peaceful protest is an expression of displeasure it is not legitimate to silence opposing views or to actually disturb people in their private space.
“But Peaceful protest is an expression of displeasure it is not legitimate to silence opposing views or to actually disturb people in their private space.”
Isn ‘t it interesting that in the late 60’s the right unrestricted speech and the left protested, demonstrated and demanded free speech for everyone. Today the left wants to restrict speech while the right wants to protect this constitutional right.
Guess if your speech is mybspeech thats fine, otherwise…..
The right “restricted speech”!! Why the hell these computers or Word press posts something not showing in the typed message before clicking “post message” totally confuses me
These two incidents took place under Obama. Trump is probably congratulating Erdagon as we speak.
Both presidents stink when it comes to their handling of this dictator. He has been reelected and is dissolving parliament and controls judiciary nominations.
I can imagine Trump salivating with admiration.
It is not our job to depose every vile tyrant in the world – whether it is Erdogan or Madura.
Or Putin or Assad, or ………
You want to bitch and moan about them – fine. I may join you.
But the people of a nation are responsible for their own leadership we are not.
“But the people of a nation are responsible for their own leadership we are not.”
I would have agreed with you until this past election. We ended up with two candidates the the people may or may not have wanted. We got Clinton due to the money people and super delegates. We got Trump because of a minority of voters supporting him in early primaries and the money drying up for other candidates.
We end up with who the rich pick, not who the people want and then the voters have to pick between manure and fertilizer and hope we dont end up with crappy leadership.
Maybe in the future the use of social sites will take the place of money. Who knows?
“I would have agreed with you until this past election. We ended up with two candidates the the people may or may not have wanted. We got Clinton due to the money people and super delegates. We got Trump because of a minority of voters supporting him in early primaries and the money drying up for other candidates.”
So change the rules. Or start a third party, or vote libertarian or green or ….
I do not personally get bent out of shape over money. The left fixates on it. Too many of those on the right do too.
For many things to a point Money is incredibly valuable as a tool to accomplish things.
But it is only a tool. We know that throwing money at problems does little or nothing to solve them.
Sometimes even making them worse.
I could think about supporting government job training programs except that the data on those is horrible – Federal Job training REDUCES your odds of getting a job.
Money has diminishing returnes
The candidate with no money is going to lose to the candidate with a million dollar campaign.
Yet Trump spent a bit over half what Clinton did and won.
If 2:1 spending can not assure victory money is less important than we claim.
Political candidates fixate on money, because getting every more money is one thing they can control. Voters are outside their ability to control.
“We end up with who the rich pick”
Oh? The rich picked Clinton. Wall Street picked Clinton, wealthy donors picked Clinton.
We most definitely did NOT end up with who the “rich” picked.
While Trump did not run as a “socialist” – stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
He did run a campaign that was focused incredibly on working class americans.
He went head on after blue collar democrats.
He eschewed the wealthy, the educated, the elite.
While Trump is a rich person. He is also a caricature of a rich person.
Trump is austentatious He lives and acts like poor people who won the lottery.
Trump quite litterally is “one of them”, he is very close to what a poor person would be if they became rich.
A significant portion of the #nevertrumper’s as well as the extreme left,
loath Trump because he is NOT one of them.
“not who the people want and then the voters have to pick between manure and fertilizer and hope we dont end up with crappy leadership.”
Maybe in the future the use of social sites will take the place of money. Who knows?”
Does it matter ? The use of money, the use of social media, the entirety of political campaigns is about trying to persuade voters either to vote for your candidate or not for the other.
No one holds a gun to voters heads.
Mueller just dump his “smoking gun” regarding Russian social media efforts in discovery in the case he has against actual russians.
2TB of social media adds and posts and … that were placed by Russians during the 2016 campaign by russians.
That likely is less than a days worth of Twitter political traffic during the election,
Still 2TB is alot of adds and posts.
It seems to reject the claim that the russian efforts were inconsequential
BUT FOR ONE THING.
All 2TB is in Russian. Unless you beleive that there is a large block of US voters in the rust belt who read fluent russian, it seems that nearly the entirety of Mueller’s purported russian influence claims, is Russians trying to influence russians to …. do nothing because they can’t vote.
” It is not our job to depose every vile tyrant in the world – whether it is Erdogan or Madura.
Or Putin or Assad, or ………”
You are beyond hope if you don’t decry FOREIGN nationals beating up U.S. citizens in broad daylight in NYC and DC, and GETTING AWAY with it.
Anyone beating anyone up in NYC is the business of our government.
Absent a claim of self defense “why” is irrelevant.
Beyond all hope.
I hope Harley and Davidson are proud of their company’s leadership in giving the middle finger to Trump by moving some production to Europe.
Trump is an out of control bull in the international trade system china shop and Colin Powell was right, “you break it you own it”.
Yes, there are/were plenty of abuses by other countries, and I’m sure the U.S. also screwed other countries. But it ain’t whatcha do, it’s the way hatcha do it, President bumblenoxious.
I would not presume that we know the reasons for Harley Davidson building motorcylces in Europe.
But I can guess. It is likely the same reasons that Honda and Mercedes build cars in the US.
A small part is tarriffs and trade barriers.
A large part is that it is most efficient to build a product as close to those buying it as is feasible.
Those companies that have moved the production of good that are being sold to americans outside the US generally only do so when there is a very large cost savings to do so.
Otherwise is tends to be a very bad idea. And many of them end up moving back.
The skeptic in me decided to look up Harley Davidson info since you are commenting on this. As I was not really informed of their decision to shift production and used the tariffs issue as the reason, further evaluation leads me to a different conclusion. In this article they state “Part of our long-term strategy is to grow our international business to 50 percent of our annual volume by 2027”
So how do you shift 50% of your production to be international? You build your plants where you are selling your product or where cost are much lower. Why build the damn thing in Thailand to sell in the Asian and EU market if you can build the product here? Because it cost penny’s compared to the costs here.
I call Harley Davidson announcements BULL SHIT! They do not make decisions like this over night. They are not going to shift 50% of their production to Thailand if they did not already have pans to do that.. When they announced the plan to shift production, they did not say a shift to Europe, they said a “shift overseas”. Thailand is overseas! HD is hemorrhaging money, sales have declined drastically over the past 5 years or so as the baby boomers have begun to stop riding, snowflakes dont ride motor cycles so the USA market is in free fall, stock holders want something to change to stabilize stock prices, so the way to change is to go where labor cost are a fraction of that in the USA and ship cycles from that location to Europe.
I know, I know, I am defending Trump. No I am not. I am saying Harley Davidson leadership is lying just like Trump lies about most anything. And last didn’t the tax bill exempt foreign profits paid back to the United States from domestic taxation? If that is so, they will pay the 20% rate in thailand, but may avoid the 8% corporate rate for state taxes in Wisconsin.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387120-harley-davidson-to-open-plant-in-thailand-after-closing-one-in-kansas-city
Clinton’s signature foreign policy accomplishments include
making a mess in Somalia
making a mess in the Balkans
allowing a mess in Rwanda,
and failling to deliver a Palestinian Peace deal.
Bush’s accomplishments include
war in afghanistan
war with Iraq.
Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments include
getting the nobel peace prize for being Obama
Making a mess in Syria
Making a mess in libya
Allowing a mess in Egypt,
Getting nowhere with China
Playing come here, come here, get away with Russia.
Making the Mideast even worse than when he was elected.
A botched deal with Iran.
Botching our relationship with Saudi Arabia and other mideast countries
Trump has been president for less than 2 years.
He has actually accomplished little.
Some of the things he has accomplished MIGHT have their origens in The Obama administraiton – such as the destruction of ISIS as a force on the ground.
Though given the actual history of the Obama foreign policy that is a weak claim.
Regardless, Syrian though still a problem is substantially improved.
I would have gotten out of Afghanistan and Iraq,
but thus Far Trump has not made those worse.
In fact that is a strong theme of his foreign policy thus far.
Unlike the previous 3 presidents Trump has not yet made anything worse.
There is the potential for improvement in Iran, North Korea and China.
Despite the “trade war” rhetoric, china has actually worked with us with regard to NK.
Further we have restored Open navigation of the Seas in the South China Sea.
We have improving relationships with much o the mideast.
There appears to be a peace deal in the works.
Success may be unlikely, but more has happened since The botched effort during Clinton’s last year.
I remain very nervous about Trump’s trade war Saber Rattling.
As do the markets.
But the apparent goal is NOT higher Tarriffs and a Trade war, but lower Tarriffs and much freer Trade.
Threatening to make things worse in order to get people to agree to make them better is a Trump signature move. But one that makes me very nervous.
But it has worked with North Korea thus far.
Trump is not “out of control”. His decisions appear to be considered and deliberate.
But they are also beligerant. That is NOT the same as “Out of Control”
Thus far Trump has no “broken” anything. Mostly these tactics either have been effective or still have the potential to be effective.
“But it ain’t whatcha do, it’s the way hatcha do it, President bumblenoxious.”
I have no idea what you mean.
You forgot Trumps biggest accomplishment.
Neal Gorsuch
Just in the last two days two decisions that solidifies the constitution.
1. The president has the power to protect the country by limiting travel from terrorist nations. The 4 justices dissenting used comments prior to election as basis for dissent. This is treading on thin ice using campaign speech as basis for legal decision. When do politicians ever say what they believe during a campaign?
2. People now have to opt in to join a union. This has been way to long coming. If unions were so great, why wouldn’t most everyone want to join?
I have only started to read gorsuch’s disent in Carpenter.
But what I have read is excellent – though I am trying to grasp why it is a “dissent”.
Gorsuch (And Thomas) want to Significantly diminish the “expectation of Privacy” standard – which they beleive is confusing and close to meaningless and return to a do you have property rights in what is being searched, as a much clearer standard.
I have not read Thomas’s dissent at all. But in the first 4 pages of Gorsuch’s he is saying that when you have a contract with a third party and they keep records – those are YOUR records – your property. The implication thus far at page 4 is that the government still needs a warrant to search your records when they are held by someone else.
While he does recognize there is a difference between your records in your home, and your records with AT&T and as this is a disent I am presuming that he somehow found the government did not need a warrant to get YOUR records from the Cell company. I have some concern about how he did that.
I am actually very happy about reverting to a property rights and contracts analysis rather than the amorpohorus “expectation of privacy” standard.
One of the things all the dissents in Carpenter noted was that based on the current decision, it is acceptable for law enforcement to find out WHO you are talking to without a warrant, but not where you are. Which is bizarre, as there is more invasion of privacy in knowing who.
“But what I have read is excellent – though I am trying to grasp why it is a “dissent”.”
From what I can determine, he did not agree with the way this case was presented in that he believed the privacy issue was due to the contract between two parties being private, while the case stemmed on movement privacy.
I believe he sets a tone for future privacy issues when it comes to new cases being presented, but what I don’t agree with is he is not basing a decision on the merits of the case presented, he is being an activist, much like the liberals when they rule on a case.
Just s the liberal judges ruled against Trumps travel ban because of comments he made during the campaign which we not part of the actual case, in my mind SCOTUS needs to rule based on the documents presented, not something that may or may not occur or have occurred in some issue in the past.
I think Gorsuch could have ruled in favor of this case whole also commenting to indicate the same thoughts as he did in the dissenting opinion.
AS I noted I have only read the 1st 4 pages,
There are atleast 15 more.
I would not call what I have read “activist”, I would call it the opposite.
Thomas’s disent is purportedly on fundimentally the same grounds. Though I have not read Thomas at all.
Regardless, the part of Gorsuch I have read is excellent.
The “expectation of privacy” standard is substantially narrowed – it has some, but only small basis in the constitution. And it is ultimately an indecipherable standard – why is your location subject to an expectation of privacy, but who you talked to is not ?
The first 4 pages Gorsuch is arguing that the records of your interactions with a third party – particularly a commercial one are YOUR RECORDS.
I think that IS a reasonable constitutional understanding.
The constitution in numerous places limits the governments role in commerce – even if we have subsequently forgotten that.
I would like more information on the history of the times.
But that is going to be hard to come by – as we had no such thing as policing for another 50 years or more.
I do think that we would find that our founders did not beleive that the government can knock on the door of a business and demand all the records of that businesses dealings with customers.
But Gorsuch’s oppinion is listed as a disent, not a concurrance, so somewhere he must have found the search valid.
That bother’s me, but I need to find out why – that does actually matter.
Regardless, the “expecation of privacy” standard for the 4th amendment has been an abject failure. It stops nothing and the 4th amendment damn near does not exist.
Randy Barnett has an excellent peice on “judicial activism” – I do not have a link, but you can probably google it.
Regardless, the point is that “judicial activism” is a misnomer.
The courts are not “passive”.
This is actually one of the differences between Scalia and Gorsuch.
Both are textualists, but Scalia falls back to “democracy” when he can not find and answer in the constitution, and Gorsuch falls back to natural rights – which BTW is actually consistent with unenumerated rights.
This produces radically different results in some instances.
If Scalia can not explicitly find the constitution denying a power to govenrment,
he would leave the matter up to the legislators,
Essentially saying the constitution does not preclude stupid laws.
This is also a postition that with respect to government tends towards “everything is allowed except that which is denied”. Bork went even farther on this than Scalia.
But Natural rights textualism gives meaning to many ignored clauses in the constitution.
It is a return to a govenrment or enumerated powers, while our unjenumerated rights as the default. It means regarding government all is denied except that which is explicitly permitted.
Anyway the “libertarian” and arguably “federalist” position on the judicary is “activist”.
But it is NOT creating law where there is none. It is saying NO! when government does not have a proper grant of power in the constitution.
Kennedy has just announced his retirement.
GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!!
Though I often agree with Kennedy on outcome, his reasoning is TOTAL CRAP.
The court reached approximately the right outcome as an example on Master Cake.
But Kennedy and therefore the majority oppinion fixated on the comments by one of the members of the Colorado HRC.
The implication being if the commissioner had merely kept acted on his religious animous rather than expressed it, the result would have been fine.
This is crap – if that logic was followed on the Immigration EO decision, it would have gone the other way.
You can not have the legitimacy of actions pivot on what people have said.
That produces very bizarre results.
If as an example the court had ruled against Trump on the Immigration EO on the basis of Trumps statements,
That would have meant that the exact same EO would have been lawful had Obama imposed it.
It is only the words of the law (and constitution) that matter – not the words of people – with respect to the law.
If your act is legal, then your words are irrelevant.
Just to be clear this applies ONLY in the context of GOVERNMENT actions and CRIMINAL actions.
In a tort claim or other civil claims what you have said may matter.
Regardless, my point is that Kennedy’s desicsions are horrible.
They have no basis in any principles at all. Each is what does his “gut” tell him, and then he makes up the reasoning.
Even when he is right the results are bad.
I would far prefer a bad outcome than a good result for the wrong reasons.
It is much easier to fix truly bad decisions than wishy washy garbage with weird logic.
“Kennedy has just announced his retirement.
GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!!”
Well what the hell do you want. More Kagans, Sotomayors and Gingburgs? That is what you could have had if he had retired when Obama was in office!
He may have ruled a few times on issues where you did not agree with his comments, but damn, his rulings made a hell of alot more sense than the crap we get from flip flop Roberts and his merry maidens Sotomayor, Gingsburg and Kagan. Had it not been for that ass, Obamacare would have died years ago!
I read an interesting attack on Kennedy from the left – and though I do not agree with the purported effect of his retirement the article alleges, I agree with the substance of the attack.
Kennedy’s decisions – even those the left celebrates had horrible justifications, and will be easy to dismantle. I disagree with some, but not all of the authors purportedly better alternatives.
The author fixated on the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment – which is a very powerful hammer against discriminatory behavior by government.
But too many people including this writer try to make it applicable to private conduct.
While certain forms of private discrimination are evil, they are not and should not be prohibited for private individuals. Let the owner of Red Hen throw Sanders out, Let Phillips refuse to make cakes for gays. Punish that conduct in the market place.
BUT Government may not discriminate. That is what the 14th amendment says.
I grew up in a family that was pretty anti-union.
But ultimately the more I have thought about it and libertarian principles,
While I think that Unions are likely to fail as we become more affluent – which they have.
I have no problem with unions.
What is important is that government takes NO ROLE aside from enforcing agreements and punishing violence.
With respect to the recent SCOTUS decisions on union dues – that means I actually think it is wrong.
Though the right decision is different both from what we had and what we have.
The right decision is that whether non-union workers must pay dues, or whether non-union workers are even allowed, should depend on the agreement between the union and the employer.
NOT government or the law.
When an employer and a union come to an agreement that is not a good one – the harm is to the business and to the workers.
Freedom includes the freedom to get it wrong and to fail.
We saw what happened in “detroit” as a consequence of decades of bad deals with unions.
I am fine with companies and unions failing because they have made bad choices.
In fact I think that is important – that is how we learn.
The caveat on this would be that I am on one thing with FDR.
Public sector unions are an anethema.
Government is the one institution that is not allowed to fail.
That is one of the many important reasons government must be limited.
Government should be constitutionally barred from those activities that raise the risk of failure.
That pretty much means government should not act in the economy.
But that also means that govenrment can not negotiate with a union.
Government can not bind all of the people to a contract that could cause government to fail.
There are many many other reasons why government unions should be barred.
Well your Libertarian opinion and my Libertarian opinion on required dues for government employees is different.
Number 1, one should have the right to join a union or not. If the unions are doing a good job and gettting pay and benefits for workers that make them stand out, then most employees will pay the dues.
Number 2. If the union represents government workers, then NONE of the dues or the income resulting in those government dues should be used to negotiate against the government. What people have completed forgotten is the government is the people! So the people are employed by the government. The people are negiotiating against themselves and paying some mob boss running the union some gigantic salary to negotiate against ourselves.
Number 3. If an employee wants to become part of the union and they do not want any of their dues to go toward political issues, then the unions should be required to maintain two dues levels, one for union activities at the employed company and one for political activities, and have audits available to insure this is happening.
Number 4. You state “The right decision is that whether non-union workers must pay dues, or whether non-union workers are even allowed, should depend on the agreement between the union and the employer.
NOT government or the law.”
In other words you support closed shops. I do not. Again, I believe if the unions do a good job and represent the workers properly, more workers will want to join a union. And when employers begin screwing over employees to the extend they may have back during the early part of the 20th century, you may see a rise in membership.
This is rare but I am with FDR on this.
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
#3
So long as Union membership is not mandatory, you are wrong.
A union is a VOLUNTARY group.
It can have whatever rules it wants.
And you can choose to join the union and abide by those rules, or work to change the rules, or leave the union.
What you can not do is demand government change the rules to your liking.
Your proposal is one way to structure a union – but it is up to the union to decide how it is structured.
BTW I further do not have a problem with a unions demanding in collective bargaining that all workers must join the union, or that all workers must pay dues, or that all workers must pay even the political parts of the dues.
BUT Government has no role in that either way, beyond enforcing it.
These “rules” are part of the contract the union and the employer negotiate.
Both parties must be free to negotiate as they wish.
This is also why there can be no public sector unions.
Public employment is different.
My god you are so trusting. Can I sell you a bridge?
So you actually believe the mob bosses that run the unions are going to tell their membership what their dues are used for?
I agree, if there is absolutely no closed shops and everyone is free to join or not join and they are not required to pay ANY dues, the #3 is a moot point.
If your dumb enough to join and then think nothing goes to fund political issues, the thats the employees problem
No I do not trust the mob bosses.
I trust free markets.
A union must maintain the support of its members. If not they leave.
Disaffected union members can form another union and contact owners demanding that they rather than existing corrupt unions get to represent employees.
I want voluntary free association – i.e. free from government putting its thumbs on the scales.
I do not like closed shops, but if Closed shops are truly a bad idea, they will fail sooner or later.
Private sector unions are nearly dead today.
Why ? Because unions have failed.
Absolutely a unions job is to get the best for its members.
But that requires not destroying the goose that lays the golden egg.
There is little doubt that Private US Unions destroyed detroit – and themselves.
My point is that things actually work themselves out in free markets.
Usually the better ideas prevail immediate, sometimes it takes time.
No I do not beleive that employees are dumb enough to …..
#4 – just to be clear – I do not “support” closed shops.
I think they are a bad idea. But I support the right of employers and unions to negotiate whatever deal they can – including bad deals. and for government to stay out except for preventing violence and enforcing whatever is agreed.
I have said this time and time again – so let me re-iterrate:
There is no right to a job from another.
If an employer and some arbitrary group called a union get together and negotiate a deal, and that deal means you join the union or you do not work for that employer – I think that is stupid, I think it is bad. But it is legal and outside the scope of government.
One of the most important features of free markets is FAILURE.
That is how we learn.
I think that bad union contracts will ultimately die – because the businesses and unions that craft poor ones will fail.
But government should not decide what a good contract and what a bad one is.
It has taken me time to reach this position. It is not the “goldwater conservatism” I was raised, nor the liberalism I dabbled in in college and after.
It is pretty pure libertarian.
“Given competition among employers and employees,” Friedman wrote, “there seems to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees.” He noted the wide variety of contracts in existence. Some companies provided their workers certain amenities (baseball fields, upgraded rest facilities, etc.) and less cash than other companies that opted for larger cash payouts. This variation did not interfere with individuals’ ability to find employment. Rather, they enabled employers to attract workers with particular preferences and allowed workers to find arrangements that suited their preferences.
“If in fact some employees would prefer to work in firms that have a closed shop and others in firms that have an open shop, there would develop different forms of employment contracts, some having the one provision, others the other provision,” concluded Friedman.
I do not want politicians or anyone else ever punished by the law for saying anything.
Again this is ONLY in the context of criminal law, and of government actions.
I want politicians to say what they beleive.
I want people to say what they beleive.
I want all the consequences for what you say to be imposed by the people, not the government.
I want Red Hen to be able to through Sanders out of their resturant for her political views.
I want consumers to decide whether they boycott or favor the Red hen as a result.
I grasp that consumers in peoria and those in DC might make quite different decisions.
Regardless I want people to feel free to speak without fear o GOVERNMENT.
At the same time in our speach we should all fear the within the law response of our neighbors.
“I want Red Hen to be able to through Sanders out of their resturant for her political views.
I want consumers to decide whether they boycott or favor the Red hen as a result.”
Wave the next time you are at a Maxine Waters rally so we know what you look like !
Ron;
You do not seem to understand, the freedom to make choices – even bad choices,
also comes with exposure for the poor choices you make.
Given what I have read regarding Red Hen – I am not eating there.
Further I think the left exposing them selves as intolerant is a good thing.
I want all of us to know who Maxine Waters really is.
If the conduct of the left is as truly appalling as you and I beleive it is we do not need laws against it.
I remember one of the books on raising children that I read when I had young children.
That book made a big point – it is not the parents job to protect children from the natural consequences of their actions.
IT is just to constrain conduct and consequences to those that will not have lifelong effects.
If your child runs accross the room trips and falls and bangs their head – that is GOOD
it is a way of learning.
We learn from our Successes and our failures.
Give the left the freedom to reveal who they really are.
It is what that book called a “self punishing act”.
Those are the best kind.
You need to do nothing. The actor inflicts the punishment on themselves.
That is why I want the left to be free to discriminate just as I want Mr. Phillips to.
Just as I am not eating at Red Hen, I am never buying a cake from Master Cake either.
bumblenoxious: being a bumbler while also being obnoxious.
Ad Hominem is not argument.
To buy a HD imported from the U.S. would cost $2300 more with the added tariff for a European. Since it is a big market why not avoid that. Smart move HD.
BTW, businessmen do not lie, ask Trump.
dduck, the average manufacturing wage in Thailand is around $12,500. Harley Davidson pays from $42,000 to 84, 000, not including benefits in America.
When you are having financial problems and want to cut costs, how best to do it other than cutting your labor costs by 70% to 85% not including the savings for benefits, like health insurance that can add another $20K a year.
Some time the real truth will come out just like every lie is uncovered.
We do nto have the information to evaluate the HD decision.
There are factors beyond wage differences.
Many manufacturing operations that have moved out of the US have done badly
Energy costs, major supply chain issues, major productivity differences can turn what looks good on paper into disaster.
At the same time mony US manufacturing shifts overseas have ultimately reversed.
BUT the Job losses are permanent.
Manufacturing that moved to China is slowly returning to the US.
But in the US it is returning highly automated.
HD might move to Thailand for a few years, then move back to the US to plants that are now full of robots.
Whether this is a good idea or a bad one is not knowable.
But it is near certain that doing nothing would ultimately result in failure.
Why is it our business where HD makes its product ?
Whether the move is smart will be determined by the future.
It is possible that HD is destroying US jobs for no reason.
It is just as likely that the move may save US jobs and the country.
I am sure Kodak employees and shareholders would have prefered that Kodak had made better decisions rather than go bankrupt.
That might have might cutting some jobs to save others.
This was what many misrepresented regarding Romney and Blaine capital in 2012.
IF you take a failing business and you turn it arround, you can make alot of money.
But you also SAVE Jobs and you SAVE shareholder value.
A bankrupt company has no jobs and no value.
Companies grow or they die. They do not stay the same from year to year.
Another step further left.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/us-rep-joe-crowley-defeated-democratic-primary-ny-020919599–election.html
This should be a warning to the Left.
Relations with Mexico are likely to get far worse fairly quickly.
And democrats and the left are going to be on the unpopular side of the issue.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/mexico-what-went-wrong-economy-based-on-exporting-poor-people/
I will bet that before the end of his Presidency Trump gets his wall.
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived. Niccolo Machiavelli
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/niccolo_machiavelli
Again I am enjoying this situation to the fullest. I know karma is a bitch and when your democrat takes office in 2021 I will be in your position like I was with Obama, but damn it feels good to not be the one feeling like they are the ones getting screwed over for just a few months.
Your perceptions are unbelievably shallow.
Apparently you think I am being deceived – because events that are likely to happen in Mexico will likely have results on immigration and border security that I do not favor.
Or do you think I want white fortress america ?
Maybe Obrador will not get elected.
Maybe he will not be as hostile as his rhetoric.
Btu are you really saying that if tensions on the border increase and the number of illegal immigrants doubles or tripples – that the left is going to win the political fighte with Trump over immigration ?
Bad fact patterns tend to drive us to bad decisions.
“Relations with Mexico are likely to get far worse fairly quickly.
And democrats and the left are going to be on the unpopular side of the issue.”
WTF, how can you be so wrong, so many times.
I dont think we have ever had a good relationship with Mexico going back to the 1835 for the control of the Texan territory and then again in the mid 1840’s when we took the southwest during the Mexican American war.
Other than armed conflict, can it get much worse?
My prediction (and apparently that of alot of others) is that Obrador is going to win, and our relationship with Mexico is going to get much worse.
But I do not expect military conflict.
Andrés Manuel López Obrador is widely expected to win the 2018 election in Mexico.
Aside from being a very left socialist, he is incredibly hostile to the US,
Further he has said that he move to use illegal immigration as a means of attacking the US – pushing more and more illegal immigrants into the US from Mexico.
So presume Obrador is elected in 2018 – and the flow of illegals from mexico doubles or triples.
and border violence rises, and hostility between the US and mexico gets even worse.
Do you really think that ordinary voters are going o care about “dreamers” or “family separation” ?
Whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not, if the situation along our southern border worsens that is BAD for the left, and GOOF for Trump.
Maybe I am wrong and Obrador will not be elected.
Maybe I am wrong and he will govern differently than he speaks.
But I am not wrong that worsening issues with illegal immigration will make large numbers of people care far less about most of the issues the left fixates on.
One of the fundimental differences between my PRINCIPLES, and your (and the lefts) VALUES, is that principles are pretty much immutable. They do not weaken all that much in bad times.
VALUES are dependent on prosperity.
I have kept trying to drill that in in some of my regulatory arguments – but it is true generally.
The man dying of thirst does not care about clean water standards.
Much of what the left seeks through regulation would have zero support if we were worse off.
The same is true of immigration – the more precarious things are at our borders the less we are going to care about Dreamers and Family Separation.
Further if Obrador engages in a war of words (as well as actions) with Trump, that will significantly harm the left.
Ron, it won’t be my Democrat, only the one that I hope will defeat Trump, just as I who never vote Dem was forced to do so by voting for HC.
I am still a Rockefeller Rep, if that still exists.
Wow, Rockefeller Republican, a dinosaur. Kind of like “Blug dog Democrats”
No these dont exist anymore. But now I understand better your accepting voting for Clinton as your alternative. Sorry I could not do that. I thought she was a bitch in 1992 and more so in 2016. So therefore my Libertarian vote
Rockefeller Republicans are very nearly extinct.
Rockefeller was a 60’s republican progressive – those pretty much do not exist anymore.
While a “lefty” the entire left right spectrum is entirely different today than in the 60’s.
The closest equivalents to Rockefueller today would be the Romney’s and Bush’s and maybe a few moderate democrats.
Blue dog democrats do exist today – they are rapidly becoming republicans.
Well let the fun begin! And let the senate stay in session!!!!
Justice Kennedy, the last of the rather non partisan SCOTUS justices has announced his retirement. Now we will hear the Democrats say Trump should not appoint a replacement, that there will be an election and then the replacement should be named. No matter that Trump still has 2 1/2 years left and we need 9 justices, there are about three months before the first monday in October and confirmation could occur before then.
Trump said he already has a list and knowing the rumors of retirement, he should pull the trigger and submit a name quickly. If he waits and Shumer is majority leader, SCOTUS will be 8 justices until after 2021.
Kennedy is not “non-partisan” he is just an unprincipled idiot, who blows with the wind.
I would rather have another left wing nut on the court. Bad decisions are easier to reverse than right outcomes for the wrong reasons.
As to the process – that is politics.
I do not expect Republicans to wait until January.
They have the political control to do so.
There once were some traditions – such as the 60 vote requirement – and they fillibusters were only used for dire circumstances.
Thomas was narrowly confirmed, but there was no fillibuster.
If it was 2023 the D’s might have a case that the process should wait until after the election.
As things are – I expect Republicans to move forward and approve a new justice in a few months – probably before the start of the term in October.
I would note that politically SCOTUS appointments – and federal judges generally are significantly more important to conservative voters than the those on the left.
It will likely help Republicans in the 2018 election to move quickly, more than it will help democrats.
Hold out Schumer, if you can. Try and emulate the stall tactics the Reps used with Garland.
This is a helluva mess, with an out of control president, a wimpy congress, and a lopsided judiciary.
Yep, Shumer most likely will be the first to comment and say the new senate needs to approve the nomination. But if McConnell can get off his dead ass, he can have someone confirmed before the new session. And he also has the Reed Rule to fall back on, but that most likely will not be needed. I suspect he could get Heitkamp. Manchin and maybe a couple more moderate democrats running for reelection to vote for the nominee.
Add to that, Shumer does not have the gestapo control of is members like Pelosi has of hers.
I do find that I am getting satisfaction out of Trump in one way. The left now understands the feeling the right had with an “out of control president” when Obama was in office. Its just a matter of perspective when it comes to things like immigration, climate treaties, nuclear agreements, trade and taxes. Where one feels at peace with the actions, another finds it “out of control”.
Republicans controlled the Senate when Garland was nominated.
There is very little that Democrats can do right now.
Trump’s nominee will be confirmed as quickly as Grassley and McConnell decide they wish to.
I expect they will take about as much time as Gorsuch – which was not that much.
With very few glaring exceptions Trump’s court appointments have been stellar.
For reasons I do not understand – because Trump is not much of a legal theorist, Trump has put the right kind of people in charge of court appointments, and is listening to the right people.
The influence of the federalist society in judicial appointments is massive, A substantial portion of Trump’s appointments are leading lights of the federalist society.
The impact of this could last for generations.
This is a major return to the rule of law, to a judiciary that enforces the constitution as written and sees the powers of government as limited.
Trump’s appointments are not perfect, and I do not agree with any of them 100%.
Another justice like Gorsuch on the court will substantially alter – not merely decisions but the reasoning for decisions which is much more important.
The fact that 4 justices bought the nonsense that what Trump said effected the constitutionality of the immigration EO is incredibly disturbing. That is very nearly as lawless as you can get.
It is only a small step from what is constitutional or lawful or not depends on the person doing it
not what is done.
Thought the outcome in Master Cake was appropriate the reasoning was dangerous garbage.
MC litterally hinged on the remarks of the HR commissioner. That is crap.
Either the first amendment means something or it does not.
Mike Lee, Utah, sounds like a more sane Rep. Here he is on trade. He is no Trump ass kisser.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/623991865/republican-sen-mike-lee-discusses-bill-that-would-curb-trumps-authority-on-trade
Wrong, dduck. You only listened to ML on one issue and your dislike of Trump influenced you.
Looking at his views on other issues on: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mike_Lee.htm
might change your mind, he is no Rockefeller Rep.
Mike Lee is one of the more libertarian members of the Senate.
I have repeatedly disagreed with Trump and Trump supporters on Trade.
Protectionism is a stupid and dangerous idea.
As is starting a trade war.
You seem to think the world divides into those who kiss Trump’s ass and those who do not.
You do not seem to understand that it is possible to agree with Trump on somethings and not others.
No, the world is divided into several groups, some clamor to kiss his ass, some do it reluctantly, some kiss one cheek, some throw up after performing one of those and some kiss ass by looking the other way or rationalizing his actions.
Exactly the same could be said of the left and Obama’s ass.
Well here I go again. How in the hell can Epidilex cost $2,500 to $5,000 per month when it is just a derivative from Marijuana, just like CBD oil that costs $100 to $1000 per month?
Wonder how much of this cost will go toward trying to keep CBD oil illegal in states now illegal and to reverse laws in states that have made it legal.
There is a special place in hell for those running drug companies!
The problem is NOT the drug companies it is the govenrment.
“The problem is NOT the drug companies it is the govenrment.”
BULL Sh*&!!!!
The government may pay a role, but did yhou know the three largest drug suppliers have agreements with drug stores that preclude the pharmacist from allowing them to suggest alternatives to the script written. (Hope you can access this)
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/politics/pharmacy-benefit-managers-gag-clauses.html
In addition, other “gag orders” preclude suggesting $100 generics instead of $1000 name brands.
AND THAT IS NOT THE DRUG COMPANIES?????
I beleive the behavior you are talking about is ultimately self punishing.
There has been enormous economic research on cartells and corporate collusion since the 50’s.
The results ?
None of this works over the lang run without governmnet complicity.
The biggest issue is that government creates barriers to entry for drug companies and as a result they need not fear competition and are better protected from the consequences of their own misconduct.
Ron, you are correct, it is the drug companies, among the largest campaign donors, and they are enabled by weak, and/or, corrupted government employees and policies.
Without any doubt the most regulated market in the US and the world is the medical market.
This is also the worst behaved market. It is where all the problems you bemoan occur.
Who protests about the Evil McD’s who has a monopoly on McNuggets and has priced something people want and need to to prices no one can afford.
That does not happen in actual free markets.
When government says “It will be this way” – then things are that way. If that is a bad way as it usually is it fails.
Further all the evil acts you attribute to drug companies required government to occur.
Ron is arguing about US IP rights with respect to chinese trade – but it is ludicrous extensions to IP rights that enable drug monopolies.
Patents in the US are 17 years from issuance – that should mean that anything developed prior to 2001 can not be covered by a patent.
I doubt a single drug or medical device we have debated here is newer than 2001.
Your own regulations create the problem.
We had this debate over the EpiPen – it is over 40 years old. It is government that has precluded potential competitors from bringing to market a product that has not been patent protected for 20+ years.
I can cite other big drug monopoloies with high prices for drugs that were developed 70 years ago.
But government will not allow a competing product on the market.
You, dduck and myself are arguing two distinctly different issues and given your position on government and business as well as ours, we will never agree. You have said in many different comments that you do not believe government should be involved with drug manufacturing in any way. I and dduck have been on the other side of the issue. I will also say I suspect that dduck would be somewhat more supportive of government involvement than I, but that is just my thoughts, nothing to prove it.
While you believe that drug companies should not have any regulation and that if a Chinese drug company put propylene gylcol (anti freeze ingredients) in pills and caused human deaths much like they did with Purina dog food that caused thousands of dog deaths in 2015, your response would be the victims have recourse in the courts and can sue. And the companies would end up going out of business because of faulty products.
My position is we need government involvement, We need someone separate from the drug manufacturers insuring safety of the products and making sure individuals know the side effects. You need to know that if you take Avodart for an enlarged prostate that your boobs can enlarge, you will need a bra or you will need gynecomastia surgery.
However, I am not a supporter of the current system. When you used epipen as an example, the drug in epipens has been off patent for 30+ years. It is the device that delivers the drug that has a patent. I also do not support government not negotiating prices that they will pay. I do not support a monopoly on drug distribution (only 3 companies) where they have so much power they can dictate to the druggist what they can and can not tell their customers. Your response will be they dont need to do business with that distributor. However, all three do it! And if they find one that doesn’t, will that distributor have all the drugs on their formulary that the drug store needs to stock?
Pure capitalism does not exist in an environment where those running the companies are not capitalist, they are opportunist that will do bad things to increase total profits at the cost of mutually beneficial profits. And right now healthcare in this country, run by a handful of drug companies and insurance companies are not operating for the mutually beneficial profits. They could care less if little 2 year old Mary has 200 seizures a day, they drug cost $3000 a month and the family can not afford it, they will stil do everything in their power to make CBD oil illegal to increase their opportunistic profits.
Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos thinks they can break into this closed business through a service through Amazon. Good luck with that when drug manufacturers have their sweet deals with the three drug distributors. Why would they sell the same amount of drugs to Amazon at a lower price than they can today at a much inflated price? Buffett and bezos need to buy the manufacturers so they cut out the current distributors.
We can quibbe about whether they should be no regulation or little regulation.
You can paint me as extreme because I want none or very very little.
But the FACTS are VERY DAMNING.
The very problems you seek to cure – the places where prices are highest and corporate conduct are worst are the MOST HIGHLY REGULATED.
This finding is not unique to the US, it is not unique to the medical market.
IT is about as close as we ever get to a “law” in economics.
More government means more corruption, higher prices, worse service and less innovation.
Yes, my ideological view claims that.
SO DO THE FACTS.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Liberal Democrat Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
You want to debate whether there should be a little regulation rather than absolutely none.
We can have that debate. I think there is good data for none.
But there is not even a question that the mess we have now is the consequence of massive over regulation.
I would note that this problem with regulation predates the modern era.
Parts of Smith’s Wealth of Nations address all the problems that came with merchantilism.
I would note that merchantilism was more than just a system of trade barriers, it was also a pretty massive for its time set of regulation regarding employment, apprenticeship and myriads of other ways of restricting who could set what to who.
And it FAILED MISERABLY.
As we see socialism rearing its ugly head again many of us are going WTF ?
How is anyone seriously pushing a system that has not only failed horribly everywhere it has been tried, but that is indisputably responsible for the worst bloodshed in human history
Well though not quite so evil and bloody the same is true of regulation.
The real data is pretty compelling.
Naivete with respect to the edges is excusable.
How can you look at the medical market – the most highly regulated market everywhere in the world. and the most dysfunctional market everywhere in the world and not grasp that
It failed, corrupt, and expense BECAUSE it is regulated so heavily.
The medical market is not even close to the only example. it is just the WORST example.
I am not aware of a chinese company putting propylene glycol in anything.
They put melamine in dog food and inert ingredients in baby food.
The propylene glycol story is from the US. It predates the FDA and was used as the basis for regulating Drugs. It was a single pharmacist not a drug company and the effects were tiny.
Regardless, I am not proposing that unregulated markets are perfect and will not make mistakes
Of course they will. And in fact regulation DOES NOTHING to change that.
It is ALWAYS a tort to cause actual harm to others, if it occurs as a part of a market exchange it is also a contract issue, and if the level of negligence is high enough or there is actual malfeasance it is a crime.
Pretty much every single bad example you can cite would have one or more means of redress, would likely be illegal, in “libertopia” without the need for a single regulation.
If you put Propylene glycol in medicine – that is a tort. If someone dies you are losing EVERYTHING. It you sell it that is a contract claim – you are losing everything twice over, and if you new that what you were doing could hurt people that is a CRIME, you are losing EVERYTHING including your freedom.
That is the law in hyper regulated society.
That is the law in libertopia.
What is the difference ? Those of you pushing regulation think that making something illegal 4 or more times will stip people from doing it.
That the threat of jail and losing everthing is not enough to compell good behavior, that you have to threaten it atleast 4 or more times.
Please explain to me why when poisoning someone is at the least criminally negligent homicide, and still people do it, that adding one more regulation is going to stop them ?
Regulation has ZERO effect on making us safer.
It has enormous effects on the cost of everything.
I would further note that in our hyper regulated world people STILL do the evil things you worry about. Regulation changed nothing.
.
The patents on the epipen have also expired.
As much of a problem as I have with patents, the fundimental barrier to getting a drug to market is regulation not patents.
I can provide a long long list of drugs and medical devices that are ridiculously expensive that have no intellectual properly issues.
Though the issues are complex, the core issue is that the government will require someone who produces a competing product – even an identical one to got through the entire expensive approval process again.
Though I will note – the details are not important.
What is CERTAIN is that if you regulate, businesses will use the regulatory process to create barriers to entry for competitors. And they are very very good at that.
This ALWAYS occurs.
The core problem is not patents or approvals. It is the very existence of a regulatory framework will be gamed by monied entrenched interests to keep others out of the market and to rise prices.
exactly how is irrelevant. If you foreclose one way, they will find another.
I would further note
We should not expect otherwise. We don’t want otherwise.
The guy who can figure out how to build a better mousetrap can also figure out how to game the system to profit.
We want that guy to be as creative as possible. But we want him to be creatively trying to profit by making a better product, not creatively trying to profit by gaming the regulatory state.
Contra the left – the free market can not actually be gamed.
Truly free markets respond dynamically and automatically to efforts to game them.
The “London whale” thought he was smarter than everyone else and tried to game a specific set of markets. He was a huge player with the resources of JP Morgan behind him.
He succeeded for a bit until some other smart players figured out that things were NOT as they seemed and started betting HEAVILY against him.
In the end a bunch of hedge fund managers made 100’s of millions and JP Morgan lost billions – because they tried to game the market.
You can rarely game a free market in the short run.
You can not do so in the long run.
“Pure capitalism does not exist in an environment where those running the companies are not capitalist, they are opportunist that will do bad things to increase total profits at the cost of mutually beneficial profits. ”
Complete BUNK!.
First I do not talk about capitalism – that is not a well defined term.
Free markets is a meaningful term.
It is irrelevant whether those running companies are “capitalists” or not.
In an actual free market there is no means of gaming the system to increase profits aside from delivering value that works.
Even increasing value is only a TEMPORARY means to higher profits.
The genius of free markets is that to MAINTAIN profits you must CONSTANTLY innovate.
If you find a better way to make a product – your competitors will match you soon enough and your profits will decline again.
In fact ANY way that you find to increase profits – your competitors will match you soon enough.and your profits will decline again.
The only sustainable way to higher than justifiable profits is to leverage the power of government.
I like Bezos.
But if you are depending on the altruism of billionaires to solve problems with regulated markets – your F’d.
Amazon is an incredible business – but they are RUTHLESS competitors.
Bezos leans libertarian, but that will not stop him or Amazon from profiting as much as possible by whatever means are available.
Bezos and Buffet MIGHT find some new means of dispatching the dominant incumbants.
But any benefit is temporary so long as the market remains highly regulated.
The best possible outcome replaces existing big pharma with Amazon.
Ultimately the same problem.
I Think Google was amazing.
Despite there “don’t be evil” core principle – they are evil today.
The same with Twitter and Facebook
But so long as they are relatively free markets the problems will correct themselves.
Regardless, I will guarantee you, that you will NEVER permanently solve the problems you are complaining about in the medical market without deregulation.
You MIGHT makes changes with small temporary benefits – until the incumbants find new ways to game the system.
But you should never bet that the companies that came up with things like Viagra will not figure out how to game govenrment.
The “answer” is NEVER a specific new way of doing business.
Not that those are not beneficial. But those are “todays answer” not “systemic answers”
Free markets are the mechanism that incentivizes not merely specific innovations, but CONSTANT innovation.
Any new way of doing things will have a temporary benefit.
Free markets assure us that each new way will be followed by another new way.
I with you Ron. I got this in before the 10,000 word barrage.
Put some of the more egregious drug company execs in prison to set an example and start to slow down the foxes from the industry that wind up being the guards of the chicken coop.
The “short version”.
Businesses will successfully game any arrangement that does not AUTOMATICALLY self adjust.
The very same skills that produce a better mousetrap will produce the best way to profit from regulation.
The big deal regarding free markets which is not true of anything else is that any form of innovation that results in higher profits is only temporary – a free market will ALWAYS respond to restore profits to baseline.
Sustained high profits requires static rather than dynamic arrangments – that would be regulatory regimes.
–
Another Trump FU:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/north-korea-has-increased-nuclear-production-secret-sites-say-u-n887926
Maybe he can give even more away to the Russians.
dduck, I am not a blind Trump supporter. But are you trying to tell us that Mike Pompeo, the former top spook in the country did not know this wax going on and he did not tell Trump of this fact before the meeting. And are you saying that this spook is in on the FU or he ignored the information just like Trump?
I think Trump is an ass and is unqualified to be president due to his personal behavior(same with Hillary with mailgate,), but I am sorry, I have to wait for more to come before deciding what the hell he is doing. A good friend of mine was the director of pharmacy at the hospital we worked, and when he wanted to fire someone, he gave them more “,rope” and allowed them more “freedom” until they finally hung themselves. Could be Trump is giving litle rocket man more rope so he can increase ssnctions.
We shall see, but meantime follow the actions that Un and Satan’s son Putin do.
We do not control what Kim Un (or Putin) do.
We control what we do about what they do.
What do you suggest that Trump should do about this ?
What do you suggest that Trump should do about Putin ?
What DID you suggest that Obama should have done about Putin ?
What DID you suggest that Obama should have done about Iran ?
Do not expect anyone to take your views seriously unless they are consistent.
I am not interested in those who think that anything Obama did was golden and anything Trump does is shit – even when they did the same thing.
Assuming the story is correct – which is likely is,
If is not an FU on anyone’s part YET.
We do not have a deal.
We have the begining of discussions.
We have a framework.
This is just evidence of bad faith.
We could have hoped for better, but expecting Kim Un not to “cheat” is pretty naive, just as expecting that Iran would not cheat was.
Dave, that is what I was pointing out, but doing so trying to get dduck to give me some understanding as to how he reached this conclusion other than anything starting with Trump being alive is a FU.
But as I said a few comments ago, I am getting true pleasure from watching the left go through so much of us went through when Obama was screwing this country.
And now with a second SCOTUS opening and the possibilities of more with two plus years remaining in his term, this pleasure could reach levels I seldom experience.💛💛💛💛😸😸!!
And the chickens have come home to roost with the “Reid Rule” now in force for passage in the senate. Some claim this did not include judicial appointments. I say, when you open the door to let 2 of your 4 cats come and go but dont want the other 2 leaving, do you expect the other 2 to not escape when the door has been opened? Making any slight changes in historical procedure s opens the door to major change.
NK could go to hell. that is always a risk.
Trump’s switch from Kim Un is evil to best buddies is disconcerting.
But that is diplomacy and Kim Un can be evil in a few days if need be too.
The fact that Trump is more coarse and the transistions less silver tongued does not trouble me
The problem with the Iran deal was not negotiating with Iran. It was the actual deal.
There is no NK deal yet. There is a framework and discussions.
NK may have already tanked those,
Or NK may violate the deal.
We can not know what the future will bring.
What we know is the Iran deal was so one sided that unilaterly dropping sanctions against Iran was actually better
I am oncernec and hopeful about a SCOTUS nomination.
Thus far Gorsuch was a home run – though I need to read his complete carpenter decision.
I want the 4th amendment back.
The other people on Trump’s short list are good choices. Lets see if we get another excellent one.
I do not care about “liberal tears”.
I do care about future court decisions.
I would note that many of the decisions restricting government and law enforcement came from THE RIGHT. Scalia was the lead on the “confronting your accuser” decisions. On the pointing IR scanners at your house is a SEARCH, On GPS tracking your car is a SEARCH.
I wish he had been willing to go farther in civil rights. but the left is no friend to civil rights.
You can pretty much guarantee that is a case is in front of the left members of the court – and there is not an obvious “minority” element, they are ruling for government, for law enforcement.
One of the next things to go based on the comments in Janus is “Chevron Deference”
That is the concept that the courts must accept any the executives interpretation of congresses laws.
What I want for SCOTUS is very simple.
If the law or regulation does no harm to others, then its legal. If it harms others, then it is not legal.
No more christian laws imposing christian beliefs if those do nothing to control harm on others. No laws based on religious morals at all if no harm to others.
And I know this is a good position as both the far left and far right would not agree.
But it will come down to two individuals. Collins and Murkowski. If those two senators will not support the nominee, then no democrat will have to take a stance.
“What I want for SCOTUS is very simple.
If the law or regulation does no harm to others, then its legal. If it harms others, then it is not legal.”
Bzzt, wrong.
If a law or regulation is inside the enumated powers of the federal government AND
does not infringe on individual rights OR
Infringes only mildly and has a compelling public purpose AND
Can be implimented in a neutral fashion.
Then it is constitutional.
Anything less – the law is unconstitutional.
Change the constitution if you must.
With respect to the politics of confirmation – it is way too early to be making guesses.
I would not bet that Collins or Murkowski are going to vote against a Trump nominee.
Nor would I bet that a number of democrats might not be under substantial presure to vote for a nominee.
We would need to know more first.
There are alot of democratic senators running in Red States right now.
And republicans in those states VOTE over SCOTUS.
I highly doubt that any Trump nominee will get the votes of blue state democrats.
Of those on Trump’s list, based on what is known now, thought I do have preferences none is “unacceptable”.
BUT when one is picked they will be publicly vetted more thoroughly and that might change.
Well lets see if I can say this so you dont knit pick my words.
“BUT when one is picked they will be publicly vetted more thoroughly and that might change”
Trump has been in office since January 2017, just about 18 months. Shortly after taking office, Gorsuch was nominated from a list of potential candidates for SCOTUS. If the ones on the list today have not been vetted more than a reporter can find over almost 18 months then I would have to consider moving into the Jay/dduck camp thinking about Trump. There is no reason why all these judges should have any surprises showing up.
I am not at odds with you.
Trump’s “list” has proven a brilliant political move, not merely did it help get him elected, but it continues to function as a hammer against the left.
It is hard for anyone – republicans or democrat to oppose anyone on his list.
To an extent the 2016 election was about that list.
It is as if the public voted for those 25 people to be elevated to the supreme court.
That analogy is a reach, but there is still some truth to it.
Not only have reporters had 18 months to vet those names – but all of us – including the senators who will confirm the next nomination, have had from significantly before the election.
The basis for rejecting any nominee from that list has got to be some discovery that distinguishes them negatively from the rest of that list.
If Collins and Murkowski claim some nonminee is to “extreme” they must be extreme relative to the rest of the lest.
Those names are essentially a campaign promise. Trump was elected on that list, and Senators voting against a nominee from that list must explain why that person is distinct from the list.
All that said, I do not preclude ahead of time something arising to torpedo a nominee.
Andrew Pudzer who would have been a great Sec Labor was tanked because of allegations of spousal abuse – that even his ex-spouse denies to this day.
It is possible that pudzer and his former spouse are both lying today – but not likely.
Presuming the story is correct – which is a big assumption,
why is this a Trump FU ?
Do you think that magically because Trump shook hands with Kim Un that everything is honkey dory ?
We do not have a deal yet. We have a framework for discussions.
Both sides have purportedly taken tiny steps to demonstrate good faith.
If this story is actually correct – that would be bad faith rather than good faith.
Regardless, it is to be expected that Kim Un is going to try to game this.
Just as Iran gamed their deal with Obama.
The question is not whether they will try, but how we will respond.
At the moment there is no actual deal.
Little response – beyond increased requirements for verification in any deal that is struck is required.
Oh boy. Trump in general is a FU with most of what he says (we can sleep at night now) in his best imitation of Benito M.
OK, you guys don’t know my earlier views, because I expressed them elsewhere on another blog. You spend time assuming them however.
So for the record: I thought HC was a crook and Obama was a FU in a much better fitting suit and manner and I disliked HR and NP a lot. On the Rep side, Connely sucks.
I’m sorry if I appear inconsistent, but I don’t give a rat’s a___ about what you think I think.
Meantime, Trump and his merry band of appointed sycophants/assistants are worse than all of the aforementioned and are ruining the country. The Congress is already a useless munch (for at least two decades) and The USSC is a potential rubber stamp for a wannabe Erdogan/Putin/Un/Duterte potentially for decades to come.
I
If your point is that politicians are not to be trusted – you have my full aggreement.
That is one of many arguments I make for limited government.
While there are Trump “true beleivers” there are none here.
At most – where we differ is whether Trump is worse than the others on your list.
That depends on your criteria.
If getting along with the press is top of your list – Trump is a failure.
If telling lies in silky rather than coarse language is your criteria – Trump is a failure.
If serious efforts to keep campaign promises matter – Trump is the best president in my life time.
If judicial appointments matter – Trump is stellar.
If returning government to conforming to the law matters – Trump is stellar.
Trump’s highly combative style is disturbing and scary.
I do not know how close we came to conflict with NK – but it SOUNDED like we came very close.
I do not know whether that was necescary to get NK to the table.
I would hope it was not, but decades of experience suggest otherwise.
The saber rattling regarding Trade is deeply disturbing. But I am going to trust Kidlow for the moment that the objective is actually free trade.
Immigration is a mess. I do not think Trump is “The good guy”,
But it is obvious the left is more interested in making immigration a contentious political issue than in solving anything
I am not a big McConnell fan. As too republicans in general – I am fine with them.
They can not come up with enough votes to pass many things – the message to the electorate is if you care about these things elect republicans that will vote for them.
Democrats are unified in opposition to everything – not just Trump.
I am fine with that too. That is a message to voters and the voters will get to decide.
I am fine with government accomplishing little or nothing.
I am fine with government shrinking.
That is what has occurred with Trump.
That would not have occured with Clinton.
Whoops, McConnell, not Connely.
Here’s an interesting idea on health care that may appeal to R/D/L folks:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-irs-can-save-american-health-care-1530477705
Pay Wall. Cant get last 1st para.
dduck, although I could not read the article, you are wishing for the impossible if you think R/D/L ‘s are going to agree on anything. Never happen!
But knowing what I know about healthcare in this country, I am not sure if a fix is possible. Beginning in 1968 and until today, everything the government did may have had a short term benefit, but the long term impact has been devastating. For instance, a few examples.
1. States and professional organizations have limited the number of pharmacy schools, nursing schools and other medical schools. This insured the graduates had a job waiting when they graduated since the jobs to graduates was about equal. Then demographic changes increased demand for care, there were not enough graduates and salaries skyrocketed. A nurse in the 90’s made in the low $30k. Today a RN makes close to $85 K. Pharmacist have seen a much greater percent increase. So healthcare is 60-75% labor cost and this action helped workers in the short term, but has had extreme impacts on cost for patients.
2. In 1968, government told providers, spend money, we will cover your actual cost for medicare/ caid patients. Providers said woo hoo, Ill buy all these great machines, pass on 50% of the cost and make a bundle off private pay patients. Worked great until the 80s when government figured out what they did, but they screwed up even more with the newer ways they paid. Now that people demand the latest and greatest and the cost is out of sight, government has finally started reducing their reimbursement, leaving the private pay to cover the cost.
3. We have talked at lenght about drugs
The problem is not a new way for individuals to pay, it is controlling rising cost. And when you factor rapidly increading salaries and drug cost, controlling cost is almost impossible.
In all of history there has only been one effective control on the cost of anything – that is the free choices of free people in a free market.
The entire concept of top down “control” assures that something will cost more, not less.
Look around you everything that government is deeply involved in is expensive and has rising real costs. Everything that government is uninvolved in consistently costs less.
You can even correlate the rate of increase in cost to the degree of govenrment involvment.
The most expensive things in our society today – healthcare and education, as those most heavily involving government.
In the 60’s 5% of jobs required a license. Today more than 1/3 do.
For nearly all – arguably all. Licensing serves no purpose that is not provided by the market.
Regardless, even the obama administration found that licensing harms the poor and minorities.
All regulation hires those with the least ability to work arround it.
We keep debating things like EpiPens and egregious profits.
I do not understand why few of you get, that is exactly how business is ALWAYS going to respond to regulation – to find the means to exploit it and profit from it.
The problem is not business. The problem is that regulation redirects the profit incentive away from providing a better cheaper mousetrap into manipulating and taking advantage of regulation to create opertunities for profit.
You responded to my comment.
So you stated “I do not understand why few of you get, that is exactly how business is ALWAYS going to respond to regulation ”
I get it, so why you said it is unknown to me unless you a referencing my limited support for regulations when proven actions of harm have been created in the past by those that put profit before company product safety.
As you have said in the past many times, you are willing to eliminate regulations and allow companies to produce products that can lead to death. As you have said, those individuals have recourse through the courts , both monetarily and criminally. I am not willing to eliminate all regulations, but I am willing to eliminate any and all that have not been shown to offer protection for products where harm to others physically could happen and that harm is hidden within the product. ie Food, Drugs, for the most part.
If a company is willing to knowingly produce products that may cause harm or death
something that for atleast 4 centuries has been illegal in multiple ways and more generally is illegal according to hamurabi’s code 3000+ years ago,
Why is an additional regulation that can say nothing more that – do not do something that is already very very illegal, going to suddenly cause that business to take notice and go “oh know, I guess we should not kill people” ?
We do not need more laws. We do not need more laws than we have in 1800,
We need those laws we do have to be enforced. That is all.
We make this stupid error over and over again.
Assaulting people has been a crime for 2000 years atleast.
Why do we need a separate crime of “spousal abuse” ?
To be clear – if you beat your wife you should be punished.
But beating people is already a crime.
ALL Regulations that have any legitimate basis cover conduct that is already either a crime, a tort, a contract breach or all of the above.
We do not make ourselves any safer by making things illegal 27 different ways.
All regulation reflects an emotional response to the fact that the world is not perfect,
that even with our laws bad things still happen – worse some people do bad things,
and more knee jerk feel good laws will not fix the real problem.
BTW you have the burden of proof backwards.
If you are going to further restrict liberty – it is the obligation of those proposing a law or regulation to prove that it will be effective.
What we have to do PRESUMES that if a new law or regulation is passed that it is both effective and necescary – liberty be damned.
So we had fake online pharmacies operating out of “Somewhere, World”. They sell fake viagra(ED), norplant(contraceptive), Tamiflu (anti flu medication) and other high demand products. You buy it and still cant get’er up, no problem, no harm. Your wife takes their Norplant, she gets pregnant. (Any harm done?). Your kid takes the Tamiflu you bought and dies (Harm?).
The FDA shut down online pharmacies selling in USA doing just what I described. I prefer them closing down these companies selling sugar pills and claim something different. How would you address the issue without proactive regulation?
?
“So we had fake online pharmacies operating out of “Somewhere, World”. They sell fake viagra(ED), norplant(contraceptive), Tamiflu (anti flu medication) and other high demand products. You buy it and still cant get’er up, no problem, no harm. Your wife takes their Norplant, she gets pregnant. (Any harm done?). Your kid takes the Tamiflu you bought and dies (Harm?).”
First the cases you cite are going to be difficult no matter what – these are typically out of country suppliers.
Of course sites like Amazon, Ebay, AliExpress and myriads of others have found ways to assure you that when you buy something from someone you have never heard of you still can figure out whether you can trust them
Do you get that business requires TRUST – that is part of why despite the rants about Trump I think he is far MORE honest than typical politicians. Trump has billions of dollars because people TRUSTED him, and the KEPT trusting him. Everything did not go perfectly all the time and many people lost, but most of the time Trump delivered.
ALL Business is like that.
Some here rant about huge fines paid by big businesses.
Post blowout BP’s value dropped tens of billions of dollars – that dwarfed any government fines it paid. BP could care less about the US government. But it cares deeply about what consumers think. Those losses were very real. they made it more diffiult to borrow, to hire, and to sell their product. They were a reflection of the beleif that post blowout people would drive past the BP station to another down the road – and many did.
Just to be clear I do not see the market as the ONLY means of addressing misconduct from poorly behaved businesses. But it is and always has been the most important.
And as we become more globalized it is even more important.
As I said earlier, I accept limited regulations while your position is much more restrictive. Yes, these where/are out of country suppliers. In these cases, only the government could shut down access to these.
As for trust, how does the average citizen know Allscripts is a reputable company, but Americas Pharmacy (operated out of Columbia) is not? (Made up, not a company, but it could be) When people can not afford medications and they go online and read testimonials on the website and see how good the company is (fake testimonials posted by company), how do they know they are fake?
Yes trust is important, but you should know criminals are geniuses when it comes to fake trust. People, for the most part, check things out, but in criminal operations, finding harm is very difficult.
“As for trust, how does the average citizen know Allscripts is a reputable company, but Americas Pharmacy (operated out of Columbia) is not? ”
Most of the companies I buy from today – I have never dealth with before, and may never deal with again.
On of the big deals of the internet is the development of reputation systems – either things like yelp, or angies list, or the user rating systems of ebay amazon aliexpress, even open bazar.
I do not know much about PDQ corp. But I know that they have had 176,456 sales and a 99.8% favorable rating.
Probably if I buy something from them I will get what I purchased.
If I do not – I will trash their rating and other people will quit buying from them.
As to “fake testimonials” – there is little that will stop people who make poor choices from making poor choices.
Regardless, the ability to know with a very high assurance that a company you are dealing is legitimate is greater today than ever before.
So in the world of no regulation – Americas Pharmacy sells you placebo viagra.
So you sue them, trash their reputation or the government goes after them for fraud.
How is that different in the world massive regulation ?
“but you should know criminals are geniuses when it comes to fake trust.”
Actually no. The crooks are really not very sophisticated.
They are relatively small in number, they get buy because the number of people who can be easily deceived is high.
Further, actually free markets are extremely smart.
Restrict the market – and market participants strive to game the regulations.
Leave the market free and they actually work to thwart the crooks.
There are many many many orders of magnitude more honest business people than dishonest.
The honest are competing with the dishonest.
It is in THEIR interests to apply their genius to keep customers away from crooks.
The modern internet reputation systems did not magically appear.
They came about because vendors knew if they could find ways to demonstrate trust, they would do better, and the crooks would do worse.
“People, for the most part, check things out”
increasingly you do not need to “check things out”
The information you need to decide whether a vendor is trustworthy is right there when you purchase – and it is provided by third parties – who also depend on your trust.
“but in criminal operations, finding harm is very difficult.”
If there is no actual harm – then government has no business being involved.
i would note that long before the internet we had things like UL, GoodHousekeeping, Consumer reports.
These are essentially private regulatory bodies.
These have existed atleast since the 1500’s with the earliest fire insurance.
An insurance company says – will lower your insurance rate – if you build your building so that the risk of fire is lower, or I will give you a better rate if you do not smoke.
It is pretty hard to buy things that are not UL approved today – because the national electrical code requires it. BUT UL is still a private standards agency. They are not government.
They test products and approve or not based on the testing.
Over time they improve the quality of their testing as they learn.
Further they get and give feedback to vendors.
A vendor can come to UL and say – this is a better way to do something and UL will listen.
They will test, and if they verify, they will change their standards.
Government does not work that way.
I want the FDA gone.
You say it “shut down” online pharmacies.
Well it is also actively interfering with ME.
You complain about “fake” tamiflu, or Viagra, or ….
I buy some legal relatively ubiquitous drugs that in the US typically require a perscription – why ? Because it is the US and god forbid people should be allowed to make their own choices about legal products. Anyway mostly I buy anti-biotics. I buy them from reputable vendors – yes, these are people I do not know, but they are people that have made lots and lots of customers happy.
My cost for these is a fraction of what I would have to pay locally.
In most instances I have a prescription.
I also purchase non-persciption drugs online again making reasonable checks of those I buy from.
If you want to buy from the spam you get in your inbox – go ahead. You are free to make your own decisions, including poor ones.
Regardless,
NO I DO NOT WANT THE FDA INVOLVED IN THIS!!!!
With respect to your examples – Tamiflu is NOT a cure. It just reduces symptoms.
It will not prevent the flu, it will not stop you from dying, if the flu is going to kill you.
But this is not about details such as that.
In your examples – these companies defied the very regulations you claim would prevent this – as well as the laws that I refered to that already existed;
Is there some reason that the world is better off because the FDA shut these people down for violating a regulation ? When they could just as easily have been shutdown for fraud ?
There is nothing in your hypotheticals that would have been legal but for regulation.
Further your examples demonstrate that your own regulations do not work.
If it is necescary to enforce the regulation – then what is wrong with just enforcing torts, fraud, contracts/civil laws and laws against criminal negligence ?
How is the regulation you claim actually “pro-active” ?
You are claiming that the FDA shut companies down after they had already done something bad.
Government is not ever and really can not be “pro-active”.
The regulations “pretend” to be proactive, but they are ultimately enforrced after the fact – just like the justifiable law I cite.
BTW this is inherently true.
We do not have a large enough government to proactively enforce regulations.
And if we did, we would have more people in government enforcing law and regulation, than engaged in productive efforts.
The regulatory state is a lie
The effect of regulations on those who are not going to abide by the law is ZILCH.
But the harm to people who do abide by existing laws is significant.
I can only get to the 1st paragraph.
Regardless, spending pretax money is a band aid, not a fix.
Healthcare will continue to be an expensive failure so long as government is so intimately entwined.
There are other idea/approaches on the horizon that MAY help – subscription and conceirge services among those.
But healthcare is not going to be truly fixed by one or two good ideas.
What is required is for government to remove itself sufficiently that lots and lots of ideas can be tried.
We are not going to fix healthcare by top down collectively determining what ideas to implement.
Markets work, because they allow thousands of ideas to be tried – and most fail.
Both the failures and successes are then subject to successive refinement – constant improvement.
Nothing but free markets works that way.
And that is the only approach that consistently increases value and lowers cost.
As I can not read the article, I can not tell what the argument is.
But I do not think that the IRS or executive has enormous lattitude in deciding what is and is not tax deductible. Nor do I want them too.
Whenever someone argues that the executive can do make some consequential change without legislation one should be very suspicious. Outside of a few areas the executive impliments rather than creates the law, and we should not want otherwise.
While I will not specifically oppose making healthcare tax deductible,
as a general rule – taxes should be small and broad – nothing should be tax exempt.
That is the road to corruption.
Healthcare should not be tax exempt, charity should not be tax exempt, hortgages should not be tax exempt.
Taxes should be as low as possible and government minimal so that we do not waste effort fighting over what is an is not exempt.
By
Regina Herzlinger and
Joel Klein
Health care is fast becoming an unsustainable expense for American families. This year the total cost of insurance for the typical family of four eclipsed $28,000, according to the Milliman Medical Index. Rising insurance premiums are also eroding worker compensation, as companies shift increased costs to employees.
Health care in the U.S. suffers symptoms of what Justice Louis Brandeis once termed the problem of “Other People’s Money.” Often a patient ordering and receiving medical care mistakenly believes he is not the one paying for it. This misconception is due in large part to the employer tax exemption for health insurance, which conceals the true cost of coverage from most workers.
Companies that buy health insurance on behalf of workers are, in effect, giving them some of their compensation in the form of benefits. But employers get to use pretax dollars when they purchase this insurance. If workers try to buy their own policies, most don’t get the same tax break. This inequity has cemented the dominance of employer-sponsored insurance in the U.S.
It might seem like a small question, but who is buying makes all the difference. Employer-based coverage subtly drives up health-care costs by enhancing the bargaining power of medical providers. A large company must include nearly all local doctors and hospitals in its health plan’s network, since different workers will need different services. Only 8% of employers even offer a choice of a tighter network, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported last year. This gives major hospital chains that dominate local markets carte blanche to charge high prices.
The solution is simple: The Internal Revenue Service should give all workers the chance to purchase health insurance with pretax dollars—just as employers do—using Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Companies would give employees a fixed amount of money in these HRAs to go out and buy the best plans for their families on the ObamaCare exchanges. The plans there would be subject to the Affordable Care Act’s requirements on essential health benefits and cost-sharing limits. Employees could use this tax-free money only for the purchase of health insurance, but would pocket any leftover savings as taxable income.
We have run separate simulations, at Harvard Business School and Oscar Health, to project the implications of this policy, and the conclusions are similar. Giving employees the tax break would result in their buying cheaper, more-tailored policies compared with the employer plans in which they are currently enrolled. After doing so, workers would take home the extra income: $129 billion, after tax, in Oscar Health’s study and $160 billion in the Harvard Business School’s. The federal government, now taxing that additional income, would receive between $46 billion and $65 billion in new tax revenue.
The benefits would be significant. Increased competition from the influx of new consumers in the individual market would drive down premiums. Workers would have more policy options (today 81% of employers offer a “choice” of only one type of plan, Kaiser reports). Employers would be freed from the hassle of administering health benefits, a fast-growing line item, allowing them to focus on their core businesses.
If these results sound too good to be true, it’s only because the depth of inefficiency in American health care is worse than you imagine. This proposal would create a more efficient health-care system in three principal ways.
First, when employees are free to keep the savings after choosing a policy that works for them, most will pick a more-tailored group of providers than is currently on offer. They won’t aim to have every doctor and hospital in their policy’s network, only the ones they need. The insurer then would be empowered to negotiate lower prices with hospitals, which know that exclusive networks can make or break patient volume. On the ObamaCare exchanges, policies with tighter provider networks are at least 18% cheaper without sacrificing hospital quality, according to a McKinsey analysis last year. In its own markets, Oscar Health has observed cost differences of up to 25%.
Second, this proposal would alter the consumer mindset in health care. Today, when care becomes more efficient, the principal beneficiaries are employers. Thus employees lack a strong financial incentive to seek out cheaper options, such as using a telemedicine service to diagnose pinkeye or having a hip replaced at an ambulatory surgery center instead of a hospital. But if patients start getting to keep the money they save, more will act as dogged consumers. Outpatient care constitutes nearly 60% of all health expenditures for adults with commercial insurance. Since there are many alternative options, giving people an incentive to shop around can bring down costs.
Third, competition means health-care companies would have to improve to survive. In a Gallup poll last year, only 38% of Americans had a positive view of the health-care industry, which beat only the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government. But if insurers were forced to compete, they would embrace innovations that seem foreign today: free telemedicine, cost transparency, instant appointment scheduling, smartphone health records, and the like. In turn, insurers would demand a better consumer focus from the doctors and hospital chains they work with.
Gridlock in Washington often relegates proposals like this to the political dustbin. But Congress need not act here, as Duke Law School’s Barak Richman has pointed out. Under current law, the IRS can simply adjust its technical definition of Health Reimbursement Arrangements so that they can be used to pay insurance premiums and to satisfy the ObamaCare employer mandate. Once that is done, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Treasury, could work with enterprising governors and employers to offer these HRAs to workers.
This is a straightforward proposal, but a powerful one. It would finally begin to address the rising cost of health care, and it isn’t subject to a Senate filibuster. For the sake of millions of American families, the IRS should act—and soon.
Ms. Herzlinger is a professor at Harvard Business School. Mr. Klein is chief policy and strategy officer at Oscar Health, as well as a member of the News Corp board of directors.
July 1, 2018 4:41 p.m. ET
284 COMMENTS
OK, the writer did not address:
1. Hospitals are 24/7/395.
2. JCAHO requires minimum staffing in certain hospital department, regardless of patients. ie emergency room staffed at 3 am, no patients, but minimum staff required.
3. Hospital costs almost 65% salaries.
4. 36 states have CON laws regulating services and limiting competition
5. Obamacare requires all insurance to cover all services. Not sure what Trump has done with that. How does one buy stripped down cheaper insurance with pretax dollars when it may not be available.
6. malpractice insurance cost is unreasonable. OB docs can pay up to $200k per year and have to maintain insurance for up to 20 years since birth defects may not appear until years after birth. A doc delivering babies in 1998 and retired since 1999 may still be paying malpractice premiums.
7. Drug distributors have a monopoly on drug distribution. They also own the benefit management companies. They also contract with the Pharmacies.
I could bore you with more, but it comes down to competition. More nurses, reduced nurse salary cost. More pharmacist, reduced pharmacist salaries. More hospitals, more competition, more choice for insurance plans and patients, reduced cost. More outpatient facilities, reduced cost. Change in drug patent laws, more competition, reduced drug cost.
I worked in hospital finance for 30+ years. Never did I consider competition when setting rates. We received departmental budgets, determined what our “excess revenue over expenses” needed to be and rates were set accordingly. Where competition came into play was our human resource manager did everything they could to determine who was paying employees what and then salary cost were budgeted accordingly.
The most important sentence in your comment was that competition was never a factor in setting prices.
No business lowers rates for altuistic reasons – no matter what people may beleive.
Markets control costs – the laws of supply and demand.
If you do not allow prices, supply and demand to change dynamically,
the result will always be higher prices, or rationing, or both.
Thank you for the article.
I strongly suspect that the authors analysis and predictions are close to correct.
Their entire argument is that “free markets work”.
Their entire proposal is “can we use expanded HRA’s to introduce additional freedom and competition to health care.
I would note that the recent GOP tax cut effectively does SOME of what is proposed.
It eliminates deductions and lowers tax rates, and increases the “standard deduction”.
That is an approach I definitely support.
Do not tax business AT ALL. But require business to report ALL employee benefits and perqs as income to employees. Then tax individual income at as close to a flat rate as possible.
Rather than deducting “heatlh care expenses” or any other itemizable expenses, just exclude the some large fixed amount of income from taxes. Essentially say no on is taxed on the first 35K of income. Use that for health care, mortgages, whatever you choose.
Regardless you do not want either businesses or individuals making spending decisions based on taxes. You want them making those choices based on what is best for themselves, as that is also usually best for the country.
BTW, the comments on this idea were generally negative, but being the WSJ, not surprising.
Mine were not negative due to politics or financial reasons, mine are negative since the underlying reason for increasing costs is not sufficiently covered. You cant address cost at the ending payment stage, regardless of source. You have to address cost at the stage costs are generated.
What is proposed is not a fix for all that ails heathcare.
It is just a small step in the right direction.
I would suggest going further.
Eliminate end to end any tax preference for health care – require health insurance benefits to be reported as taxable income. Eliminate tax advantages for HSA’s
and then increase the standard deduction to compensate.
Sorry, I cant buy changing tax policy reducing healthcare cost. That is like killing one hornet from a nest of 1000.
The problem lies at the beginning, the service being created and the cost associated with that. Not with who is buying insurance and paying for the service.
Its way too complicated to debate here. I could write a 20 page paper on how regulation increases cost and still not cover all the issues.
You are both right and wrong.
Changes to tax policy are not going to fix EVERYTHING. The problem is far too large.
But changes to tax policy will fix many things.
normalizing the tax treatment of healthcare costs – so that it is not tax free if paid for by your employer, but atleast partly taxable if you pay for it yourself,
Will diminish the incentives for heatlhcare as a business perq and the huge (and expensive) moral hazzard that comes with that.
WSJ is RELATIVELY pro business, not pro free markets.
Regardless, I do not think the IRS or executive have the latitude the article claims – and I do not want them to.
Beyond that, though there are much better answers, what they are proposing will certainly be an improvement.
I do not think it will be enough to completely reverse the rapid rise of healthcare costs.
But it will be better than nothing.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/
Just what we need. Another Roberts that thinks tax is spelled “penalty”
Hopefully Trump will send this one packing back to where ever he lives. If any GOP senator voted for him based on this, they need to go packing back home also.
There is not a single potential court pick am going to agree with on everything.
I would further note that SCOTUS picks are unpredictable.
Kennedy was a republican pick. O’Connor, Roberts, and Sutor were all republican picks.
I realize that few could agree 100% of the time with any SCOTUS decision. However, one of my requirements(if I really had a voice) would be a judge that reads legislation, understands the ACTUAL words in that legislation and rules based on those words. I do not expect a judge to support legislation that says you will pay a penalty if you dont have insurance and then say, they didnt mean penalty, they meant tax and they have the right to tax. That is legislating from the bench and making the law fit your personal belief.
With Cavanaugh, Trump knows up front that there is a huge chance he would have ruled like Roberts. That to me is BS.
Ron, the Obama administration’s solicitor general called the mandate a tax, during oral arguments. Granted, Obama had previously said it wasn’t a tax, but he lied. Obamacare also forces college students, to this day, to get their student loans through only one provider, with a higher interest rate, which goes to subsidize Obamacare plans. So, a portion of student loan interest is really a tax, too.
I don’t have a problem with Roberts calling it what it was.
Trump, a native NYer deserves to be nailed by we NYers.
To start a criminal investigation, you need a crime.
To subpoena records you need probable cause
Finally having done all that – you can not publicly release the records of a criminal investigation, without yourself committing crimes.
Apparently your hatred of Trump is so great that you will go completely lawless if necescary to “get’ him.
dduck, as long as the left keeps pulling crap like this, people that are leaning are going to lean right.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32616/north-carolina-social-justice-activist-boycott-hank-berrien
This idiotic thinking that you can “crash other peoples cookouts” and not have repercussions ranging from voter backlash to death in beyond comprehension. In NC, we have a “castle law” that protects land owners and is hard to charge someone for shooting another person for trespassing. It doesnt take much for a Maxine supporting liberal to pull this crap on some good ol’, redneck boys and find themselves with a bullet hole.
So even if Trump is charged, the left is moving so far left that it wont mean anything.? A friend shared a media evaluation conducted by some media group that found CNN right in the middle of moderate news and MSNBC slightly leans left. Fox was listed not much less conservative than Breitbart. If MSNBC is moderate left, we have a problem.
And as long as the left is being Chicken Little, people will tune them out in droves.
Ron, you are absolutely right. This kind of harassment is worthy of the Maxine Waters Annual Obnoxious and Counterproductive Award.
DD – what you are seeking to do with taxes is actually worse.
Uncivil and possibly lawless behavior on the part of individuals or private groups towards those they do not like is small potatoes compared to the use of the power of govenrment against those they do not like.
Ooooo, you are quite the lawyer, but I’ll let NY figure it out.
We are beyond lawyering – you are advocating political corruption.
One of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was for seeking (and failing) to use the IRS to go after political enemies.
You may not use any part of any government in the US as a weapon against people you do not like.
That is the very definition of politically corrupt.
What is disturbing is that you do not know, do not care, and would do so gleefully.
You do not grasp that there is no difference between what you want NY to do and the police a prosecutor, anyone in government using the power of government to go after you because they do not like you.
If NY can singl Trump out, then why can’t Trump sic the FBI CIA DOJ, IRS, … on his political enemies ?
What is different between what you wish to do and the most egregious forms of corruption that Trump could engage in ?
We knew he was a bumblenoxious con man way before the rest of the country, no lawyer needed for that. What you don’t “grasp” is that he is that if it is lawful and practical, that NY MAY go after him; they should have nailed him much earlier and we wouldn’t be in this pickle.
It is not egregious, and many moderate Reps will cheer the Big Apple on.
Your histrionics and conspiracy theories of corruption are empty bags of hot air- the Trump kind.
“He flew too close to the Sun and he burned and crashed.”
dduck, I have little knowledge about NY other than articles in the paper, news articles and programs that have based stories on actual life situations.So my thinking about contractors and graft within NYC government, graft in garbage collection companies, etc define my thinking about millionaires in NYC. Then add to that my thinking that many millionaires would not be millionaires with out graft anywhere and you have the basis for this question.
Did NY politicians know of these issues for years and because Trump industry provided millions in taxes and “other benefits” they overlooked this? And if they did, who among their own may also go down with Trump?
If there is a credible allegation of a crime – please investigate – thoroughly.
Let the chips fall where they may.
But if you investigate – really investigate.
Mueller tripped over much more egregious conduct on the part of Tony Podesta, than Paul Manafort, and skipped it. It Mueller is going to prosecute Manafort for something, then everyone who he has uncovered in similar or worse behavior should also be prosecuted
This is simple. It is not lawful!
It is not lawful in multiple ways.
It is not lawful because of exactly what you wish to do.
Our govenrment is prohibited from investigating a person seeking a crime.
Your desire to dig into trump to see if you can find a crime is the definition of political corruption.
Our criminal justice system STARTS with an allegation that a specific crime has been committed.
If you start with less then YOU are committing a crime.
While there are major structual problems with the Mueller investigation – in that it mixes a counter intelligence investigation – which is not the role of an SC and a criminal investigation, which can not use the relaxed rules of a counter intelligence investigation, MOSTLY Mueller has atleast paid lip service to following the rules.
His investigation has only expanded when what he was investigating provided evidence of a different potential crime.
You can not start with:
I am going to investigate Trump (or Joe Doe, or anyone)m you must investigate an allegation.
And to get a warrant and demand records – like tax returns, you must have probable cause.
Again you are quite litterally seeking to do what Nixon tried to do and would have been impeached for.
In the event you succeed – you can pretty much count on politics getting far more brutile very quickly, and a rapid march to totalitarianism.
You do not seem to grasp that is what you are advocating – but it is.
I do not care whether it is practical.
It is not EVER lawful to investigate a person rather than a crime in this country.
It is not EVER lawful to use the machinery of government to target your enemies.
It does not matter whether you are republican or democrat.
It is irrelevant whether some republicans would cheer you on.
There is no “conspiracy theory” – I am taking you at your word.
You want the state of NY to go after Trump and make his taxes public
You are not making a secret about that.
That is egregious. No ones tax return has ever been made public involuntarily without malfeasance. PERIOD.
Your desire for something does not entitle you to it.
This is not a “theory of corruption” – you are litterally demanding political corruption.
You are doing so at the very same time as you are accusing Trump of lawlessness and corruption.
All you are doing is exposing yourself as hypocritical and corrupt.
And as I said before in the event you get your way – the partisan divides just get worse.
Whatever lawlessness you concoct regarding Trump – you can expect to be done unto you and yours in the future.
All, if not most, politicians, regulatory and law enforcement agencies, here and in most cities and towns, often look the other way when it comes to the transgressions of the rich and famous, until the heat from publicity burns there feet and then they spring to action with cries of indignation and outrage. Harvey Weinstein and Trump just being a couple of examples.
And, Trump always minimized his taxes, sometimes even legally and with out cheating, I’m sure. 🙂
If you are talking about graft – you are not talking about “looking the other way”.
Graft requires the active participation of those in government.
Further those in government involved in graft have committed the far more serious crime.
They have betrayed the public Trust.
Most of us do not beleive the NYC government merely turns a blind eye to the misconduct of the rich. We beleive that NYC government is corrupt top to bottom, completely independently of the rich.
Do you honestly beleive that Trump has much to do with his taxes at all ?
He is a billionaire. He has an army of accountants and layer that deal with his taxes.
I doubt he has much to do with the taxes at all.
My father who was merely a small business person had an accountant file his taxes his entire life.
While he participated with the accountant in making some decisions, and both actively sought to legally minimize his taxes, the majority of the decisions were made by the accountant.
“All you are doing is exposing yourself as hypocritical and corrupt.”
Oooo, dropped your lawyer hat, and donned your Torquemada cap.
Question, what is the “partisan divide” oh sage of TNM?
Not wearing Either a Lawyer or Torquemada hat.
I am wearing the “this is not the USSR hat”.
As well as the Taking DD at his word hat.
I am assuming that you actually mean what you are saying.
I am disturbed that you do not seem to understand how dangerous and evil it is.
Your hatred of Trump has overcome your judgement.
The entire approach of picking a person and then looking for a crime is the halmark of totalitarian regimes – particularly leftist ones.
“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
– Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police
I
“Question, what is the “partisan divide”, oh sage of TNM?” I ask again
And, you are “disturbed”. 🙂 Oh, I am so evil, that even Trump wouldn’t touch me with a ten foot pole.
Good night for now, I have to file down my hooves and polish my horns.
спокойной ночи!.
“Question, what is the “partisan divide”, oh sage of TNM?”
Not interested in rhetorical questions.
Do you think that whatever you do, you will not see those who think you are as evil and wrong as you think they are, do the same ?
“Oh, I am so evil, that even Trump wouldn’t touch me with a ten foot pole.”
I doubt that, but what you are looking to do is evil, and it will come back to bite you.
One way or another.
Even if you actually manage to avoid backlash or retaliation, even if you get your way.
You will have made the world and the country a worse place.
Is China still trump’s bitch? How are things going with shrinking the the NK nuke program? Another ass kissing and denial fest with Putin coming up. Joy Joy Joy.
Yep, we are in a foreign policy paradise, it turns out that having a shallow incompetent sexual predator as POTUS was the key to all of our problems. Anyhow, that is what GOP voters say to themselves each night as they say their prayers.
“Is China still trump’s bitch?”
So far.
“How are things going with shrinking the the NK nuke program?”
An auspicious start.
If the badly sourced story that NK is still expanding their Nuclear program is true, I would expect consequences.
Regardless, as Reagan said “Trust, but verify”
“Another ass kissing and denial fest with Putin coming up. Joy Joy Joy.”
Yes, more of this leftist garbage – Trump must force Putin into “self criticism” ?
The failure of the rest of us to care about the stupid issues that are your reason for existance, is your problem.
“The failure of the rest of us to care about the stupid issues that are your reason for existance, is your problem.”
A five star Dave performance, a Classic! Ah, so a huge trade war with China is only of concern to me and not you, (and your royal “the rest of us”.) So, today you have thrown yet one more plank of your long held worldview overboard in order to maintain your denial of reality vis a vis herr trump.
Line one (long ago) was that trump at least does the things he said he would do in the campaign, what a fine thing for a change, an honest straightforward no bullshit man!
Line two was trump makes a lot of noise but doesn’t actually do the stupid stuff he says.
Now, line three, a trade war with China is just stupid shit that only I, a spouter of leftist garbage, care about while the “rest” of you go on with your well grounded lives.
This is sincerely funny shit Dave. The energy you put into keeping your shield from reality going must suck all the juice out of the rest of your metabolism. It is an amazing performance, an entertaining moment in this dreary time. Keep it up, we wish to see how far you can go with it as events progress!
I have no idea whether we are entering a huge trade war with China – and neither do you.
I have actually read alot about this – as I am very concerned about it and Trump’s sabre rattling regarding Trade.
Though for the moment each side keeps upping the ante – the market analysis is that the tarriff’s each side is imposing right now are small and narrow and will have negligable impact on the economy. So thus far the game is symbolic – except for those few people in the effected industries.
At the same time if this scales up – most analysis I am reading suggests the US is in the catbirds seat right now Our economy is rising while that of the rest fo the world – Mexico, Canada, The EU, and China are falling or stagnant.
Though a trade war would be bad for us – it would be worse for the rest fo the world.
The “smart people” I am reading say China and the other countries are going to blink first.
Further Trump is littlerally threatening a trade war as the punishment for not agreeing to free markets. Not the confrontational approach I would prefer, but the objective is good.
The risk is that he fails.
Yes, I am worried about that.
But we lived through Obama and ObamaCare. This is far less bad.
I do not expect any president to be perfect
Finally if Trump screws up trade and tips the economy into a tailspin – that is a self punishing act. He will harm himself and the Republican party – so you should be cheering.
What exactly is it that you think i have thrown overboard ?
I oppose Tarriffs and Trade restrictions.
I am opposed to them with respect to Trump.
It is my hope that I can trust Kudlow and the real objective is free trade.
Regardless I have been and remain opposed to restrictions on trade.
Am I required to label trump as evil and disastrous – because he doesn’t perfectly conform to my principles ?
Must I oppose every politician short of Adam Smith ?
Well I guess I am one of those living that well rounded life since I dont have a problem with taxing the crap out of cheap Chinese shit that they send us, while we send millions in grain, food and nuts that drive up the cost of food in this country. We export one billion pounds of beef to china while we are paying $4-$5 a pound for ground meat that is meat and not fat. My wife has paid up to $12 a pound for pecans for baking, while we send 50% of our production to China without import fees. Millions of bushels of corn wheat and soybeans go to China, driving up feed costs in America, thus driving up meat cost. They send us Buicks with little tax, we send them Fords with 25% tariffs.
So Dave can pontificate about how bad tariffs are, you can moan about Trump and tariffs, but if this creates jobs in America or it improves the quality of something I buy since it is not “Buy and Throw Away” chinese crap, fine! And maybe I will be able to afford a steak now and then since they may not be over $10 per small steak in the grocery store.
And buy the way, some here have complained about the national debt and deficit. How do we fix that. Democrats want more tax, conservatives want less spending. Tariffs are taxes, so everyone is going to share in the pain. And if they reduce the deficit, Grover Norquest can have his cow about increased taxes, thats fine with me.
So we send the chinese meat and grain and they send us Buick’s ?
That sounds great to me.
The laws of supply and demand ensure that ultimately supply will increase to meet demand and that the results will nearly always be LOWER not higher cost.
The more sustained demand there is for US meats and grains the more economically they will be produced for all of us.
In 1890 the price of a bushel of wheat was $1.
Today it is $3. If the price had kept track with inflation it would be close to $30.
If you think that chinese goods are crap – do not buy them.
But do not preclude the rest of us from buying them.
It is estimated that Walmart saves the average american family about 2800/year.
That is 2800 you can spend on something else.
The inflation adjusted price of steak is nearly constant over 100 years.
The debt will disappear completely on its own if we do a single thing.
Balance our budget over the long term.
That means spending less.
Well if you accept “So we send the chinese meat and grain and they send us Buick’s ?” knowing that it only takes 1 /2 hour of labor to produce 100 bushels of corn or wheat and it takes 1300 manhours to produce the components and the Buick itself, then that is your choice. I dont think that is a good trade. Now if we sent them Fords and they sent us Buicks, that might be a better trade since it would be creating jobs!!!!!!
The problem for way too long has been our politicians bending over to foreign countries allowing them to take our manufacturing, sending the products back here free and then allowing them to tax the crap out if our products.
Maybe those that do not support my thinking will change their mind when China develops their tech industries after stealing our intellectual properties and all the tech companies move overseas.
And that stuff about Walmart saving people $2800 a year is suspect. Figures dont lie, but liars can figure. If I could buy sheets made in America that was of higher quality like we had years ago at $40 and they lasted 5 years compared to Chinese sheets costing $15 and lasting 18 months, did I really save money? Analyst will only look at the initial outlay.
“knowing that it only takes 1 /2 hour of labor to produce 100 bushels of corn or wheat and it takes 1300 manhours to produce the components and the Buick itself”
Even better.
Sounds like an excellent trade to me.
If we send them little green slips of paper, and then send us cars that would be the very best.
“The problem for way too long has been ”
Not a problem.
So China develops a Tech industry – that is happening anyway.
You are fixated on Intellectual property – even IBM decades ago studied the issue and found the IP laws were anti-entrepeneurial.
That there entire IP portfolio was defensive – a means of protecting them from IP suits by others.
Few people actively engaged in entrepeneurship care about IP laws.
Only politicians, lawyers and patent trolls do.
If stealing IP was a way to get ahead the USSR would have won the cold war.
The entire idea is stupid and few involved in creating new things would buy it.
The largest portion of the value of any idea is having conceived of the idea.
Stealing the idea does not give you the same understanding.
“If I could ….”
Then do.
Nothing prevents the US from manufacturing sheets.
Nothing prevents you from buying better sheets.
I do not actually care at all about your analysis – because each and every one of us gets to do whatever analysis we want, and then we make our choices.
The fact that so many of us have chosen to buy from Walmart means we found that to be the better value. You are free to disagree – but you only get to decide for yourself.
You are free to persuade – but however compelling your argument sounds people have chosen otherwise.
We are touching on something fundimental.
Just as ordinary people are free to buy sheets or whatever from Walmart, even though you think that is a bad choice, they remain free to do so even if government thinks that is a bad choice.
Value is subjective.
With respect to your “lines”:
Are you saying that Trump has not either done or tried to do more of what he has promised than any politician during our lifetime?
1).
You keep telling me that Trump is a lying lying liar.
And yet whether I agree with his promises or not, he puts an extraordinary amount of effort into keeping them.
You fixate on whatever innaccuraices are in his latest tweet.
Regardless, the FACT is that Trump appears to try hard to keep most of his prmoises.
You may not care, but I will suggest alot of voters do.
I would also suggest that this was predictable.
Trump is a business person, not a politician.
Integrity is the ONLY currency in business.
It is nearly impossible to engage in free exchange with people who do not trust you.
2).
Has Trump investigated his enemies ?
Has Trump weaponized the IRS ?
Has Trump increased the power of govenrment ?
Has Trump acted outside the constitutional limits of executive power ?
Trump has been pretty “anti-authoritarian” thus far,
Most of what he has done is rapidly dismantle the lawless acts of Obama.
He was able to do so easily – because they were done outside the law.
Next time, do the hard work, change the constitution or change the law.
3).
I have not claimed that a Trade war with China is a good thing.
I oppose that.
What I am claiming is that THUS FAR, we are rattling sabres. That an actual trade war has not started. And that I am going to measure my response to the real world facts.
I am not going to go “full monty” over some sabre rattling over trade.
Is every choice on the planet binary for you ?
Anyone who does nto think everything that Trump does is thoroughly evil, inherently supports him completely in everything ?
Sorry, that is not the real world.
It is possible to oppose something without frothing at the mouth.
Without making that one thing into the end of the earth.
Absolutely there is a long list of candidates I would rather have been elected than Trump.
That is not what happened.
I can be unhappy that Trump won – without seeing the four horseman of the apocolpyse in everything he does.
I can be happy that Clinton did not win – even though that resulted in Trump winning.
I can see Trump as a B+ president thus far, without being a “trumpster”.
I can rate Obama as a D+ because that is really what he was.
My post disappeared so I will repeat it. Then the first one will reappear and there will be two versions. Oh well.
“Finally if Trump screws up trade and tips the economy into a tailspin – that is a self punishing act. He will harm himself and the Republican party – so you should be cheering.”
Its a bit more than a self punishing act! If trump wants to hit himself in the head with a brick that would be self punishing. If he throws the economy into a tailspin that punishes more than trump and more than the GOP. You don’t grasp that up in your Utopian Libertarian Ivory tower?
You think I should be cheering if the economy goes into a tailspin and takes me, my children, my friends, and, in general, tens of millions of people down with it? Really?!? I should be cheering that as long as it hurts trump and the GOP? Of course that Must be how I think, left wing fanatic that I must be in your warped mind.
You are running on empty. You have got nothing, nothing at all but pure hot air and empty words by the ton.
“Its a bit more than a self punishing act! If trump wants to hit himself in the head with a brick that would be self punishing. If he throws the economy into a tailspin that punishes more than trump and more than the GOP. You don’t grasp that up in your Utopian Libertarian Ivory tower?”
That would be why the left is praying for a recession ?
Regardless, fine argument – why weren’t you making it for the past 16 years ?
I beleive Bush Growth averaged 2.3%, Obama growth averaged 1.8%.
Thus far Trump’s average growth is 2.6% – that is up from 1.2 at the end of Obama.
“You think I should be cheering if the economy goes into a tailspin and takes me, my children, my friends, and, in general, tens of millions of people down with it? Really?!? I should be cheering that as long as it hurts trump and the GOP? Of course that Must be how I think, left wing fanatic that I must be in your warped mind.”
I would be more impressed with your bemoaning a POSSIBLE decline in the economy under Trump, had you been bemoaning the ACTUALLY weak economy of the prior 16 years.
Had Obama maintained 2.3% growth the average family would have been 1500/year better off by 2016 Had he managed 2.6 – they would have been 3500/year better off.
When Trump’s average growth rate i below 1.8% – I will be more interested in what you have to say.
Regardless, yes the economic mistakes of government do very real harm.
I have been saying that for years – why are you only just now interested ?
BTW Bill Mahr is praying for a recession to get rid of Trump.
I must have something – because suddenly you are trying to make my arguments.
Or am I misunderstanding and you really do not care whether we get growth ?
Anonymous, if you dont have guts enough to enter your ID, then dont comment. If you have something worth saying and others reading, then you would let us know who is commenting.
Ron, If you don’t have the brains to figure out its me, Grumpy, then kindly stop telling me what to do. A fine so-called libertarian you are! You are fine with individuals choosing prostitution or drugs but become all offended and bossy about anonymous blog posting! What a laugh! One more proof that Libertarians are all full of shit, down to the last man, not one of you holds to your values, which is not that unexpected because your Libertarian world view is pretty much a total utopian crock, like communism.
I am not complaining about your anonymous posts.
But I would repeat something very libertarian.
If you are only free to make good decisions, you are not free.
I do not care if you or anyone else posts anonymously.
I quite often post under a pseudonym – though not typically here.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But if you are not willing to attach your name to something, then it is far less credible.
The right to speak anonymously is not a right to have your anonymous speach treated equally with those who tie their own reputation to what they say.
Though I would have chosen different words, I do not think Ron’s remarks had a different message.
The liberty to do anything that does not harm others, is a right to do so free from criticism.
I think as an example that the owner of the Red Hen was wrong and deserves the backlash that she has received. But she still had the absolute right to do as she did. Just as I have the absolute right to criticise her for acting stupidly.
It is not “bossy” to tell you you are stupid.
Ron has not threatened to use force against you.
That – and pretty much that alone is the core libertarian value.
Anyone – Ron, I, Maxine waters, can crticize you however we please.
We are as free to criticize as you are to speak.
There is no hypocracy in telling you repeatedly how wrong you are.
What we can NOT do is use force willy nilly against you.
We can not use actual force – aka government to silence you.
Force can only be used in a very narrow set of instances when it can be justified.
Your being wrong, does not justify the use of force.
The fact that you do not get this, or atleast that the limitations on the use of force are the core libertarian principle – despite the fact that I have pounded on it repeatedly, just demonstrates how poor your ability to understand anything outside your own viewpoint is.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
JS Mill
I know who wrote that.
Obvious from the cadence of his writing. Which, if you weren’t getting more Slow-witted as time goes by, you’d recognize too.
Really, you’re getting dumber and dumber with each post:: Post Trump Stupidity is apparently contagious .
Dear Denial Dave:
This is blindingly obvious to anyone who can read: “Anonymous, if you dont have guts enough to enter your ID, then dont comment. ” is not criticizing me. It is telling me, in the imperative voice, what to do, or not to do. Its quite Unlibertarian in principle to go attempting to order people around, even it its an obviously losing attempt.
The fact that you can’t dope that, and many other similar issues, out makes Your own posts far less credible, among many other issues. Are you worried about that? Of course not!
So, cry me a river.
How interesting how one parses words, just like politicians parse others words and use them out of context.
First, maybe everyone else here know who anonymous is right now. I still dont. but Grumpy gives me someone to resp ond to. As for my “,unlibertarian” view, please read all of my comment as it provides a reason to be identified.
The one thing about society today, anonymous sources, unidentified sources etc have become a way of life. Years ago, not often were these used to comment nor to use for reports. Today say anything on the internet and its true, and no one has to take credit.
Putting an identity to a comment, gives it credibility. Posted by anonomous, it carries little weight.
And by the way, I never said I was 100% Libertarian. The closest to that is Dave and he and I disagree on many things. I lean right with many Libertarian views and fall off the charts when compared to the current democrat party.
“Dear Denial Dave:
This is blindingly obvious to anyone who can read: “Anonymous, if you dont have guts enough to enter your ID, then dont comment. ” is not criticizing me. It is telling me, in the imperative voice, what to do, or not to do. Its quite Unlibertarian in principle to go attempting to order people around, even it its an obviously losing attempt.
The fact that you can’t dope that, and many other similar issues, out makes Your own posts far less credible, among many other issues. Are you worried about that? Of course not!
So, cry me a river.”
Does Ron have the power to preclude you from commenting ?
Has he credibly threatened to use force ?
I really do not care what “voice’ he uses.
I care what he is prepared to do.
Ron has only rarely been willing to require government to enforce his wishes.
Far too many others here demand that constantly.
Fortunately they do not have the power to impose their demands.
But there is little reason to doubt that they would if they could.
Ordering others arround offends me.
But it is threatening to use force to compel compliance that runs afoul of my principles.
We deal with this constantly – your muddy use of language leads you to bad conclusions.
When you or many others here give orders, There is zero doubt that if you had the power to effectuate them, you would.
I do not beleive Ron would.
But even more importantly, Ron would not go running to government to impose his wishes by force – you would and do.
Talk about a silly topic. Sometimes I have to post anon. because of the damn passwords/etc. on a device. My dduck, BTW, is not my real name, I hope no one gets bent out of shape about that.
Speaking of ethics, Pruitt is finally out, driven by rapacious nit pickers of the Dem variety. Poor guy.
“Why Richard Painter Felt the Need to Switch Parties: Richard Painter was a chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration and is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.”
This is a good thing. I would think he would be closer to Manchin than Shumer/Pelosi and.much more moderate than Frankin.
What bothers me in this “ethics” issue is comments like ” that’s a huge problem for me because Trump refused to sell his businesses”.
Trump is not what I would want as president. He was better than anything the democrats offerred and that is why we are stuck with him, but lets say someone goes to Victoria Mars, the president and CEO of the Mars company and tells her she has to run for president on the Democrat ticket to unite and give the country someone they can look up to as president. She would never in a million years consider that offer since she would have to sell the company her family founded in 1911.under the conditions Richard Painter holds.
There has to be an acceptable middle point between liquidating businesses and retaining control so we can get the most qualified people to run instead of the career politicians that have no clue as to how to run anything but fund raisers. Seems like one could give up control to a third party, but retain veto power over any deal over a certain monitary value.
dhlii is not my real name either.
If you email me – I have provided my jbsay email before I will be happy to tell you more about me.
But I have already put too many personal details on this site.
I am not tying them to my name for anyone to find.
Just to be clear I have not attacked your anonymous postings,
even my inital response to Ron reflected that anonymous speach is a free speech right.
I did attack your attack on Ron.
With respect to Pruitt – I have no problem with holding every politician everywhere to the standard you want to hold pruitt to.
I have a great deal of problem with the hypocritical pretense that his conduct is aytpical.
Did you bother to follow the Sen. Menendez case ?
The left did not target Pruitt because he is corrupt.
Pretty much nothing they came up with is actual corruption,
it is at most wasteful spending, and give that he overall cut the EPA budget radically, not all that big a deal.
If Pruitt could cut 100M a year from the EPA budget, I would think about turning a blind eye to him soliciting prostitutes on the government dime.
“If Pruitt could cut 100M a year from the EPA budget, I would think about turning a blind eye to him soliciting prostitutes on the government dime.”
Yep, that is pretty much how you actually think and act, turning a blind eye is one of your most developed philosophical skills. Instead of me being irate about you turning yourself into a pretzel I have learned to enjoy watching you shit all over your own principles daily. Its actually sincerely funny once one acquires the taste for the spectacle.
Speaking of shit, that shit Pruitt has gone off to his infamy for reasons that were well described by Painter. I look at all the various trump admin players and the whole GOP freak show and I see one hideous unlovable mug after another. Watching them get their just deserts one by one as time goes on is the upside of this political era. Justice grinds slowly but exceedingly fine.
Thumbs Up! 👍👍👍
Jay, dduck…….I dont understand the outrage you have developed. Maybe it is because you are much younger than I am and I have lived through way too many criminal actions by government. I was going to list a few , but this gives a much better picture of corruption in government and how it is the norm, not the exception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
And these are just the ones caught and convicted! It does not include those like Hillary for obstruction of justice, lying to investigators and other issue nor does it include Trump who after all the investigations will be found to have done something illegal in the past. And it does not include the criminal actions of many who go without investigation.
Why is it that you believe that corruption and criminal actions are isolated to the GOP and specifically the Trump administration?
Maybe you could rest easier knowing that most anyone you vote for is a criminal in some way and there is a slight chance that who you vote for may not be. Remember, most all national politicians started in local government and thatis where they hone their corrupt behaviors.
If you give people power while providing limited or no oversight, you will get lots of corruption.
You will get that with democrats, and with republicans and even with libertarians.
You will not get it with EVERY person in govenrment but you will get it with alot.
You will get far more corruption that you do privately for three reasons.
First market forces themselves function as oversight
Second government deals with other peoples money without serious oversight, in business those providing the money are responsible for the oversight.
Third much conduct that is immoral unethical and illegal in government is not privately.
A businessman who hires his brother at twice the cost of a competitor does nothing wrong and harms only himself. Someone in government who does this betrays the publice trust.
Regardless, whether it is the police, the courts, politicians, the secretary at the DMV
government has crap for oversight. F’ing up often gets you promoted.
We have had this rant here about Pruitt.
I am bothered that Pruitt was not smart enough to grasp that his enemies were out to get him, and that he needed to dot his i’s and cross his t’s.
But beyond that his conduct was not unusual for washington.
That is disturbing – but I am alone in being disturbed.
We typically only hear about corruption in government when Republicans are in power – because the media can not be bothered by the corruption of their own kind.
But nothing is different – in fact the evidence is that the Obama administration engaged in far more of the conduct that lead to Pruitt’s resignation.
I would note that NONE of the conduct alleged against Pruitt is actually corruption.
It is wastefull spending. but I will give some lattitude to the guy who slashed 180M out of the EPA budget
Solyndra would be an example of corruption. IRSgate would be an example of corruption.
The millions in sweetheart deals and no bid contracts would be corruption.
And I am certain some of that is still going on.
At the EPA, the very same people who were approving money for grants were the people receiving the money for the grants.
Pruitt ended that.
Which do you care more about ?
$2000 stationary or millions in grants that are aproved by those getting the grants.
More meaningless prattle.
I would say that I am at odds with your principles – not mine,
but you have expressed no principles.
I am at odds with your ludicrous misunderstandings of my principles.
But that is not surprising. Despite the fact that my principles are pretty simple and pretty clear, you still completely misrepresent them all the time.
I do not think you do so deliberately – most of the time.
But that only leaves that you are unable to comprehend relatively simple english.
I have said repeatedly – that most of us think in words. When we mangle the meaning of words, we impair both our ability to communicate and our ability to think.
Your remarks constantly make that problem obvious.
With respect to Pruit – you are the one shitting on your own principles.
Pruitt’s conduct is indistinguishable from that of any similar cabinet appointment during Obama. We heard all the same stories – but neither the media nor the left, nor yor cared.
Therefore nothing happened.
You want me to care about Pruitt’s 43K phone booth – then care about the fact that nearly ever Obama cabinet member was renting private jets, and buying all kinds of crap.
Actually no – that is not true. I care about wastefully spending in govenrment,
But almost no one else does – Except when it can be used as a political weapon.
With respect to wastefull spending Pruitt slashed 180M/year from EPA’s budget.
Even better he has them actually doing the job they were created to do – cleaning up the environment. Rather than wasting alot of money on garbage, the EPA is currently actually working to clear superfund sites – you know those gargantuan toxic messes that were all created by government that are all over the country that to a large extent NOTHING has been done about. Under Obama the EPA uncorked a gold mine that had been sealed for a century and did a billion dollars of damage the the Colorado river.
I think that is a pretty good reason to fire someone.
Yet no one was held accountable.
No I do not really give a damn that Pruitt was renting a room in washington from somebody who was related to somebody who lobbied for somebody who was related to somebody who might have had business with the EPA.
If you want to be outraged over Pruitt and you want me to beleive that you are not “turning a blind eye to any principles you have” then show the same outrage when those you like are engaged in the same conduct.
I noted Mcabe’s 70,000 office table – which we only found out about from the IG’s texts,
That text was provided to the House and Senate, by DOJ/FBI but they redacted the table remark for “national security reasons”.
Aparently the embarrassment of the DOJ/FBI is a national security matter.
One of the problems I have with you is that you only see the malfeasance of those you hate.
Tom Price resigned over the use of private jets. Something that was the norm during the Obama administration.
Price should have resigned, but where were you complaining about the Obama administration waste ?
I can understand Painter leaving the GOP, I can not understand anyone becoming a democrat.
LOL, that’s your problem.
“Jay, dduck…….I don’t understand the outrage you have developed. Maybe it is because you are much younger than I am and I have lived through way too many criminal actions by government.”
Ron, you should be old enough not to play the age card unless you know what the other guys are holding.
I don’t know about Jay, but I have seen corruption up the wazoo on the Dem side, so don’t play that card either.
To be clear, I hate corruption on both sides and also the private corruption of Trump in NYC for decades.
dduck, I am not playing any card. Pruitt, Trump and anyone else named is no different than a long list of corrupt politicians. I cant get all worked up and like so many others I just accept this fact and move on. Carter and RR were ones that was least involved with this activity and RR had Irangate or whatever they called it. Bill had alot, just never got caught. Hillary got caught, but was given a pass. Cant remember what 43 did, other than alcohol.
Oh well, back to the race
I would be perfectly happy to see Pruitt fully held responsible for his conduct – though the allegations against him seem to be nearly exclusively that he was a spendthrift, which is a reason to get fired or resign, but it is not “corruption”.
But I am not slightly interested in this garbage where we are selective about who we go after.
The left made a huge deal that Clinton’s handling of government communications was not unique.
It wasn’t. But it was orders of magnitude worse than anyone else.
Worse still Powell as an example was acting when the use of email by a Sec. State was new and there was little understanding of how it would work or what laws applied how.
Clinton was after all this was well understood.
Pruitts conduct is tame compared to say McCabe – who was a much lower ranking person.
If you are going to hold Pruitt accountable – then you must hold anyone who has behaved as he has or worse.
The pay for play scheme Clinton was running out of the state department was far worse.
If Pruitt as an example was giving expedited access to people who donated to the Heartland Institute – he would be facing criminal charges right now.
BTW I am using Clinton for two reasons – everyone is familiar with her conduct
It was clearly more egregious.
There is worse that has occurred, But it is not as well reported.
I am very disturbed because recently it has come out that McCain was preasuring the IRS to go after Tea party groups.
He was angry because many had helped to gut Mccain Feingold.
Sorry but that is pretty bad political corruption.
Even Senators should not be using the IRS as a weapon.
Like I said, they are all corrupt, so why the outrage when one is caught?
Or why not the same outrage over all of them ?
As I noted Pruitt’s conduct is spendthrift rather than corrupt.
Why then was the left not in arms over the millions spent on various vacations of Michelle Obama ?
To be clear I am not out to get Michelle. Only pointing out that the “tribalism” is on the left.
The rule of law means treating the same acts the same regardless of whether they are done by those you like or those you hate.
That is where DD, Jay and the left go lawless.
There hatred of Trump, his actual supporters, as well as those of us who are not foaming at the mouth opposed to everything Trump is sufficient that they will broaden any law or rule as far as necessary to pretend that Trump is in violation.
Does it bother me when a Cabinet secretary buys $3000 stationary ?
Sure. It also bothers me when a Senior member of the FBI buys a 70,000 table for his office. The allegations against Pruitt are that he wasted government funds.
As I noted before that is a basis for resigning or firing – one that if enforced would result is purging 2/3 of the federal government – and I would be happy to enforce that.
The allegations against Pruitt are not actual corruption.
we have had plenty of actual corruption in Washington.
Where is the outrage over that ?
The left is only interested in manufactured corruption.
Glad you grasp that corruption in government exists.
You say you have seen private corruption of Trump in NYC for decades.
So provide me an example of corrupt behavior of Trump in NYC that does not involve government ?
I know what private criminal conduct is, and you might be able to provide me some examples of that.
But corruption inherently requires government.
All behavior that I can think of that one would call corrupt, would not be corruption if it was purely private.
Most government corruption involves a private party. But it is still government corruption.
Do we really need to get into the nitty gritty of the word “corruption”. It is illegal activity. I said all politicians are criminals, but most have just not been caught. (criminal in the meaning engaging in criminal behavior). As for New York corruption, one does not need to look far into historical information to see how corruption ran that city like all big cities in the past. Donald Trump most likely never would have built the empire he did without corrupt activities with government officials world wide. Building deals, land deals and construction are one of the main businesses that involved this activity.
Yes, we do need to get into the meaning of words.
If we use the same words, but do not use the same meaning – we are not communicating.
Further we are also effecting our own thinking.
All illegal activity is not the same either.
While I want the law enforced without discretion.
I want that as a means of angering people over bad laws and getting them purged.
If we arrested everyone who drove 5mph over the speed limit tomorow,
our driving laws would get changed quickly.
Most of the activities that we describe as “corrupt” are not improper and often not illegal in a private context.
If Walmart offers me a coupon to save money if I buy more goods from them,
how is that different from a bribe ?
The differences is that “bribing” someone in a purely private context, does not breach the public trust. Typically it breaches no duty to anyone.
Acts that are “corrupt” – are wrong because they breach the public trust.
It is difficult to act corruptly outside of govenrment.
Actual purely private corruption requires being in a position of trust where you owe a duty to others, and typically a duty that those others do not have the power to enforce.
A CEO owes a duty to shareholders, but shareholders appointed him and have the power to sanction him.
Those in government are nearly unanswerable for their acts, and often are rewarded for waste and misconduct.
If I seek a building permit and I am told that I can not get a permit I am otherwise entitled to without paying the building inspector $200 – who is corrupt ? Me for paying the building inspector, or the building inspector for breaching the public trust ?
If Trump spent millions in bribes to get his projects built – I will be ecstatic to see the public official who took each of those bribes prosecuted.
Conversely I do not care all that much that Trump or anyone else paid bribes to get government to do what it was obligated to do.
If you want me to care about the private actor in a bribe, you need to persuade me they paid to get something they were not otherwise entitled to.
Trump’s buildings have not collapsed, they are not fire hazards that have killed hundreds.
Presuming that Trump actually bribed people – what did he get for those bribes ?
In all instances of corruption, the public actor has committed a crime – dones something truly wrong, breached the public trust.
In some instances of corruption there is culpability on the part of the private actor.
Sorry, Ron, you played the age card, don’t deny it. Don’t be a Dave.
He can do research better than all of us, so let him do a dossier on Trump, or not since Trump is not of the other tribe.
Yep, age card, that I did. But when you get my age, its the joker in the deck that can be played as the wild card .
Experience is not three aces. It is not a hand that always wins.
But it does tend to make all of us more likely to be right than we were a decade earlier.
Ron, I first voted for Eisenhower and every Rep, except for my blunder voting for that dufus Perot, until 2016 when I voted for HC.
How’s that for your old age card..
After wisdom and experience comes senility.
I voted for Perot too.
But I am not stupid enough ever to vote for HRC
“Played the age card ?”
In otherwords you discount Ron’s valid argument that it is possible that someone who has seen less of the corruption in govenrment because they have less experience because you can call it a “card” ?
It is unfortunate that experience and duration of exposure to the real world is not an effective cure of the leftism of all people.
But the FACT is that people’s distrust of government decreases as they age.
It does so because greater experience exposes us to the fact that government fails badly at the vast majority of what it does.
Awareness of that is not a ‘card” – it is a fact.
If you have managed to age without gaining that knowledge and experience – that speaks poorly of you.
It is those here foaming at the mouth over every syllable
Trump utters and every step he takes that are in denial.
Once again you demonstrate that your beleifs ultimately devolve to demanding to control others.
Why am I obligated to do the research you want – and by implication find the conclusions you wish – whether true or not, just because you want that ?
Why aren’t I, as well as anyone else free to choose for myself what I think is important to me ?
It is not my or anyone else on the planet’s obligation to do as you wish.
No one is obligated to research what you want.
No one is obligated to provide the information you wish to know
No one is obligated to denounce whatever your outrage of the day or even the moment is.
This is a standard left wing nut tactic – unless you immediately denounce wife beating, or whatever your outrage of the moment is, then you must be a wife beater.
Yet you were not denouncng the same things when your ilk was in power, nor were you demanding the same denunciations of them.
What ilk was that?
“What ilk was that?”
Yours.
Define that however you please, it will not change anything.
Jim Jordan is being accused of looking the other way concerning sexual misconduct during his tenure as a wrestling coach 23 to 33 years ago. How can one defend ones self when charges are made about that many years ago. How does one even remember the issues to be able to explain the truth. Just saying “this never happened” or “I would never have looked the other way” or “I knew nothing about these issues” will not fly in this era of “Metoo”.
I coached my daughters travel soccer teams from the early 80’s to the early 90’s. If I were in politics and some of them did not like my politics, what would preclude a couple of them from claiming I touched them inappropriately. All I could say is “it never happened” In the Metoo era, who would believe that?
By the way, looks like one might get Borked. The foundations are being laid,
http://www.yahoo.com/news/people-praise-supreme-court-contender-amy-barrett-belongs-171538226.html
I do not know much about the Jordan claims.
Though I am highly skeptical.
To get to an issue you need to
Prove that the alleged events actually occurred.
And that Jordan kew about them
and did nothing.
For something 20-30 years ago that is very hard to do.
Again, what ilk? Short of words? Cite a link.
“Cite a link”
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625817215/rep-jim-jordan-denies-he-knew-of-decades-long-sexual-abuse-at-ohio-state
These types of stories are almost always impossible to deal with.
The events are almost 30 years ago. There is no claim that Jordan abused anyone.
While I tend to believe the allegations against Dr. Strauss, there is no actual evidence, one must choose what to believe based on allegations made by alleged victims.
#metoo has exposed alot of misconduct by important people.
But it has also produced a number of false or misleading claims.
Everyone claiming to be abused has not been abused.
Nor is everyone who makes the claim lying.
The allegations against Jordan are that he knew about the alleged abuse.
Even those allegations do not demonstrate what is being claimed.
Yetts as an example claims that he came to Dr. Strauss with a thumb injury and Strauss started to pull down his shorts, and that he reported this to Jordan and Hellickson and they confronted Strauss.
Is there something more that should have been done based on that allegation ?
Anyway, establish that Jordan knew something that required him to act beyond what he did and I will take this seriously.
In the meantime I have not as of yet heard a serious allegation of abuse, much less one that Jordan was involved in covering it up.
The play book today is accuse and destroy. Jim Jordan is a key member of the Freedom Caucus and one rumored to be a strong candidate for speaker. Accusations, even weak ones about actions 30 years ago, work to weaken one where they are no longer a viable candidate or a very weak leader if chosen. Now there are articles where the Freedom Caucus is trying to rally members to continue support for Jordan. This indicates members do not want to be associated with someone being accused by #metoo individuals.
There are lots of layers to this.
Thus far the allegations of Strauss’s sexual misconduct appear to be minor without clear harm. Though tomorow’s allegations may be different.
Jordan’s alleged response to the behavior allegedly reported to him seem appropriate to me. It a student alleged that a team doctor asked the student to pull down his pants for a thumb injury that is a reason to confront the doctor.
It is not a basis for calling the police. If the student wanted, they were free to do so.
Beyond that the claim is that Jordan “must have known”.
I do not know what that means.
So far we do not even know what the alleged misconduct of the doctor is
Regardless, make an actual case, demonstrate the abuse and that Jordan was aware or should have been and then you will get my attention.
We tend not to be good at making distinctions.
It is both possible to “beleive” and allegation, and to fail to prosecute.
The standard of roof necescary for me to beleive somwthing bad happened to you is low.
The standard of proof necescary for me to prosecute is far higher.
This is not binary.
Nor is the moral and the legal exactly the same
“The standard of roof necescary for me to beleive somwthing bad happened to you is low.
The standard of proof necescary for me to prosecute is far higher.”
But we are not talking about you or I. Did you see the Campus Reform interview of students and what they thought about Trumps nominee for SCOTUS. They hated it and said the person is a racist, bigot, etc, etc. It is these type of individuals that don’t even know the appointment has not been announced that are the ones that vote and can make or break a person like Jim Jordan. They could care less about the truth, just what their side of the isle is saying is enough for them.
You, I the next guy might have different absolute standards.
But the standard to beleive a victim and the standard to convict an alleged perpatrator are supposed to be separated for all of us
I am not at this moment impressed by Kavanaugh.
But I am prepared to be persuaded.
Further we will not really know about him until this time next year.
As to others. Absolutely, the everything Trump does is evil growd will be out in full force,
And of course anyone prepared to stand within 10 feet of Trump must be a racist, bigot, ….
Dave the Campus Reform Report was done a couple days ago. They did not know who was selected.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11100
I understand, and I will have to read about Kavanaugh to decide if I am going to write my senators to ask they oppose him.
I am troubled by his 4th amendment positions – particularly at a time we are starting to gain 4th amendment rights back.
I suspect that I will remain troubled, but not enough to oppose him, and will not really find out whether there is anything to fear until next June. –
Well I have heard a few negatives about him, but none about the 4th amendment. Maybe that is why Paul does not like him.
If this one gets shot down and the senate flips, hell will be paid for the GOP.
The odds of the senate flipping are near zero.
Trump would have to be caught in bed with Putin and there would have to be pictures.
Republicans have zero spare votes right now.
McCain is unlikely to return – and is doing the country a disservice by not resigning because of his health.
Maybe Republicans can pick up a red state democrat.
Regardless, Kavanaugh is going to be a significant election issue.
Republicans are far more likely to be motivated by a SCOTUS nominee than Democrats.
There is conflicting polling information coming out.
Purportedly since 2016 Republicans have gained 10 points among millenials – currently the largest voting cohort. 17 points among white male millenials who are not majority republican. Trumps support among blacks and hispanics has risen 10 pts in each group.
Those things can not easily be concurrently true with the polling supporting a blue wave.
As I understand it overall Trump support is higher than on election day 2016.
But “enthusiasm” is much higher among democrats – hence the blue wave.
In otherwords if democrats vote in large numbers as predicted, and republicans don’t there will be a blue wave. While if either of those is not true there will not.
Scott is leading Nelson in FL.
Currently Republicans are losing in AZ – but the primary is not over.
Heller is a tiny bit behind in CO.
Manchin is up in WV
Baldwin is up in WI
Cramer is beating Hietkamp in ND
Brown is up in OH
Braun us up in IA
McKascil is up in MO
But almost all these are in the margin of error.
Your ilk.
Ilk is a short word. It does not need a long explanation.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ilk
Ah Jay and DDuck, just relax and listen to soothing voices that tell you that trump is nothing special to get uptight about because Obama…. Life will be easier that way… Heaven only knows why you guys can’t just chill out and accept trump, his people, his tweets, his bromance with putin, his strange relationship with facts and the English language…, his hidden finances, his repudiation of all that our intelligence agencies have claimed about Russian interference in our and other country’s elections, his environmental policies, his deficit spending, his war on Canada while finding a common soul in the leaders of Russia and NK, his trade war … If the stock market doesn’t seem to care then how bad can any of this stuff really be? The trump era is all perfectly harmless, really, go back to something more important than being concerned about the present administration… Perhaps a fishing trip.
The proper purpose of TNM is libertarian discussions, you guys are thoughtlessly being a buzz kill.
Do you have an actual argument ?
No one asked you to “accept Trump”
anymore than Republicans were required to “accept Obama” in 2008.
We listened to you claiming for almost a decade that attacks on Obama were racist and unprecidented – despite the fact that they were neither.
Outside the fringes and both parties have some lunatic fringes, Obama was attacked for his policies not his race. He was opposed by republicans using every lawful means at their disposal.
Today with Trump as president we see that the rhetoric of the left – was just that.
The attacks on Trump ARE unprecidented and make those on Obama look tame.
The attack on Trump ARE outside the legitimate lawful means.
No one asked you to “agree with Trump” or to “cease legitimate opposition”
But this “by whatever means necescary” lawless garbage is harming you and the country.
There are 63M of “trump’s” people out there – get a grip. They are not going away.
Yes, we expect that you will find a way to live civilly with them. The rest of us have to live civilly with you.
Trump’s pre-election bromance with Putin was disturbing,
His flip from evil Kim to “dear leader” is disconcerting.
I have no problems with his actions regarding Russia or North Korea so far.
Obama had a “bromance” with himself that was off putting.
We did not elect a messiah.
Trump says he was wiretapped – and damned if he was not wiretapped.
Trump says he was spied on – and damned if he was not spied on.
It is the left that has a strange relationship with the facts.
As was said during the election – Trump voters take him seriously but not litterally.
Most of your claims that Trump is a liar are only true (if at all) litterally.
Most of us can grasp that Trump’s tweets are neither litterally true, nor wrong.
Why is someone else’s finances your business ?
Make a credible allegation of a crime – one that meets the standard of probable cause and you can delve into whatever records that justifies.
Otherwise your desire to know is not an obligation of others.
Can you name a major event or observation fhe the Inteligence agencies since WWII that has been correct ?
Why are we supposed to have faith in the intelligence agencies ?
Have you listened to Brennan and Clapper ?
Why do you trust these people.
At this point we have facts – and those facts are boring.
Russia did very little, had no effect, beyond throwing the left into a tizzy when they lost an election they expected to win and needed a scapegoat.
Russia’s efforts proved incredibly effective – not in tipping the election.
But in driving the left to hysteria.
Get a clue,
The sky is not falling, The silent spring never came, peak oil never happened, the population bomb never exploded, Mathusians have never been right about anything, and never will be.
We have problems, and we have and will continue to solve them – without government, without the EPA. Government serves a purpose – that is primarily to forstall our use of force to resolve our problems, beyond that we have done fine on our own.
Absolutely attack the deficits – I am fully with you – and so is Trump who seriously considered veto’ing the budget.
So lets sit down and make the hard choices.
I am prepared to slash defense spending – knowing that will mean a small increase in the deaths of US soldiers in the future – are you ?
End welfare – all forms, corporate or individual.
It is the job of the state to protect our rights not line our pockets.
We must do that ourselves – rich or poor.
At this point we do not have a trade war.
We have sabre rattling.
I do not like it.
But there are lots of things I do not like I do not control.
Excellent, Anon.. When I send my brain out for annual cleansing of rational thoughts, I will chill.
After all, only a stupid person argues to closed minds, unless he is a sadist like me, or a masochist like Jay. 🙂
Ah, a yearly brain cleansing, I am envious. Where do you get that done? I’d like to have a nice clean thinker myself.
So many seem to opt to have their brains washed daily, its seems a little much…
“Excellent, Anon.. When I send my brain out for annual cleansing of rational thoughts, I will chill.
After all, only a stupid person argues to closed minds, unless he is a sadist like me, or a masochist like Jay”
This is the most bizzare argument I have ever heard.
“Anyone who does what I and Jay do is stupid – except Jay and I” ?
And your rationale is your own sadism and his masochism ?
Is that actually an argument that makes sense to you ?
Have you offered a reason why sadism and masoschism protects you from being labeled stupid ? And while your at it why of all sadists and masochists the argument only applies to your ?
He was being facetiously ironic you idiot
“He was being facetiously ironic you idiot”
So ?
And as always – more ad hominem, no argument.
Anon, I wouldn’t recommend mine (Acme Brain and Fender Cleaning Service), cause the major side effect is a feeling of superiority over people on the other side. So then I need to get an empathy boost shot (Acme Empathy and Waxing service). Then I am in balance. Ommmm.
Your primary need is not empathy it is logic.
You can rely on empathy to whatever extent you want in the decisions you make in your own life about those thing you personally control.
Empathy has no place at all in decisions about the use of force, and involving choices about others and about things you do not personally control.
You may not steal from others for what you believe to be good.
That is a form of slavery.
Inside your own life you can make your decisions however you please.
You pay the consequences or reap the benefits of those decisions.
You can be emotional, and irrational as you choose.
When you make decisions for others without their consent,
to the extent you are even allowed you are required to abandon empathy for third parties, the only empathy you are allowed is for the person you are coercing.
You must make those choices using facts, logic and reason.
Humor does not compute. The wiring is totally fixed and the program is rigidly set. Humor is not a part of it. Humor is not computer logical. However, Dave would never allow the government use force to infringe on your Right to use humor.
Jeez, imagine a life where one understands so little of other people’s thoughts and meanings and everything human has to be reduced to computer logic in an attempt to “get it.” On top of that, Dave’s infallible logical program is defective because it invariably rejects all information that does not match the “logical” outcome that he long ago arrived at. He has never heard trump lie about anything, we are not in a trade war, etc. That is all one needs to understand about a conversation with Dave and how it always turns out. Its a conversation with a misprogrammed computer.
Humor computes perfectly fine.
Irony and sarcasm a extremely difficult to communicate purely in writing.
Further quite often alleged irony and sarcasm is not really irony and sarcasm.
People often say in humor what they really mean.
101010101010
OK, let the debate begin!
“Humor is not computer logical. ”
Who here is the Big One?
Who here is the Big Zero?
I think I’m the Ten😂
You do not have to beleive as I do, but given the years and myriads of times I have addressed such issues, your inability to accurately represent my positions seriously questions your ability to comprehend.
Why would anyone weigh heavily your perception of the thoughts and emotions of others when you can not even accurately repeat what they have said ?
“Jeez, imagine a life where one understands so little of other people’s thoughts and meanings and everything human has to be reduced to computer logic in an attempt to “get it.””
We are all free to contemplate the thoughts and feelings of others or ourselves as we please.
No one is limiting your compasion for others, or your hatred for that matter.
Government which is supposed to be limited and therefore a small part of out lives is constrained to facts, logic, reason. All the layers and nuance of your relations with your wife, your children, your neighbor, your community can be as rich as you want.
What you can not do is make choices about the use of force based on emotion, clairvoyance or your presumptions about the motives of others.
And everything involving govenrment is about the use of force.
“On top of that, Dave’s infallible logical program is defective because it invariably rejects all information that does not match the “logical” outcome that he long ago arrived at. ”
Bzzt, wrong.
I believe the prof. of Media in the clip that Ron provided from Sharyl Attkisson made an incredibly astute observation.
The relationship between the president and the media is highly unusual in this presidency – and the casualty is truth.
The daily scrutiny and parsing of Trump is an order of magnitude greater than any prior president, and the result is the media makes far more errors.
Overall, I have no problem with the media crawling up Trump’s ass.
As I have said repeatedly – they deserve each other.
If you too wish to burrow yourself up Trump’s sphincter – that is your business.
But you should not be surprised when you come out smelling like shit.
If I went full bizerk everything someone lies – I would be wacko all the time – as you are.
I accepted long ago that we are not getting someone of character in the whitehouse.
I am not going to whigg out because Trump’s style of lying is different fromt hat of the Clinton’s or Obama.
If you want to care find a lue of substance, or better still and actual bad act.
I have already noted that I am watching Trade carefully and with trepedation.
I have complained about Trump on Trade long before anyone else here.
Frankly I do not beleive that you are a “free trader”.
I think if Clinton were president and selling tarriffs on china, you would be applauding.
I think your principles vary with who is in power.
That destroys your credibility regarding Trump.
Regardless, Rump may well start a trade war.
When and if he does I will more vigorously attack.
In the meantime he is negotiating, in a way do not like but seems more effective than Obama.
If you want emotion – then lets talk love art, family, talk about anything that does nto involve the use of force.
Everything we talk of here involves government, and therefore force, and therefore must be constrained to fact, logic, reason.
You had better hope that my programming is good,
I have worked on medical centrifuges, the software in preditor drones, the systems that detect nuclear materials at our ports. Gigantic wood chippers that can grind a person to a pulp in seconds.
The pattern of our exchanges is simple – you seek to use force – govenrment, and you justify that using emotion, clairvoyance, and fallacy.
I point out that you are not making valid arguments.
The only good result of Dummy Dave’s rantings is that theyve driven me away from posting here, and ‘listening’ elsewhere – to rejuvenate my senses.
Here’s my latest toe-tapping find: New Zealand Rules! 🙂
This is from the libertarian vindicator – which is NOT a pro Trump site.
It is specifically on Trade.
Mostly it is a evaluation of an interveiw by Kudlow.
It is a pretty good reflection of why I am on the fence about Trump and Trade.
I am absolutely four square opposed to Tarrifs and Trade Barriers.
Which Trump often gets behind.
Kudlow, could be lying – I highly doubt that he has a decades long reputation as a free trader, or he could be being duped by Trump,
So is the goal really absolutely free trade ?
And are Trump’s offensive tactics going to accomplish that ?
I do not know.
To those in the anti-Trump crowd.
Trade could completely blow up in Trump’s face. I do not like the game he is playing. But I can not cast final judgement, because we are not at the end, we may not be at the end of the begining/
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2018/06/29/is-totally-free-trade-on-the-horizon/
“Is that actually an argument that makes sense to you ?”
It’s not an argument. Are you too dense to see the difference. Please don’t answer that, as it also was not an argument.
http://fullmeasure.news/news/full-episodes/full-measure-july-8-2018
This is a very good report on Trump and the media. Should come up from link.
if the first screen is the “Full Measure”,home screen, there will be three small lines at the upper right of the box. Click on that and that will allow you to choose the report you want to watch. Click Trump and the Media.
Too bad this is on at midnight in this area. Guess moderate reporting needs to be hidden😦
Pretty Good.
Attkisson was a center let reporter who was red pilled when she was agressively spied on by the Obama administration.
OK, I got it, Dave is a Russian Bot, and they programmed it to ignore certain things and argue/distort or ignore points and voluminously spew points whether they are germane or not. This kind of a machine has no room for humor, or considers it to be an arguing point.
The newer model HALYEA will include humor, but it is still in testing on mental patients in Siberia.
Facts, logic, reason – not bizarre conspiracy theories.
Are you again joking ? Because it you are serious you are nuts.
If I have distorted something – it should be trivial to prove that.
If I have ignored something relevant – it should be simple to show that.
When I want humor – I will watch a comic.
Steven Colbert and John Oliver are actually funny. I need not agree with them to laugh.
So far your not. The problem is not my lack of humor, it is that blog comments are a difficult venue and you are not good at blog humor. That’s OK I do not think any of us are.
But some of use grasp that.
El Cheapo Trump, for decades: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/trump-s-personal-driver-for-25-years-sues-for-unpaid-overtime
If he has a contract – he must be paid according to it.
If not, the lawsuit should be kicked. Mr. Cintron was free to go elsewhere any time he wanted.
As to El Cheapo – do you pay the highest price for gas ?
If you can buy the same thing for less with not additional effort do you ?
Presuming you every actually hired people – which I beleive you claimed to have done.
Of two equally qualified people did you hire the one asking for the least or the most pay ?
Unless you actually owned the place if you did not hire the least – then your acted unethically, you wasted someone else’s money, you abused their trust.
You do not seem to understand that the way that standard of living rises is to get more value for less.
That includes from chauffeur’s.
If the Chauffeur wanted higher pay he should have:
made himself more valueable and asked.
Breast lover Trump is not so kind to mother’s breasts: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/report-u-s-suppressed-breastfeeding-resolution-shocks-advocates-n889996
You are not free unless you are free to make choices that others do not like.
I do not see how this is the business of government, the UN or WHO.
If you are a women with an infant – make your own choice.
This battle has been going on for decades.
One of the things loons forget is there is not a one size fits all best answer.
Formula did not appear from thin air and women do not buy it rather than breast feed because women are stupid – or is that what you think ?
This is more of the “Oh My God the Russian’s flipped the election” garbage.
You seem to think that advertising is magical.
There is a truism in advertising – people do not buy something they do not want.
You can get them to buy sooner. You can get them to buy your product rather than another,
you can maybe get them to bump from not quite wanting your product enough to buy to wanting it enough to buy. But you can not get somebody to buy something they do not want.
You can not get voters who do not want Trump to vote for him – no matter how many social media adds you run.
You can not get women to buy formula unless they actually want it.
You and these scientists claim that breast milk is better – by what criteria ?
Clearly not that of the mother’s who are buying formula.
Rather than trying to pretend that there is some absolute criteria that is the same for all that produces a single answer, maybe you should consider that women are buying formula because they have determined that for them it is the best choice – possibly because they have factored in reasons that WHO has not.
Like convenience – as just one possibility.
Regardless, if formula producers are actually lying about their products – that is fraud,
The women who are deceived can sue.
Beyond that why is this your business ?
If you are a women breast feeding an infant – then you get to choose for yourself
I am pretty sure you are not.
How many breast fed kids have been separated from their mothers: “Huh, we don’t know”.
https://www.elitedaily.com/p/how-many-migrant-children-are-still-being-detained-the-trump-admin-wont-say-9658327
Change the law, and quit bitching.
Runaround and get sued says Trump: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
Are we recycling ? this is old news. It was written before Trump secured the nomination.
Trump loves those dictators and warms up before Putin by kissing Erdogan’s a___ :
https://www.scribd.com/article/382730748/Trump-Congratulates-Erdogan-On-Election-Victory
Four out of five foul balls. Try better for the last one, or have your mother board replaced.
I have heard the following comment multiple times since Kavanaugh was named to replace Kennedy. “If the republicans can hold all of their members to vote for approval, the the democrats will release their members to vote the way they think best.” This was in discussion concerning democrats running in red state senatorial races.
Is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with parties controlling member votes when they are elected to represent the interest of the people of their state? Are senators and Representatives electec to represent their constituents or their parties?
Sorry, Ron, I don’t know when, or how much, Sens and Reps represented their constituents in the past, but I get the feeling getting elected and reelected are their main goals now, therefore money and he “party” influences seem to have increased. A shame, ’cause the light at the end of the tunnel is the train coming to crush us.
Yep, I am living in the past when elected officials represented their people and states. Hell, Robert Byrd drove millions to West Va. throughout the years without regard to what the party wanted. Blue dog democrats represented their people, right or wrong. In the 60’s, the civil rights act was supported by 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted while less than 70% of Democrats did. That was due to southern democrats voting against the bill. Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster that the southern democrats organized against the bill. Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster. Party politics was secondary to what they believed and what their voters wanted. Past votes for SCOTUS appointments were cast based on qualifications and not politics. In 1986, the senate was 55 democrat, 45 republican. Scalia was confirmed 98-0 with liberals like Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski, Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy all voting to confirm. And they knew exactly what Scalia was. He was not like someone like Souter that was 180 opposite what people thought he was.
I see now why some believe a democracy can only survive 200 years. We are past that timeline, but we are moving in that same direction. Maybe we have 275-300 before we collapse.
I would not presume things were inherently better in the past.
Party control was not weaker, but party ideology was.
A major – though inevitable factor was Nixon’s so called southern strategy – which actually began with Goldwater and had nothing to do with race.
With FDR’s defeat of Hoover the GOP became the conservative party and the democratic party became the progressive party.
Prior to that there were conservative and progressives in bother parties.
The south is conservative (sort of) and it was inevitable that it was going to swing republican once the republican party became more solidly conservative.
It took a long time for the south to turn red – it is not truly finished yet.
From FDR through the present both parties needed the support of both their conservative and progressive elements,
That made the leverage of the party weaker, and it increased the number of issues that did not divide cleanly on party lines.
The swing of the south to the GOP and the shift of the North to democrats,
Reduced the issues that did not divide on party lines, and that has empowered the parties.
It is more than just about getting re-elected.
The parties have a great deal of control over whether any legislation you are involved with sees the light of day, or committee assignments, or all kinds of things that determine whether you will get to even attempt other things your constituents care about.
I have a great deal of problem with Parties leveraging their members.
We elected specific Senators and Representatives,
We elected them based on who they were more than their party.
But this has been going on for 250 years and has to do with far more than SCOTUS appointments
Whoa, it ain’t over until it’s over. It ain’t that bad, I have faith that things will improve.
Well you may think that, but from my perspective when people begin attacking each other physically or making life difficult personally over their political beliefs, then there is not much that stands between democracy and anarchy. Maybe I am senile and do not remember facts, but I don’t remember a time when people camped out in front of politicians homes (McConnell) and made life difficult. We didnt even do that at the height of the Vietnam protest. I dont remember press secretaries that deliver president daily messages being targeted. I dont remember business refusing to sell to people wearing the other parties clothing and I dont remember politicians calling for disrupting the opposition parties followers and staff. I do remember people refusing to sell based on race, so today we have people refusing based on sexual orientation, so that still stands and that is not right.
And I dont remember reputable news outlets doing hatchet jobs on SCOTUS appointments like Huff Post did today on Kavanaugh. They reported he had run up charge card bills of over $200,000 on baseball. That was the jest of the headline. (And most people just read headlines and sound bites, too busy to read and research. If its on the internet its the truth) They also reported that debt can be something the eliminates a candidate for various reasons. After reporting all the bad stuff they then reported that the bill had been paid.. From the article I read, they left out key details to this debt. That there was a group of individuals that wanted season tickets to the Washington nationals baseball games, they wanted the seats together, that Kavanaugh took the order and purchased a number of season seats, was reimbursed by his friends and paid off the bill. Seems like that would be pertinent information to anyone wanting to decide if he were qualified.
Sorry, but the civility or lack of that has been made possible by faceless comments on the internet is leading this country into a time much worse than what we witnessed during the 70’s. With or without Trump, we are closer to a Hamilton-Burr relationship than a Reagan-O’Neill relationship.
The left has been making politics personal for a long time.
Acorn and others who were accusing banks of “redlining” quite often protested in front of bank presidents homes and harrased them.
Remember Occupy Wall Street.
The Tea PArty Marched on the Mall in DC, they had permits, the left the please cleaner than they found it.
OWS just took over parts of wall street and elsewhere in the country.
The left has never had much respect for the rights of others.
Most or all of these things as well as everything you mentioned are “not right” as you said.
But everything that is “not right” that is not moral, should not be illegal.
The purpose of the law is not to “make people be good” it is to punish them for using force to violate the rights of others.
Postitive more conduct and obligations are not the realm of government.
Even negative conduct that does nto involve violence, actual harm or breach of agreement, is not the business of government.
Presumably you no longer Trust that reporter, and probably not the Huffington post.
That is the proper response to misrepresentations.
Most all of Acorn protest were close to banks and other public !ocations.
Wall Street is a public location.
Most all OWS demonstrations were on public locations.
The Mall in DC is a public location.
I do not believe protesting and demonstrating in public locations is disrespectful. Disrespect occurs when personal negative interactions occurs, not nonpersonal demonstrations.
I am not attacking OWS as a protest,.
I am noting differences that are not directly related to ideology.
The mall in DC is more than public space it is actually a government created public forum
Much of the space the OWS protestors occupied was private – meaning not government owned. Business space open to the public is still private space.
You may be asked to leave, and you may be prosecuted for tresspassing if you refuse.
But the tresspassing is only a part fo the difference.
OWS was destructive while the TP protestors left things better than they found them.
So do I.
Freedom is about learning from failure.
If we screw things up, It will be a learning experience.
The US may be in for some very bad times – though I hope not.
But it is not likely to collapse, just change – hopefully for the better after what we have fails.
“Freedom is about learning from failure.”
One mans failure is another mans success.
Freedom to one is different than freedom to another.
“One mans failure is another mans success.
Freedom to one is different than freedom to another.”
Often true.
There is only on form of failure to fear – and even that we will recover from had hopefully learn. Though it would be nice if we could learn from history instead of repeating kistakes.
The most dangerous form of failure is systemic failure.
That occurs when nearly everyone is making the same error,
and that pretty much only occurs when government has taken a position.
The housing crisis and the subsequent financial crisis is an example.
More people choosing to buy homes is a good thing.
But when the increase in demand is cause artificially – you will get a boom and a destructive bust.
Government no only incentivized housing, but it in myriads of ways propped up the boom allowing it to grow larger and larger and therefore more devastating when it burst.
My wifes brother in law was a president of a savings and loan association in eastern NC in the 90’s and 00’s. He said early on that the government requirement where your mortgage loan portfolio had to mirror your loan market demographics was going to cause a huge problem in mortgages since many markets had demographics unable to support the loan requirements. That produced all the mortgages that ended up causing the bust since the demographics did jot match income and loan needs.
And then no one in government told that was the problem. It was everything else that was the boogie man
Any rule government can come up with can be gamed.
In the unlikely event such a rule can not be gamed, that just makes it more dangerous.
As an example if the government requires your loan portfolio to match your demographics – then change your demographics. Close banks in poor areas and open new branches in rich ones.
Or the other choice – write mortgages and sell the ones you are worried about.
In the 60’s banks owned the mortgages they wrote.
The CRA slowly drove banks to sell more and more of their mortgages.
One of the mechanisms of the financial crisis was that banks wrote and sold mortgages.
Those mortages were then gathered, grouped and shares of the group were sold – often back to the same banks.
This is an over simplification of the securitization process.
The good news is that actually does distribute risk.
The bad news is that it makes the entire financial system capable of absorbing much much more risk.
Distruibuting risk lowers individual risk. it does NOT lower agregate or systemic risk.
Well Dave, you keep telling us how great it is to have cheap goods to buy and how it is beneficial for China to have chits for American debt. I keep commenting how crappy Chinese s#$t is and how frustrating bad products are.
So I need a tap to retread a pulley for a set screw to hold the pulley firm to a shaft. I look for something not made in China (,like you say we have choices) and cant find any. So I head to Home Depot and buy a DeWalt tap. Name brand, people say they are good.I get the tap in and begin to back out for the last time and the damn thing shatters. Tap broke even with housing on pulley. So not only did I get to drive 10 miles back to the store to get money back, I now have to find a machine shop to remove the broken tap as the pulley is unique to the wood planer it came off from. Probably another $25 or so to get that done.
So take your “its good to have Chinese shi% to buy” thinking and stick it up a Chinamen’s ass
because there is nothing good about crap they send to this country!
Or maybe its just me getting every last one of their defective products😤😤😤😤
Anything that creates more value for less cost improves standard of living.
With respect to US Debt – actually yes, it is good that China is buying it.
Someone must buy it, and the more competition the lower interest rate on the debt will be.
We should reduce the debt – but that is our error not china’s.
Our debt to china does nto give China any leverage over us.
There is a truism
If you owe a bank a million dollars, they have you by the balls.
If you owe a bank a billion dollars, you have them by the balls.
The only thing China can do to us with regard to our debt is choose not to buy it.
Someone else will, but we might have to pay a higher interest rate.
China buying our debt benefits us.
As to your anecdote – you had a choice – and you made it.
You bought a name brand Tap from Home Depot and it failed you.
I would have bought and unbranded tap from Ali-Express. It would have cost less than $1, it would have taken two weeks to arrive – if I needed it immediately I would have gone to Home Depot like you and paid more.
Maybe my Ali Tap would have shattered – maybe not. Mostly I do not buy tools from Home Depot or china. Mostly I buy them at auction where I get boxes for $1.
But I do buy alot of stuff directly from China – when I can afford the shipping time.
Once in a while I am disappointed by the quality – but I am paying 1/10 what I would pay locally.. Almost all the time I have no problem with quality.
In fact I have bought some things where the quality surprised me.
Still in the end my defense of china is beside the point.
China will either produce goods that we are prepared to buy at prices we are prepared to pay – or we will not buy from them. +
I do nto get to decide what you should accept or pay for what you want.
You do not get to decide the same for me.
So long as the market is free – we each chose as we please.
As things are we buy a significant amount from China, and we do so at far lower cost than if it was made here.
That by definition means we are better off.
“Anything that creates more value for less cost improves standard of living.”
You keep telling me this every time I say something negative about junk from China.
How is it more value when something breaks and creates additional cost for repair?
How is it more value when light bulbs last 1/3 the time of the bulbs when made in USA, but in todays money compared to the moneys value previously, cost the same or more?
And I can list any number of items that fail, can not be repaired, but will only ask…
How is it more value when you spend money, the item fails or last 1/4 of the time the one that costed twice as much and you have to buy another one ?
I understand completely the economics of less cost, more value, but only when the life of the product last about the same time as a more expensive product.
If an item cost a $1.00 and last a year, does an item that costs 50 cents, but last 3 months and is replaced when it fails add value? You feel great because you saved 50% on the first purchase, but is that value?
Cheap $=!) only adds value when used to clean sewer pipes!
Value is subjective.
You are free to discount the value of what you report as Cheap Chinese products and elevate the value of US made goods.
But ultimately the value is determined by consumers in their choices.
The fact that “Cheap” chinese goods thrive while more expensive US wqualivalents do not
mean that consumers have made tbheir value determination – differently from yorus.
I can objectively argue for the value of “cheap” chinese goods, but my argument does not matter, the decisions has been made, is tiny part by you and I but mostly by all other consumers.
We buy an enormous amount for China. N/o one held a gun to our head.
US producers were never precluded from producing “cheap” goods at lower prices.
We picked what we valued the most.
I would separately note that my experince is not the same as yours.
Yes sometimes I have been disappointed by “cheap” chinese goods.
And sometimes by expensive US goods.
But overall neither I nor consumers as a whole have found the chinese goods to be worth less than they cost.
Absolutely many modern products fail and can not be repaired.
That is driven by economics.
A $!2 toaster in 1965 was 6+ hours of MW work. Today it is 2.
If you have to take the Toaster to someone to be repaired – you are already behind just in driving time, much less the labor to fix even simple problems.
Further not making products repairable lowers cost and sometimes improves reliability.
“If an item cost a $1.00 and last a year, does an item that costs 50 cents, but last 3 months and is replaced when it fails add value? You feel great because you saved 50% on the first purchase, but is that value?”
There is a mathematics of the time value of money that answers this question.
But the best answer is from human behavior – do people buy the lower cost product or not.
If they do, then your question is answered – the cheaper good that does nto last long is more valued.
Of course your hypothetical is just that – manufactured.
In the real world the $1 product could last a year and the .50 one 9months.
Or some other arrangement.
What matters is the choices people make.
What is most valueable is what people chose – by definition.
Testing
I’m still here. Maybe we have exhausted all our arguments for current issues if thats possible.
Ok, I can dig that.
dduck meant to ask and forgot. Have you been to that other “moderate” site since this afternoon and if so are they going as apoplectic like all the politicians except the libertarians ( seems like anyway) over Trumps Russian meeting. Even Richard Burr has commented negatively to the outcome and he is one that usually holds back on making public comments since he is on the intelligence committee.
We are also embroiled in our own little GOP revolt in our liberal bastion of Charlotte. GOP is considering 2020 convention in Charlotte and city council meetings have had numerous speakers talking about stopping the convention for all the reasons one hears daily about Trump.Guess they figure Trump will be the nominee. With the way the GOP members are speaking out, I would not bet money on that right now.
Yeah, sorta, just like everywhere else.
I won’t go into the details of the two presidents performances at this time.
My main complaint is against the media questions which were too few anyway.
If you know what they will say before you ask a question, why bother, except to follow your boss’s instructions.
Instead of the usual interference and who to you believe questions, they should have asked about the Ukraine and Crimea and Nuclear Arms limitations (#1) and then maybe a possible Iran pushback deal (probably more lies though).
They both lie so why not the more important issues instead of the already stated positions that are well dug in and known.
Even asking if Russia poisons people would be a waste of time.
This was a total waste of valuable time, IMHO and a disgraceful performance by our president and a good performance by the Russian.
Well I agree on all your thoughts. That is why I truly believe there is going to be a viable candidate challenge Trump for the nomination and if there is only one that could be someone that could likely have a good chance of capturing the nomination. Even Newt Gingrich said this was his biggest mistake yet. And Newt is one of Trumps allies.
I don’t think I have ever been torn between two extremes like I have been since Bush 43. How different we would be had people believed Romney when he said Russia was our number one geopolitical enemy. Ronald Reagan must have rolled over multiple times after that meeting was made public.
But now we get what the minority of the voters vote for in the primaries and then we have to choose between crap for candidates. I would like to see it go back to smoke filled back rooms picking the candidates. Maybe then we would have had someone other than Trump running against Clinton. I suspect had it been that way in 2008, Clinton would have been elected president in 2008 since Obama would never have been nominated and many things would be considerably different today. Not sure what, but I suspect Trump would not have been nominated.
No so sure about Trump not being nominated. Don’t forget, and I didn’t even think of it at the time, that one out of five people voted for Trump because he would fill the SC to the conservatives liking. So, couple that with his appeal to the down and out deplorables, they may have selected him. All speculation, we are now here in the mess.
But, I’m wondering, now that the court is tilted, maybe it is not as important to reelect him and maybe a Romney could sneak in past the heavy righties.
And on the other side, I like Biden, but he is too old and I can’t stand Warren.
Well you know we cant agree on everything, but I think any of the other candidates for the GOP nomination would have picked judges that ruled on the words of the law and constitution and not made up the law as they thought fit their agenda. This BS that a fine as stated in the ACA was a tax was total political activism as are the judges that refuse to enforce immigration laws. Laws are written for a reason and words mean what they say, not what one wants them to say. If the laws are outdated or they do not fit with the politics of the day, then the legislative branch of government has the responsibility to change the law to fit their political agenda. It is not the responsibility for the judiciary to make law like Roberts did with the ACA.
I agree totally about Warren. Biden was fine in the 90’s, but he has shown his real colors. Positions to fit the political parties agenda, not driving the positions. He moved way too far left after he become VP. Clinton is moderate enough to bring back the middle, but damn she is a total bitch, right up their with Trump being a total insane asshole bastard. Looking at this list makes me wonder WTF is wrong with our country when we get incompetent or ancient politicians leading candidates for president.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/The-top-15-Democratic-presidential-candidates-for-13054782.php
I am still a Manchin (D) or Kasich(R) type candidate voter. But someone like Manchin who is willing to tell Shumer to kiss his backside would never get the support of his party.
dd;
Trump is running in 2020, no Republican is running against him,
And he will handily defeat any democrat who runs against him.
Every day we hear the claim that he is going to implode, that the latest outrage is just too far, or that Mueller is going to indict him on Friday.
Anything is possible but more Trump is what is likely.
Ah, the Russian Bot is back.
“Ah, the Russian Bot is back.”
Not an argument.
What exactly has changed? The president is a headstrong jackass and a traitor not via cunning but via bungling idiocy. We knew that. He did not do anything new this week. Its just fine with GOP voters. So, its the new standard for America. What exactly did he just do that is new to him? Nothing at all.
The sad thing is that it really Would be a great thing if the US and Russia could have a good productive relationship. This does not seem to me to be the path to it. Someday conservatives and republicans will revert to their previous view of people like putin and assange and meanwhile democrats and liberals now hold the views that conservatives have forsaken because Obama… It will all come around, I am afraid, to even worse relations with a Russian government that is even more threatening to their region and larger areas.
I note that a majority of GOP voters were polled to believe that the separation of families was the fault of democrats in congress. I am sure the same people still believe that trump is uniting the country. I don’t think democrats, liberals and progressives are any wiser, believe me. Libertarians are the thong-wearing libertarian-convention disco dancers we have established that they are.
So, this is what the era just before a collapse looks like.
Have a nice day.
These are incredibly divisive times. Look at the Republican in congress to see how this is playing out. Look at the support Trump has and you will find the working blue collar workers and families are still behind him. They are given a choice between supporting a president that is willing to take on large business making billions importing goods from foreign countries and running up huge trade deficits or supporting politicians that have sold American jobs down the drain so big business can make billions. ( ie Apple making phones in China compared to America). They have a choice between politicians that have allowed hispanics to come to this country illegally or supporting someone who enforces the law.
When you have these choices, and others where some voters are completely fed up with the working class supporting others that refuse to help themselves, blame “whitey” for all their problems, blame the police for shooting armed criminals and blame government for ignoring them while benefitting others, it is no wonder there are so many who could care less that others consider them deplorables. It is their way of saying they are offended by the current state of politics in America and they did something about it. They picked the most offensive and disgusting individual they could find, got him nominated and elected. And they continue to support that individual as long as they remain offended by the actions of the two political parties.
Grump had a point – on the surface everything is insanity.
But beneath the insanity things are not all that bad.
If you tune out the latest rhetorical outrage most things are actually going pretty well.
I am one that has given Trump the benefit of the doubt. I have said many times I don’t like the way Mueller is investigating the issues with Russia. I still don’t. But when a president denigrates the intelligence services in this country, I begin to ask the same questions that many on the left have asked for months. What does Russia have on Trump to make him act as he is acting. I don’t support the Services completely, since I believe they may be snooping on citizens illegally, but they are not the bumbling idiots Trump thinks they are.
How can our allies have confidence in the intelligence we provide when our president does not believe what they are saying? It does no good for Trump to say a day after he said what he meant that he misspoke. That is bull crap! He did not misspeak and everyone knows it. He said what he meant to say.
The constitution is designed to have a president with weak legislative powers. That is reserved for congress. The one thing that Trump has constitutional responsibility and powers is foreign affairs. He is failing miserably in this respect! What seems to be favorable outcomes is all smoke and mirrors. What is coming to light with our European allies and Russia is firm. His policies stink at the least, and driven by Russia at worst.
And I am not a open borders individual when it comes to trade. You know that. I have said many times china is screwing us, and that NAFTA needs to be changed, but to slap tariffs on stuff from all countries is trade stupidity. American companies may not be able to compete with China due to their poverty level(compared to USA) of wage and the fact they slap tariffs on products while we do not, but how can the EU have an advantage in costs in the production of steel and aluminum? Their cost of living is just as high if not higher than ours and their wages are close to our level.
Yes, Trump has done a couple good things. SCOTUS appointments of constitutionalist and deregulation. Other than that, most everything else was done by congress or would have happened with any GOP president.
Ron;
I have zero problem “denegrating” the intelligence services of this country.
Can you name a single major issue that they have been right about in your lifetime ?
Why are the intelligence services sacred – the F;d up 9/11, Anthrax, Iraq, Iran, …….
Do I think that Russia dicked with our election – yea, the same as they always have, no more no less, and not ever close to what we do throughout the world.
Do I think there are some things we should do – like getting rid of computer voting machines, and protecting voter registrations – absolutely.
At the same time anyone arguing that Russia has done anything unusual or anything that altered the election is an idiot.
We have several former heads of US intelligence services that have proven themselves perjurers, liars and ludicrously partisan.
The fish rots from the head.
No I do not trust the US intelligence community.
This is not a binary choice where you must pick Putin or the US IC.
It is perfectly legitimate to be worried about both.
“If you tune out the latest rhetorical outrage most things are actually going pretty well.”
That is a bizarre statement. We will let history be the judge of how well they are going. Some very large things are NOT going very well, even some very large things in which they are going completely against the grain of everything you have said on the subjects, of say, immigration, trade, treatment of women.
Watching people throw most of their values out the window because trump did some things they approve of has been a wierd, weird, and disturbing/disgusting sight.
“Watching people throw most of their values out the window because trump did some things they approve of has been a wierd, weird, and disturbing/disgusting sight.”
I would ask if you believe all the people that voted for Clinton support abortion? Do all the people that voted for Clinton believe it is fine for people to break the law and enter this country illegally? Do all those that voted for Clinton believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be removed? Do all the voters that voted for Clinton believe all the illegals in this country should be made legal? Do all the democrats that voted for Clinton believe in climate change and we need to take steps to force higher cost on Americans when China and India are free to continue in their current paths of pollution?
Or are there people in both parties that held their noses and voted for the least worst candidate they thought running?
“That is a bizarre statement. ”
Not only isn’t it, but it is a reasonable assessment of parts of your diatribe.
“We will let history be the judge of how well they are going.”
It will be. History starts with the present. And we are the judges.
“Some very large things are NOT going very well”
On net things are better than the prior 8 years.
Well is relative. Almost everything could be better.
There is little I would prefer to have back of the Obama Years.
“even some very large things in which they are going completely against the grain of everything you have said on the subjects, of say, immigration, trade, treatment of women.”
Yep.
Everyone i wrong on immigration. If I do not get my choice – and I am not,
Trump is close to the next best thing.
I would like to see more of a public dialog.
I think there is common ground that covers 80% of the country.
The impediment to progress on immigration is on the left.
Trade, Much of what Trump says on trade is garbage. I am focussed on what he is doing.
So far he has done many things in Trade I think are wrong. But none are seriously wrong.
i.e. they are mistakes but they remain small.
Trump’s attitude towards women sucks, as does BOTH of the clintons, and half of congress. I did not vote for him Primarily because of his issues with women.
He still won the election – as did Bill Clinton.
“Watching people throw most of their values out the window because trump did some things they approve of has been a wierd, weird, and disturbing/disgusting sight.”
Some people are throwing their values out. The left has flipped on issues that were important to them – just to oppose Trump.
But overall your conclusion is garbage.
I expect little on immigration. Trump is atleast following the law.
I have asked my congress critters to change the law.
I want Trump to follow the law on everything – even laws I do not like.
One of the things I like about him is that he follows the law.
That means if the la is changed he will continue to follow the law.
I actually have hope on Trade. I do not like the way Trump negotiates.
Then objective still appears to be free trade. I support that.
I worry that in playing global chicken we will end up with a trade war.
We have not yet.
“I don’t support the Services completely, since I believe they may be snooping on citizens illegally, but they are not the bumbling idiots Trump thinks they are.
How can our allies have confidence in the intelligence we provide when our president does not believe what they are saying?”
And etc. Bravo to your entire comment. I 100% agree with every word. trump’s entire foreign policy is exactly the mess a shallow uninformed egomaniac would produce. Hey, how about the upcoming annual trump memorial military parade? If Russia, NK, China, and I don’t know how many other authoritarian nations can have a military parade why should we abstain? Lets just lose ourselves completely.
I do not see what it was that trump just did that was different from what he has done since the election. Why are people only seeing this now? I just truly do not get that aspect of this. But I am glad that for whatever reason some people are now seeing his actions for what they are.
While conservatives are pillaging our intelligence agencies as if they were channeling the opinions of 60’s left-wing radical activists, what exactly do they think will be left after they have torn everything down? Ann Coulter apparently is now calling for the FBI to be abolished. What a great Abby Hoffman she is becoming. How many more conservatives will follow? The kind of circus that trump is leading is based on always having to do something even more outrageous to keep the audience engaged. How far will it lead before enough of the participants reconsider what they have been led to?
I have been appalled and, honestly, scared, from day 1 of this disaster, it has seemed very clear that this is an unprecedented reversal of gravity regarding putin and the Russian expansive and controlling foreign policy since WWII ended in general. It seemed very clear from the beginning of trumps campaign that foreign policy was going to be trumps most dangerous arena to be an incompetent (lying, posturing, undignifying, etc.) POTUS. I cannot fathom the fact that, no matter what was irritating them, more conservatives/GOP voters did not choose to reject trump on the basis that he is not qualified to be president, not by disposition, not by knowledge, and not by experience.
Well i am not defending conservatives, Trump or the sometime voter that decided they wanted to vote for a reality star with this comment.
Rasmussen Polling shows only 31% of those polled strongly approving of Trumps performance today. Those are the voters that would approve of Mussolini being president if he were a Republican. They would approve of anyone. They are the polar opposite of the 30% or so of progressives that approve of illegal immigration, activist judges, high gas taxes to control gasoline usage, EPA rules that severely limit private property owners land usage, wasted tax payer moneys for bullet trains from nowhere to nowhere and a national minimum wage where a minimum wage should be set on MSA cost of living levels(ie $20 in california, $10 in Birmingham Alabama).
What I am saying is you can not fix stupid. There is stupid on both sides. The way you counter stupid is for the moderate left and moderate right to coalesce behind a candidate and elect that individual on one of the parties label.
But that wont happen. Stupid will prevail. You thought there were two bad candidates in 2016? If Trump runs, you ain’t seen anything until 2020.
The way to fix stupid is to quit beleiveing that the government is the solution to every perceived problem.
The IC has been bumbling idiots long before Trump.
I have been critical of them long before Trump.
No they should not be spying on us. But their problems are deeper than that.
They are Biased, that is not new.
They are bumbling idiots, that is not new.
“How can our allies have confidence in the intelligence we provide when our president does not believe what they are saying?”
They can’t, and they shouldn’t and that has nothing to do with Trump.
Nor are their Services any better.
I am not prepared to give an overall assessment of Trump on foreign policy.
There is too much that has not played out.
But I am fully prepared to say it is far better than Obama’s.
F’ing up with a silky tongue is not good foreign policy.
Clinton was pretty bad. Bush was atleast as bad possibly worse.
Obama was worse than Bush.
It would be hard for Trump to be worse than Obama.
Thus far he has been better than his prior three predecessors.
But he could still end up worse or better.
“Why are people only seeing this now?”
There not. Trump’s approval is higher than when he got elected.
Not a Coulter fan. But I have no problem with eliminating the FBI.
Why are democrats defending government agncies that they have loather for decades ?
As opposed to election meddling, Russian expansionism is a real threat.
Unfortunately one we might have little we can do about.
Rather that attack everyone else – what would you do about Russia ? China ? Iran ? NK ?
Syria ?
We all got it that you do not like the way Trump speaks.
But you are fixating on the verbal attrocities and pretending that words speak louder than actions.
“Or are there people in both parties that held their noses and voted for the least worst candidate they thought running?”
Its a good question. I am not speaking about people who made a different binary choice than I did on election day. I am talking about the people who are twisting themselves into pretzels now, today, to try to justify actions that were previously exactly the opposite of what they claimed to believe. I am talking about the loud impervious rationalizers, POST-election who are still finding an excuse and an explanation for trumps actions that go against the grain of what I would have thought were once solid conservative beliefs. Not to mention that they are mostly the parts of the conservative beliefs that I had actually respected.
Your own excellent post this morning, calling a spade a spade on trumps foreign policy, is an example of what I wish more of those would come to who have, in a queasy and reluctant manner, “trump was the best of the bad choices” etc., tried to see the positive in trump.
trump in charge of foreign policy is a remarkable event, a game changing event, an event that to my mind should not have ever been allowed to happen by responsible people of any party. Only, there seem to be so few actually responsible, level headed people who are part of or support one of the political parties.
“I am talking about the people who are twisting themselves into pretzels now, today, to try to justify actions that were previously exactly the opposite of what they claimed to believe. ”
That is right ACTIONS – not WORDS.
What IS Trump’s foreign Policy that so offends you ?
Not what has he said, but what is he doing or trying to do, that offends you.
Should be not be trying to get the rest of NATO to pay for more of their own defense ?
Should we not be trying to solve the problem of a Nuclear Korea ?
Should we not be seeking Russia’s help on Iran, Syria, China NK …. ?
What is Trump DOING wrong regarding Foreign Policy ?
Brilliant!!!
Insult absolutely everyone.
Construe everything in the most bizarre possible way.
Aparrently idio-traitor Trump is going to restore peace and brotherhood and save the world,
Democrats will become republicans and republicans democrats, and all will end in some ironic cosmic dance.
“Insult absolutely everyone.”
Well, no I didn’t, I merely insulted those who are true believers in the 2 major political cults in America along with the members of that other smaller libertarian cult. Lots of us do not belong to any of those three mindless cults and I did not insult them. I am so sorry Dave, had I merely insulted liberals and conservatives, you would have been happy to join me with the liberals and some conservatives, but throwing in libertarians, well, that was just too much. Cry me a river.
The rest of your comment is some kind of inscrutable word soup with no obvious connection to what I said.
Here is a pretty good video by Prof. Haidt on Libertarians. It also covers the left and right.
It is also about the relationship between ideology and moral foundations.
You can go to yourmorals.org and test your own moral foundations and see where you fit into the world.
I would recommend this because you seem to think that everyone who does not share your views is a member of a cult. By your use – you are just a member of a different – possibly smaller cult. Though I would be shocked if you did not fit well into one of the “big three” regardless of your protestations to the contrary.
Real cults have attributes – one of those is the elevation faith over reason. That is about as anti-libertarian as you can get. Not merely anti-libertarain because of the value that libertarains put on reason, but because libertarians are objectively better at reason.
I do not care who you “insult” – that is a very ineffective way to make an argument.
I do not find faux moderates who think that by pissing over everyone else they somehow elevate themselves slightly interesting.
I doubt that you fall into an unusaul part of the political spectrum – regardless of your protestations, but if you do – you are as much a cult as those you crap over.
Regardless, rather than an ideology of insult – stand FOR something. rather than against.
Make an argument rather than praying ad hominem.
I have more respect for progressives that will actually argue their values, than those who just piss on others, without making any argument.s
“The rest of your comment is some kind of inscrutable word soup with no obvious connection to what I said.”
Is everything about you ?
Is no one permitted to make the points they wish to make ?
Yes Dave, I do think a lot of people are members of a political cult. Members of my own family have been seduced into the Bernie cult. One can be a member of a party without me considering them as a cult member, but once they have given their mind over and are no longer likely to think of any political situation outside of the framework of the “mother ship” I consider them to be cult members, lost to reason. You may understand this if I use Bernieism as an example. What Bernie has to sell has no more sense to it than scientology, its as absurd and it requires shutting ones mind to reality and losing interest in counter explanations of why thing s work the way they do.
Now do you understand my use fo the word cult? Certainly nearly everyone I know in Russia is a member of the putin cult, run by the putin media. Now do you understand?
It works just as well for republicans, the parties are cults that capture people’s minds. Not everybody’s but the true believers, the base. Those are cult members. Its not even an insult, its an explanation of those who are nearly lost to the possibility of opening their minds on political issues.
These are not stupid people in most cases. But they appear to be stupid on the subject of politics because they have been mesmerized. They can be quite intelligent in areas where they have not been brainwashed.
I have no idea what “given their mind over” means.
The majority of people are poor at logic and reason. You are not better at that than the norms.
I do not find your views and what little argument you make any better than those you think are members of a cult. Just because you can lump them together does not make you any better. How is being different from many others while equally wrong make them a cult and you not.
Frankly I do not see your expressions as divergent from those of the “mother ship”.
Wow, you think Bernie is an idiot – that is self evident.
There is probably only 1 GOP candidate that I would not have prefered over Trump.
But we got Trump.
Democrats did worse – giving us a choice between an idiot and a crook.
I do not like listening to Trump. Nor do I like listening to idiots talking about whatever Trump said last.
You quite properly attacked the hysteria and manufactured outrage in a prior post.
Focus on what is actually happening.
I support Trump’s regulatory reform. I wish he would go much father.
I support his efforts to shrink government – I wish he had no expanded military spending.
I support the fact that on many things – such as immigration and ACA he is following the law – even if I do not like the law. We can fix bad law, we can not fix a lawless president.
I am angry about immigration – but mostly at democrats, and to a lessor extent republican congressmen. I can not get what I want, regarding immigration, but we can improve on what we have and I am prepared to build walls and add judges and agents to get other things.
I support the tax cuts. I do not support the budge that was passed and Republicans should be held accountable for it. But how do we do that when Democrats are worse.
Grump, I have made this comment many times, but will make it in a different way. The Democrats were given Clinton by the party aristocrats. There was no way Bernie was going to overcome super delegate benefits. Trump was given to republican voters by 24% of Iowa voters, 35% of New Hampshire voters, 32% of South Carolina voters, 35% of Virginia voters and even after it was apparent Trump could not be stopped, only 40% of super Tuesday voters. That means that when the choosing of a candidate occurs in the first three weeks of the primary season, there was about 68% of the GOP voters that did not want Trump.
The only thing that is apparent with this picture to me is our electoral system, although the best, is totally screwed up. How can two completely different systems, one controlled by the party and one controlled by the voters give us two totally useless, incompetent presidential candidates?
The only thing that is apparent with this picture to me is our electoral system, although the best, is totally screwed up. How can two completely different systems, one controlled by the party and one controlled by the voters give us two totally useless, incompetent presidential candidates?”
No argument from me Ron.
Me too, Ron.
I am not happy with the choices from 2016.
IF you wish to discuss a batter approach I will listen.
But I have not heard one.
Replacing what we have with something worse is not an improvement.
Two things I would like to see is:
1. Closed primaries. I want Democrats picking their candidate and Republicans picking their candidate. If your unaffiliated, too bad, make a decision!
2. Four regional primaries.(or one big national primary in April) 1/4 of the states would be from the west, 1/4 from the south/ 1/4 from the midwest and 1/4 from the east in each primary. No more 4-5 states determining the front runner. After Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all but 3-4 candidates eliminated since money dried up. Had this been in place, would Trump survived in 2016? No more states from a region or a couple states having undue influence on who people can vote for.
And the primaries would be bi weekly so by the end of April everything is done.
First I would commend you for suggesting changes.
Why do you think your proposed changes are an improvement rather than making things worse ?
That question is not specific to your suggestions. Anyone proposing change must demonstrate that whatever changes they propose will make things better.
Presumably your changes are intended to improve things.
But what are the unintended consequences likely to be.
As an example closed primaries empower the two political parties. Was that your intention ?
Your schedule changes inherently means candidates get less thoroughly vetted.
All changes have both good and bad effects. Why are those you want to do on net an actual imptovement ?
Quite often fixing one problem creates others.
Again thank you for atleast putting out some potential changes.
Just remember that getting things right is actually hard. so we should move slow and think alot before moving forward.
First, you said “Anyone proposing change must demonstrate that whatever changes they propose will make things better.” I told you why I was proposing those suggestions.nThats what happens when one ask. One responds. So you now ask more questions, I will respond. Dont know what your meetings are like when searching for new and improved methods, but thats how most of the meeting I attended operated unless it was one like Obama had asking for suggestions and when they were given, he said he was president and the election was over.
So you asked “As an example closed primaries empower the two political parties. Was that your intention ?” Exactly! Trump won more primary votes than any other candidate other than two. Goldwater was one of those. But Kasich, Cruz and one other had total votes more than Trump when added together. It has been reported that up to 30% of democrats voted in the GOP primaries and voted for Trump. That is why this primary season resulted in the highest number of votes and a candidate that was truely a RINO.
“Your schedule changes inherently means candidates get less thoroughly vetted” You bet, but why should Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina cause reduced funding to candidates that Texas, California or Illinois might prefer. Did we not end up with the worst GOP candidate possible because the money dried up for the other more quaified? And did we not still end up with a candidate with the worst personal record. What good did vetting do when the democrats voted for Trump and there was no money to continue campaigning by the other candidates? If I want a certain candidate, but that candidate is eliminated in the first three primaries, thenbI have to get on the gand wagon for someone else or not vote at all.
So my objectives with these suggestions are:
1. Republicans choose their candidate, Democrats choose their candidate.
2. All parts of the country have equal input into the candidates viability as the nominee.
3. Elimination of “band wagon” voting so voters are voting for their first choice.
but if a process is giving us Trump, it sure as hell is not working and something else needs to take place.
I am not attacking you. You made real concrete proposals.
But I am trying to discuss the process – the next step etc.
Yes, you stated why you proposed something.
That is NOT the same as justification.
Most of us agree that our immigration system has problems – that is “Why” we propose whatever each of us proposes.
After why comes proposals such as your for what we should do.
At that point we are still just at the start.
If we are preparing to have govenrment act – that is the use of force.
We do not and can not use force willy nilly.
The first but not only aspect of justifying the use of force is demonstrating that what we propose to do will actually have the effect we claim and that it will not have unintended effects that are worse.
That is essentially a cost benefit analysis or using philosophical/economic terms we must prove that what we want to do has utility, that it actually produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It is not sufficient that we beleive that will be the case.
We must know that the result will be net positive to a high degree of certainty.
Past that we get into questions of morality. everything that has net positive results is not moral. Further depending on the value system you take into a cost benefit analysis you can get different results. The Nazi’s value system allowed them to determine that genocide was on the net good. You can not disprove that without rejecting their values.
So not only must something pass cost benefit analysis it must also not be an immoral use of force.
Next what you propose must be efficient. It must be the least negative way to accomplish your goal.
It is wise to justify anything you wish to do as I propose above.
It is only mandatory if you are going to use force.
“If we are preparing to have govenrment act – that is the use of force.”
with my proposals, I am not suggesting government make any changes. I am proposing that the two major parties take these changes to the state election officials and tell the state that these are the conditions that they will conduct a primary in those states and if they do not, then the state delegates will not be recognized at the convention. Or, only one party if both do not agree.
Force? Yes. Government? No. The parties would be forcing the state governments to follow their needs and not the other way around.
right now there is some asinine historical precedent that Iowa always goes first, New Hampshire is next etc, etc. That was fine years ago. Not now.
BUT! if I had only one thing that they would accept, I would asked for closed primaries. As a registered Republican, I want Republicans choosing the next candidate, not democrats that cross over.
In the context of government and law words must be used carefully and precisely.
In individual or party making a demand of the state is not “force”.
It is a demand for the government to use force.
Your argument just exposes the reason that the means by which parties select their candidates are not the business of govenrment.
Parties should not need to “force” the state to permit them to do, what the state never should have been allowed to control.
With respect to conducting primaries. The order – even the existance of primaries is the business of the parties.
If you restrict government to the general election, and require rules for participation that are neutral – having noting to do with parties. you will substantially diminish the power of parties.
If you get government out of primaries, I would expect you will get closed primaries – because there is no more reason for republicans to allow democrats to vote in a republican primary, than for episcopals to allow Hare Krishna’s to vote in church elections.
With respect to primaries.
It is the states business who can run for an office. They should have rules for that, and those rules should have nothing to do with political parties.
I do not think states should have any role in choosing the candidate that represents a give party.
As an example – set the qualification to get onto the ballot as getting signatures of 2% of the total number of people who voted for that office in the last election.
Something like that is a common ballot standard – BUT most states have different(weaker) rules for the candidate from a recognized political party
They should not.
Conversely how primaries are run is the business of the party not the sate.
Whether we are talking about primaries or general elections one other approach that I think actually accomplishes the objective you have is ranked choice voting.
Rather than voting for on candate from a list rank each candidate in order of preference from high to low.
Then sum the votes and the candidate with the highest score wins.
To be clear I am not pushing ranked choice voting. it too has flaws and features.
But I am noting that it best accomplishes your stated goals.
Lots of things have been reported – some are even True.
I do not think that government should have anything to do with primaries.
And if Republicans want to let democrats vote in republican primaries – that is their business.
Well as a registered Republican I have a choice, I can remain a Republican and asked the Republican party to change or I can register as an independent and either not vote in the primary or choose which party to support in the primary.
Maybe I will do that and vote for someone as out of the main line Democrat party as the democrats did in supporting Trump. How about Jerry Brown. Thats a good choice.
Just to be clear many of my responses to your proposal are NOT attacks.
I am just noting that there are other consequences.
You seem to be ok with those other effects – that is fine – but we still need to recognize that those effects exist and everyone may not share your view that those other effects are inconsequential.
A further part of my point is that government is HARD, it is supposed to be.
What is sufficient to act in your own life is NOT when your choices strongly effect others.
I do not have a problem with your objectives, but others have different objectives and I may not have a problem with those either.
“but if a process is giving us Trump, it sure as hell is not working and something else needs to take place.”
I do not inherently agree. I would have prefered others besides Trump.
But I do not presume there is a right choice or a best choice.
Further I am more interested in the rules for government than who is the ruler.
I am not a fan of democracy.
I probably have a preference for representative government.
But as an example I think we could take the existing constitution and write a heridatry king into it as the cheif executive, and have something that worked as well if not better.
I am not suggesting we do that. But I am pointing out that it the rules for govenrment are well defined and followed, who is elected is not that important.
Why does Dave keep saying: “not an argument” in response to a statement? Hmmm, maybe the program needs an update.”Hey Vlad, can we get some money for that.”
Ad Hominem is not an argument.
To the extent it is a statement it is meaningless with regard to the argument.
A more moderate viewpoint, and I agree with him.
“Posted by Brij Khindaria, Foreign Affairs Columnist on Jul 16, 2018 Trump and Putin’s big whimper doesn’t deserve tar and feathers
Donald Trump finally had the rare pleasure of holding a press conference alongside a very consequential world leader who likes his foreign policies and rooted for him to become US President.
That is about all the rope that Russia’s Vladimir Putin granted him today at their extraordinary summit meeting in Helsinki.
Yet, Trump does not deserve the tar and feathers being thrown at him by many lawmakers and journalists in the US, including accusations of being bested by Putin or “surrendering” to him.
The fact, however unpalatable to the flamethrowers in the US, is that others in the world do think that the American President should meet the Russian President regularly.
Billions of people want them to reduce miscalculations and enmity because they are capable of turning the entire earth – and certainly all of Europe — into nuclear wasteland.
As for most people in Europe, they do not like either Trump or Putin.
Some Americans try to demonize Putin by suggesting that he wields imminent threat to all of Europe because of Russian encroachment in Ukraine and other gluttony.
But most Europeans do not expect Putin to start a new World War by invading the Baltic countries, Poland or any other NATO member. That is why they are slow to permit expansion of their defense budgets like Trump demands.
They fear that Putin and Russians could turn into real enemies if they see Europeans arming more fiercely to the teeth and falling more deeply under Washington’s military control like satellite nations.
An emotional rift is settling between Trump’s American voters and most Europeans. It has nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with the reluctant realization that America’s “shining city on the hill” is a king without clothes whose nakedness Europeans refused to acknowledge but was signaled ever since earlier administrations started looking eastwards.
Now, the baby in diapers over London sums up the loss of hope and trust in Trump’s and his America’s leadership of the so-called Free World.
In turn, Putin is disparaged because of his chip-on-the-shoulder paranoia that Europeans would like to stick needles into him because he is an authoritarian and a hard-nosed manipulator of the divisions fidgeting below their veneers of unity.
A loud sigh of resignation reverberated across Europe following Trump’s extroverted disdain of America’s longtime NATO allies with the military power and skill sets required to fight wars, including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain, Holland, Sweden and Denmark.
Even vulnerable countries like Poland and the Baltic states may change tack and decide that sticking together with other Europeans may be a safer option to relying on Trump to stop the Russian bear from slavering over them.
None of the Europeans can individually or collectively win an all-out war against Russia so they will do whatever they can to keep Trump and subsequent US presidents on their side.
But the Trump-Putin encounter put another nail in the coffin of transatlantic trust that previously grew more from the heart and shared ideals and must now be rebuilt as mercantile and transactional deals born of bean counting.
Today, Trump’s heart seemed to be more with Putin than with Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May and France’s Emmanuel Macron.
Nothing useful is known about Trump and Putin’s private meeting but the press conference was not reassuring.
Putin dropped a few hints about substantive issues discussed but Trump stuck to his well-known accusations and lamentations about Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” and the perfidy of mainstream American media.
Both men confirmed their emotional distance from European citizens and misunderstanding of the drivers of European politics.
Yesterday’s YouGov poll in Germany found that 64 percent of respondents think Trump is a bigger danger to world security than Putin, and 56 percent think that Putin is more competent than Trump.
A YouGov poll earlier in July found that 51 percent of French respondents preferred Putin to 36 percent for Trump.
But the crux of the rift between American and European voters is reflected in a new Emnid organization poll for Bild newspaper which asked German respondents to rank the political issues they considered important.
Trump’s priority of more defense spending came in last with 16 percent. Only 38 percent thought Trump’s other bugbear of limiting immigration is important despite its major impacts on recent elections in Germany, France, Britain, Italy and other countries.
Significantly, the issues that worry Germans most are low pensions and poverty in old age, providing equal opportunities in education by keeping costs low, and improving public health care systems.
These have also been central issues in most European national and local elections in recent years.
Such issues are not high in the sights of American political and media thought leaders as they hyperventilate about Trump, Mueller and Putin. Europeans have other more nuts and bolts worries.
Too much spin for my taste, but some interesting observations.
But one serious flaw – the presumption that europe matters.
The author worries about the destruction of cross atlantic trust.
We do not need to trust Europe and Europe has no choice but to Trust the US.
I would like to Say Putin is not going to invade – fill in the blank, But he has already done so many things he was not going to do.
The author seems to think that Polls matter.
The european people can think that they do not need to increase their defense spending.
But if the US takes a half step back from NATO, Europeans must step in.
Russia has invaded Georgia, and crimea, is treatening parts of Moldova in the same way as Georgia and the Ukraine, and the Baltics and Poland seem next on Putin’s list.
Russia has invaded Georgia, and crimea, is treatening parts of Moldova in the same way as Georgia and the Ukraine, and the Baltics and Poland seem next on Putin’s list.
Jeez, something we can agree on.
Mostly his game is to use so-called “soft power”: the threat of use of real power in places like Moldova. Join my economic union or some terrible accident might occur, like a protection racket. There are two purposes to that, one military, one economic. Make that 3 purposes, the third being to make Russia the center of as large a group of former soviet entities as possible for almost religious purposes of the kepping the great so called pan slav empire in existence, which is a religion that pleases many many Russians and helps keep putin popular.
The extent to which people have already managed to accustom themselves to his invasion of Ukraine boggles my mind. And trump as the potus very definitely should not be coddling trump. As well it goes against the entire history of the majority of voters in the conservative part of the electorate to view putin in a trump-like way, they are throwing away their longstanding convictions for political convenience, I never, Ever, would have guessed they would do that. Whatever respect I had for these conservatives who have accepted trumps policy of kissing putin’s ass before, I have one tenth of it now.
Putin’s idea of “soft power” is hard as rocks.
It tends to be real boots on the ground soldiers with real tanks and guns.
Putin will engage in whatever military adventurism we are willing to let him get away with.
Bush Trusted him – and Putin F’d him over.
Obama Trusted him – over and over, and Putin F’d him over.
Trump’s fawning over Putin even way back during the campaign is nauseating.
Whether Trump like Bush and Obama (and Cllinton) actually gets taken in by Putin is yet to be seen.
Unlike many of the rest of you I am capable of accepting that much of Trump’s rhetoric is just rhetoric.
Russia is neither our friend nor our enemy.
It is possible that absent actually going to war – which we are unlikely to do Trump or otherwise, that Putin is not stoppable.
I do not know whether Moldova or Montenegra are worth going to war.
Or whether there is much we can or should do.
But an unwillingnes to do something is not the same as endorsement.
At the same time as nauseating as Trump’s remarks with Putin were – I do not give a damn about his Dissing the US intelligence community.
They asked for it. Aside from being actually wrong about nearly everything throughout my lifetime, it is quite obviously clear they were in the Tank for Obama during the election.
They should expect little love from Trump and the whitehouse.
Democrats and the media dwelling on the fact that Trump is at odds with them are being stupid. Most of us do not care.
You either buy all or parts of this nonsense or you don’t.
I do not even buy based on the evidence I have seen that The Russians Hacked the DNC.
Nor am I interested in anyone who spents years telling us all the IC would completely wrong about Iraq;s efforts to get WMD;s (or Irans’s) to now tell me that they are absolutely right about whatever the Russia story is of the moment
That does not however mean I do nto think that Russia does nto mess arround in elections.
Of course they do. So do we.
They are not going to stop, and neither are we.
They are not very good at it.
Neither are we.
One has to wonder if Putin began his campaign to rejuvenate the soviet empire what the reaction would be from the NATO nations if the USA said we will provide technical and logistical support, but no human input. What would be the redline. We know it is not Ukraine. That has already been demonstrated. Europe and America has said your on your own already. Would they do anything if the Balkins were invaded? How about Poland?
Under the stipulation I laid out, I suspect they would ignore what was happening except for some whining at the UN until Russia was at the German, Switzerland, italian borders. Then they would come begging for America to send our men and women to protect them.
Putting myself in Putins position, I would be asking is the United States going to risk Nuclear war over eastern europe? I would not think so.
With respect to your lack of respect for many conservatives – SO ?
Honestly who in washington do you trust ? Democrat, Republican ?
Kissing Putin’s ass was a democratic sport until the left needed to blame someone for Clinton’s loss.
I agree with you grump.
Grump, in an earlier comment you said you could not understand conservatives not caring about Russia.
Gallup has been fairly neutral in most all of their polling. Not left or right for most part.
If this poll is anywhere correct, its not just conservatives!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33279/gallup-polls-show-americans-couldnt-care-less-joseph-curl
Even if the number of people multiplies by 10, its still single digit concern. Even if a huge majority thinks he did a piss poor job with the summit in polls, will that elevate peoples concerns?
Fake news. Reported by the daily wire. It appears to be a Gallup poll in which no issue at all had much traction because the poll simply asked Americans to use their own words to name their #1 top problem. Result, Immigration, winner at 22% dissatisfaction with govt. second at 19%, both being so vague that I can’t tell from which angle the respondents thought the problem lies, followed by 7%, 6%, etc. Not much of a poll.
How much money would you like to bet that I can find many polls where people are asked if Russian interference in our election is a problem or if trump’s cosy relationship with putin is a problem and majorities say yes?
Well, try this one, CBS taken yesterday, Americans as a whole disapprove of trump’s handling of putin in Helsinki. 55 to 32. The numbers would be even stronger anti trump except that 68% of republicans have thrown their previous values out the window and actually Support trump coddling putin, a thing that you yourself quite nicely and accurately trashed in disgust. So, you are a whole lot better than the conservative numbskulls I am talking about. Based on that, I would expect you to understand me and my opinion of this &^%$# mess pretty well.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-putin-meeting-helsinki-summit-russia-election-meddling/
The daily wire is spinning the spin that nobody cares about trump-putin except the media hounds. Guess how much credibility I think the daily wire has? Clue, its a conservative opinion outlet and conservatives as a group have now proven to be total idiots, at least on the subject of politics (meaning that some conservative individuals are not total idiots but as a statistical unit their combined brains are now as useless as box of wet kleenex). I trust conservative news spinners about as much as I trust the Russian Times or Pravda to tell a truthful story. Mindless propaganda based as loosely as possible on fact, or in other words crude deception.
I am sure you can find lots of polls.
You are partly correct to criticize broadly worded polls, But you are also wrong.
One of the reason for “name the top X problems” is that it is one way of determining how important problems are – polls rarely express value or strength and when they do they rarely do so well.
If 90% of people say Russia “interference” in the election is real – that neither changes what actually happens nor tells you how much they care.
If 90% say they are “very concerned” that is better but still not all that meaningful.
What does very concerned mean ?
When you ask what are the top 10 problems in order that far better tells you how important something is.
Though even that has problems. As an example maintaining low gas prices could be a major effort of the administration – because they know the effect that would have on the economy, but so long as they succeed it is not an issue that the american people take any note of, but it could rise to #1 instantly if the administration lost control.
Weighing the meaning of polling is a black art. I know that I am not good at it. I has no clue that Trump was going to flip PA, OH, WI, … I knew he was trying to but I thought it was impossible – maybe he would get OH.
But as bad as I might be – the purported experts are not so hot either. Obviously.
The Gallup poll found that 4% named the economy as a problem. Does that sound like reality? ( I guess the era of “its the economy stupid” is over?) Its Gallups poll, not the daily wire, so its on Gallup but the daily wire is spinning it, and the spin is just pure BS.
People care about the economy. People care about the Russian invasion of our election and about the wierd weird wierd putin trump relationship.
If only 4% identify the economy as a problem that is GOOD for Trump.
That is also bad for the left.
If the thing most likely to impact voters is very low on out list of problems, than those in power are likely to get re-elected.
Your poll cite does not mean the economy is not important to voters,
It means they are happy with it.
“People care about the economy. ”
Yes, and they are happy with it.
“People care about the Russian invasion of our election and about the wierd weird wierd putin trump relationship.”
Nope. and your rhetoric is nonsense. There was no russian “invasion”.
Trump’s fawning language regarding tyrants is annoying.
Ultimately it is his acts that he is jufged on – by most of us.
Spin is spin. If you ask someone to list their concerns with current issues, most would list at least 5. The economy would be in the list. Trump’s relations with Russia would probably be on the list.
Now ask them their number 1 concern and you will get something different.in this poll, many are like me. Immigration (illegal!) is the #1 issue.
You and the press fixate stupidly on words.
Your own earlier post suggests some understanding that all the verbal outrage of Trump, the press, the left is all inconsequential – but now you are back to words.
Trump was asked by a reporter – who was lying – Putin or the US IC,
That is a stupid question. Any answer creates a problem. Trump had just successfully negotiated Russian assistance on several issues important to us. Calling Putin a liar would have destroyed that. Trump stumbled through an answer to a stupid “gotcha” question.
Everyone understands that Russia has and will “meddle” in our elections – just as the US will middle in other countries elections. Everyone understand that Putin will deny that – and the US will deny it too.
Most of us also understand that Russia had no effect on the actual election – though they have very successfully undermined the faith of american people in our electoral process.
Though I would ask why Democrats are not proposing that we DO anything ?
They are not proposing changes to our election process – because they do not want changes. Because they know that there was no impact. Because Obama was correct in October of 2016 when he said it was impossible to rig a US election.
You say Republicans have abandoned their principles – to some extent you are right.
In doing so they have just become more like democrats.
Given a choice between Clinton and Trump many who consider character important, who consider marital fidelity a reflection of character – still voted for Trump.
Most of those same people still support him
While I did not vote for Trump I fully understand.
Trump is for many republicans what Clinton was for democrats.
Proof that people with poor character can still be effective presidents (and other things).
I do not like that. I do not understand that. I did not vote for either of our horrible choices.
The wrong track poll during the obama administration was in the 60’s for most of his presidency peaking at 80%, rarely getting into the 50’s
Thus far during Trump’s presidency it is running more than 10pts lower. It peaked at 69%, it has gone into the 40’s, and spends most of the time in the mid to lower 50’s.
We may not be happy about where the country is going, but we are much less unhappy under Trump.
Consumer confidence is the highest it has been since 2000, and it is trending upward.
I do not care much what Trump says – whether about Putin or anything else.
I do not care much what the press or the left say about Trump.
I do not care if Trump slathers praise on Putin or Kim Un.
It does nauseate me but that is politics and foreign relations. Though Obama and Clinton did so with silkier tongues they were no different.
I care alot about what Trump actually does.
That is what I am judging him by.
Without endorsing the daily wire – no I do not think most people give a damn about the words spoken to the press at Helsinki.
Apparently – according to you everyone is an idiot.
Maybe so, but those idiots vote.
I do not trust the conservative media either. But the rest of the media is worse.
“Mindless propaganda based as loosely as possible on fact, or in other words crude deception.”
That works as well for NYT and WaPo as for Fox.
Thank god I am 72 and dont have to put up with this $&)7 for that many years. What the hell did my generation do that raised individuals that allow their small kids to be part of this crap. We debate how bad Trump is or isnt, but this is the degenerate activities that will be the downfall of our society.
https://www.amny.com/news/queens-library-drag-story-hour-1.18422964
And it is just not NY, this is going national and schools are bringing in these degenerates to address small kids!
I really do not care much about “drag queens story hour”.
What I do care about is our failing education.
We are raising kids who are “sensitized” on every major political issue of the left.
But are completely unable to add.
“I really do not care much about… ………………… ”
You say this a lot.
So did many Germans in the 30’s
So the germans should have cared more about Drag Queen Story time ?
No Dave look back on your comments and when someone says something about many many subjects, your first comment is “,I really do not care much about. ……. ”
I will point this out in the future.
“No Dave look back on your comments and when someone says something about many many subjects, your first comment is “,I really do not care much about. ……. ”
I will point this out in the future.”
Is there some requirement that anyone else care about the things that you or another do ?
I do not understand your response. Apparently you think I am required to value the same things you do.
Individual liberty means I do not need to care about the same things you do.
So long as you are not using force against others – what you do in your own life is your business. What you value and what you don’t – is your business.
It only becomes mine when you try to impose it by force.
.
Lighten up youngster. I rather these folks then the likes of K. Conway, S. Bannon, J. Pirro, etc. Trans are better than liars for kids to see and hear. Lying is sinking us, IMHO.
Kathy Kraninger. Never heard of her? Don’t worry she will protect you and yours from financial predators at the CFPB.
Who needs experience, Obama and Trump faked it, she can too just like all the other great picks of Trump.
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him. Niccolo Machiavelli
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/niccolo_machiavelli_130630
So why do we need this agency? And if we do, why was there no decrease in the budgets of the five federal agencies where this agencies work came from. This was another boondoggle by Obama. They have not done anything these other agencies would not have performed other than waste money. And since it is funded by the Federal Reserve, there is no oversight of their expenditures.
This agency would never have been required had Clinton not pushed the community Benefit regulations on mortgage writing.
So the government fixes a bad government regulation with more bad regulation.
Only congress can get rid of CFPB.
But I agree it is worse than useless.
Nor do we need EPA, Education, Energy, Labor, Housing. FDA, to list a few.
I do not need the CFPB;s protection – no one does. They are a disasterously stupid idea.
Their primary effect is to REDUCE the available credit to poorer people.
You do not seem to grasp that you can not magically make things perfect.
People with bad creidt will always be able to borrow money.
But their bad credit means they will not have good choices.
If you eliminate or restrict choices like payday loans,
that will drive them to “Tony Soprano”
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him. Niccolo Machiavelli
Obama failed that test.
Flash: Obama is no longer President.
He is not, and despite his horrible appointments we lived.
I think we will manage to live through Trump’s generally supperior ones.
You miss the point. You appoint someone who is qualified even if it is a useless or unneeded organization. This is about your governance ability, or in Trump’s administration’s abilities.
Clinton is gone, so is Obama. Trump owns the candy store for now.
Trump can not get rid of the agency because it was created by legislation and the democrats insured it could not be starved from lack of funding because it is funded by the federal reserve, which is totally independent from any government oversight. Kind of like the fourth wing of government. So the way you eliminate the regulatory oversight is to put someone in the role willing to take the heat for eliminating everything they were doing, You don’t need to be good at financial oversight when you are eliminating all the financial oversight.
“You don’t need to be good at financial oversight when you are eliminating all the financial oversight.”
Oh, I get it now. Hire an explosives expert, like a Pruitt, to do a Guido Fawkes.
Boom. Just like destroying an old building to put in a new one.
Blowing off the shackles, is destroying something bad not something good.
Trump is supposed to own the candy store – that I would agree on.
But the DOJ/FBI are effectively out of anyone’s control at the moment.
Any effort by Trump to do anything about that would be politically disastrous.
As to Trump’s appointments ? Less than perfect, but reasonably good.
“As to Trump’s appointments ? Less than perfect, but reasonably good.”
LMAO.
Laugh All you want.
The country is doing better. Either Trump and his people are good, or they are incredibly lucky.
Oh yes, the water and air will not get worse, the Wells Fargos will not reappear, schools will become less public and offer more opportunities for Trump types, the V.A. will prosper, contaminated drugs will disappear, the armed forces will get new uniforms and caps with a large T on them, the infrastructure will benefit from generous use of duct tape and bailing wire, the media will learn to cooperate asking questions and follow ups, cars made of fiberglass and carbon will run on more ethanol and help prop up corn prices, Russia will become a big trading partner and will grow many avocados, Mexico will become a giant summer camp for all of Central America to enjoy, European and Chinese products will be routed through Russia and then to the US- tariff free, free medical kits and videos will train people to be self sufficient in their medical needs as subsidies and penalty taxes disappear along with the ACA. Lying 101 will start at the 6th Grade level and advanced degrees will be given the DJT Medal of honor which will look like the new U.S. Coinage, traffic lights will be turned off after sundown to satisfy the growing Libertarian protests against too many government rules, Israel’s new law making Jewish people superior to all others in their country will be copied and sheparded through Congress by newly appointed special administrator Benjamin Netanyahu (“he speaks English so nicely”), all non-white people will be detained or “exported”, etc.
Bizzarre.
I do not know what else to say.
Government is your religion and you are a true beleiver.
I doubt that government is duck’s religion. I am sure that anti-government is your religion. You are beating your head against a wall.
Government isn’t a religion, its just a part of life that most adults can accept, despite some natural complaining, bitching and moaning about how many things turn out, like say the Vietnam war or the financial crisis. Yep, government fucks up big time at times, no one can disagree.
But, government has been here for as long as human societies have existed. The two go together. As long as there are humans there will be government. Its not always pretty but its inevitable and it beats anarchy. In the modern era of ultra-complex life government is not about to be the tiny one you want or even get smaller than it is now. There will be an eternal struggle by larger or smaller groups to overthrow the government, the status quo, that is natural and will happen everywhere, always. But overthrowing the very concept of government itself, your holy quest, is a naive utopian dream.
The anti-government libertarian religion has very little chance of prevailing in any major way for any major period of time. There is not much I am sure of, but I am sure about that.
“I doubt that government is duck’s religion. ”
It is what you have faith in.
“I am sure that anti-government is your religion. ”
Not having faith in government would not be a religion.
“You are beating your head against a wall.”
As are you.
“Government isn’t a religion”
Whatever you have faith in – that is your religion.
“its just a part of life”
Some government yes. But we – YOU have gone far far beyond what is necescary and justifiable.
“that most adults can accept, despite some natural complaining, bitching and moaning about how many things turn out”
Pretty good evidence that Government has exceeded its limits.
” like say the Vietnam war or the financial crisis. Yep, government fucks up big time at times, no one can disagree.”
The world is not perfect, and is not perfectable, but it does improve. Government is responsible for that improvement ONLY to the extent that it provides “the rule of law”
that is necessary for other improvements to occur.
The actual improvement comes from people.
Just as the self interest of others provides you with food, shelter, clothing, it also provides you with everything else you want – healthcare, a clean environment, safe drugs.
“But, government has been here for as long as human societies have existed. The two go together. As long as there are humans there will be government.”
Absolutely, but for nearly all of human existance Government has been far smaller than today. Within the past two millenia, particularly within the past 500 years we have evolved an understanding of free will. Individual liberty. And we have evolved government that mostly respected and protected individual liberty. The consequence – the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the modern era, the most rapid improvement in the human condition that has ever occurred.
That is a consequence of the evollution of out understanding of the purpose of government.
“Its not always pretty but its inevitable and it beats anarchy.”
It is also not binary. We do not have a choice between totalitarianism and anarchy – and arguably anarchy is superior to totalitarianism.
Some government is a necescity. In fact the scope of just government can be both determined and set with reasonably bright lines. We actually know what has worked and what has not. And theory and practice are in agreement.
“In the modern era of ultra-complex life government is not about to be the tiny one you want or even get smaller than it is now.”
Actually the opposite – the increasing complexity of the world increases the failure of government. Government is horrible at dealing with complexity.
That should be obvious to you – as force has limited uses.
“There will be an eternal struggle by larger or smaller groups to overthrow the government, the status quo, that is natural and will happen everywhere, always. But overthrowing the very concept of government itself, your holy quest, is a naive utopian dream.”
Libertarains do not seek to overthrow government. They merely seek to shrink it back to that scope that is justifiable.
“The anti-government libertarian religion has very little chance of prevailing in any major way for any major period of time. There is not much I am sure of, but I am sure about that.”
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”
You continuously conflate limited government with anarchy.
The scope of government is inherently defined by Kant’s catagorical imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Humans, and their wants and needs are an END, not a means.
You may restrict the liberty of some only when the result is greater liberty for all – including those you restrict.
We are ALL better off when government punishes murder.
To be clear you must actually be better off. It is not sufficient that some FEEL better off.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Bizarre. Yes, and I hope, ’cause we are stuck with it, imperfect as it is. There is no Shangri-La or the island of the Amazons.
Government is a necessary evil. That does not mean that we are stick with the government that we have at this moment. Imperfection does not preclude improvement. The absence of utopia does not require us to rush towards animal farm.
The more limited scope of US government – even today is the reason the US is the worlds only super power. It is the reason that no nation of consequence has our standard of living, and few inconsequential ones.
We know for a fact that in government less is more – atleast down to 1/4 the government we currently have.
No way he said this!
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeyTM3/status/1020741597527527425/video/1
While I do not think he litterally means what he said.
At the same time he has fully legitimized “birtherism”.
It is not at all unreasonable for even rational people to take him at his word.
I would note that Obama is making my point on the muddied use of words.
Many here want me to get up in arms over the latest Trump outrage.
Absolutely I wish Trump, Obama and all politicians would choose their words carefully.
But they do not. Calling them liars because they use words badly is itself hyperbole.
It is also evidence that we must interpret everything regarding law and govenrment narrowly.
Dave, Dave, Dave, please, your support of Trump is getting much too over the line.
I get it. Obama makes one comment and goes on to something different. He does not continue with how he was born in Kenya, how he grew up in Kenya, how he was a Kenyan by heart, etc etc. He only said he was from Kenya.
Trump, on the other hand, said something like “he would not know why it would be Russia, and then like you have preached so many times, gives many reasons for those thoughts after he said them to support his position on the subject. If the word “would” should have been “wouldn’t” he would not gone on to support “would” with all his other comments.
“Absolutely I wish Trump, Obama and all politicians would choose their words carefully.”
Well he did choose his words carefully and said exactly what he meant to say when talking about Russia.
Step back. Listen to his complete press conference and then tell me he did not mean what he said.
I really do not care about what Obama said.
Just as I really do not care much about what Trump says.
Nor is this anywhere near the first stupid or easily misinterpreted thing that Obama has said.
My point is that we need to hold everyone to the same standards.
If you are going to freak out over the latest Trump remark, then you should respond the same to Obama.
If you are going to take everything Trump says Litterally – then you must do the same regarding Obama.
If you are going after Manafort for FARA violations – something no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for, then you must prosecute Podesta as he clearly did the same things.
If The Russians can not run a few pathetic facebooks adds, then the guardian, John Oliver, …. can not speak regarding our elections.
If Trump can not try to get dirt on Clinton from Natalia, then Clinton can not get dirt on Trump through Steele and the GRU.
If Nixon can not use the IRS, FBI and CIA to go after enemies – then Obama can not either.
Whatever it is it is not acceptable if your tribe does it but unacceptable if the other does.
Glenn Greenwald is pretty far to the left of me. But I greatly respect him because his standards do not change based on who was last elected.
That is a rare attribute today.
Just to be clear – I have no problem with Obama’s remark.
I have a problem with taking it litterally – just as I have a problem with taking Trump comments litterally.
There is no means of interpretting Obama’s remark that is not damning, that does not also mean most or all of Trump’s remarks are similarly just imprecise.
Conversely there is no way of taking the remark as damning that does not equally dam Trump’s remarks judged by the same standard.
I can not quite decode your remark on Trump.
But to try to assess it. The FISA application for a warrant for Carter page has now been released.
While you can think whatever you want about it, what is very hard to find is any actual evidence of russian collusion. In fact there is not even evidence that Russia was attempting to interfere in the election.
Trump is being attacked for purportedly siding with Russia over the US Intelligence community. Yet here we are with the IC purportedly putting forward the best proof they had – from 2016-2017 and there is nothing there.
Why should I beleive that the IC has some further secret evidence, that they did not use in the Carter Page warrant.
The fact is the IC and the IC report are NOT CREDIBLE, there is no reason to beleive they are any better than the Carter Page FISA warrant application. In fact there is every reason in the world to beleive that is all the IC had when they did the assessment.
Just as they had crap on Iraqi WMD’s or Anthrax, or the myriads of times over the past 50 years the IC has been ludicrously wrong.
This is not about trusting Russia. I have little doubt Russia tried to cause trouble.
It is entirely about the fact that our Vaunted Intelligence community is not hot shit. We should not be taking anything on faith from them. Not about WMD’s not about Trump, not about Russia.
Nor BTW is this problem limited to the Intelligence community, nor the federal government.
People in government are still just people. They have no magical powers, They are not supperior. There is less reason to trust what govenrment tells you than what Walmart tells you.
Can I but a noun ? He ? Obama ? Trump ?
No! it does not matter and that is my point.
Thanks Ron.
“Whatever it is it is not acceptable if your tribe does it but unacceptable if the other does.”
Now that is something I can agree with 100%
When Obama said he would have more latitude or leeway after the 2016 election and for Mednoved to tell Putin that, then all the media should have jumped on that like they did Trump.
Trump is an enigma to me. On one hand he says nothing to hold Russia responsible for any actions they have taken. On the other hand, he degenerates NATO nations and forces them to begin spending more on defense which is a negative for Russia. He promotes LNG and increases exports to Europe, at an economic negative to Russia. He provides military assets to Ukraine, at a military negative to Russia. And he promotes missile defense in Poland, another negative to Russia. Everything he did was blocked by Obama. Where Obama talked tough and acted weak, Trump talks weak and acts tougher.
I am just sick of Presidents saying one thing and doing something opposite. The last one that was more streight with the public was 41 and even then there were discrepancies.
“Trump is an enigma to me. On one hand he says nothing to hold Russia responsible for any actions they have taken.”
Russia/Putin is neither a friend nor an enemy. Nor are we the worlds policemen.
I am not sure what you wish to hold Russia accountable for.
I do not beleive the IC election assessment. I think the IC is clueless and has been for decades.
I have little doubt Russia acts in out elections – as we do in theirs.
Unless you are prepared to see US intelligence agents extradited to other countries there is nothing to do there.
Russia has their own interests elsewhere in the world – sometimes they align with ours, sometimes not. I worry about Putin invading another country – but thus far he has not.
Todate his military adventurism has been with Obama as president.
Regardless, I would prefer that Russie quite invading neighbors.
I do not think many of us are prepared to go to war.
“On the other hand, he degenerates NATO nations and forces them to begin spending more on defense which is a negative for Russia.”
I do not think that has much to do with Russia one why or the other.
But Europe should be bearing the cost of its own defense.
“He promotes LNG and increases exports to Europe, at an economic negative to Russia. He provides military assets to Ukraine, at a military negative to Russia. And he promotes missile defense in Poland, another negative to Russia. Everything he did was blocked by Obama. Where Obama talked tough and acted weak, Trump talks weak and acts tougher.”
So what more do you want him to do to “punish” Russia ?
Enigma…. “a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand.”
I defined why Trump is an enigma to me. Nothing more, nothing less.
“I am not sure what you wish to hold Russia accountable for.”
“So what more do you want him to do to “punish” Russia ?”
That was not part of my comment. I was only pointing out inconsistencies in his actions. Maybe I am the only person in America that finds this difficult to process. Much like how he is gung ho on MAGA, produce products in America, create jobs in America by producing things here and then his MAGA hats are made in southeast Asia. There is nothing wrong with making them in Asia, it is just inconsistent to his message to America.
Does anyone make clothing in the US ?
Hypocracy abounds. Trump is not immune.
Anything made in america today?
Yep, just look it up.
Price to pay when you have a true democracy (the Republic kind). Leaders talk to much and cater to different groups differently and differently at different times. Autocrats don’t have to worry about getting reelected and catering to the hoi polloi.
A good business manager (which I doubt Trump was/is) surrounds himself not with sycophants, but with people who can help him make the right decisions and the percentage of “right” ones can hover between 50- 60%.
In business, many bad decisions get swept under the rug; public life they provide ammunition for your opponents. So be careful of what you say and how you say it.
We do not have a “true democracy” or anything like it, tacking ” (the Republic kind)” does not alter the fact that our government is not “majority rule” by a long shot.
More importantly the foundation and purpose of our govenrment is to secure individual rights – not accomplish the public will.
Trump has succeeded in multiple significantly different fields.
That does not occur by accident.
If 50-60% of the decisions of politicians are “right” and we would be very lucky if that were the case, then we need far more limited government. 50-60% is not good enough.
You are correct – Trump’s words give plenty of amo to his opponents.
I think Trump deserves the press he has, and they deserve Trump.
It is a perfect marraige and I try to ignore both.
I care about what is DONE not what is said.
I care about what is DONE not what is said.
Yes, so you have said about ten thousand times, not what Trump says, but what he does, blah, blah. You have found the repetitious phrase that will allow you to be impervious to reality while his stupendousness mangles so many of your supposed principles for at least another two years. We can just add it to the list of your repetitive bot-like phrases. A misprogammed bit of software. Funny thing is, one of your earlier repetitious phrases was, Trump actually does what he says. I haven’t heard that piece of software in a while.
Anyhow, it’s oddly entertaining, so thanks for the laughs!
Reality is what is done, not what is said.
When Trump does something that violates my principles – I speak out.
He does so often, but less than Obama, or Bush.
If Trump continues as he has for 2 or 6 more years we will be far better off than had HRC been elected, or than we were under Obama.
We should do much better than that, but that is atleast a start.
Are you claiming that the things I repeat are false ?
If so lets have that debate.
If they are true, why are you ignoring them ?
I have not said Trump does what he says.
I have said Trump keeps campaign promises and committments.
Those are not the same. All of us say things we do not really mean.
But if you committ to something you are more than just saying it
you are attaching your integrity and your reputation.
That is what people in business do all the time.
Such a quibbler, the point is our presidents talk too much, and decision making is complicated by surrounding ones self with ass kissers and parrots.
Don’t like my take on that? Too bad, a don’t care.
thinkhttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-whitman-trump-helsinki-gop-response-20180722-story.html
Another life-long Rep speaks up.
And a newer Rep too: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/opinion/trump-russia-putin-republican-congress.html
Abolish any federal agency you wouldn’t want the opposing party to be in charge of.
This is becoming more of a comedy than I thought possible.
Mueller, “I found all this information on you and I have 6 people that will swear you did what I said you did. But, we are not going to tell anyone who they are and no one can know who they are. You just have to accept what they say”.
Someone clue me in. How does one face his accusers and have their identity withheld. Do they really put them behind a partition like in the movies and disguise their voices electronically?
I am glad their is someone in Washington with the common sense greater than a flee. If your going to accuse someone of wrong doing, then you should be sitting in court swearing to tell the truth and have the jury see your demeanor when you are testifying. Ones demeanor is as important as their words.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/23/manafort-judge-deals-blow-to-mueller-probe/
I have problems with the immunity deals I am hearing about.
Tony Podesta is not down the food chain from Paul Manafort.
You do not give Al Capone immunity for information on a lieutenant
Dave, about clothing made in America.
Carhartt jeans are made in America. They can be purchased for around $40.00
Levi jeans are made in South America, southeast asia, China and other countries. They average $40-$65.00.
Oh, in addition, Levi make one line of jeans in Greensboro, N.C. (501 jeans) and you can buy them for around $160.00
So tell me again how stuff made in China benefits consumers when Levi jeans made in China cost the same as American made Carhartt?
Levis at Costco 19.97
Kirkland Jeans at Costco 12.97.
In 1980 Levis cost $25.
All other things being equal – do you care whether the jeans are made in the US or China ?
If you want US made jeans buy US made jeans. No one is stopping you.
Ok, name a few manufacturers I can buy U.S. Jeans from.
Ron already did.
RonP;: Let’s see what the judge says. These folks are witnesses, not necessarily accusers, and sometimes immunity is warranted, sometimes not.
On Carhartt jeans. They are built for farmers and construction workers and not exactly stylish
Carhartt, does make cooler looking jackets that give you the rugged construction worker or hunter look.
I have several pairs of 501 jeans, they are slimmer and stylish, not your father’s jeans, but the right leg seam is crooked. One pair was bought in a Levi’s store the second on line.
“Ron already did.” No he named one the Levi’s 501, which made in USA has crooked seams. Levi’s wouldn’t stand for that from China. I also pointed out that other manufacturers use other countries. So your remark: “If you want US made jeans buy US made jeans. No one is stopping you.” is useless as usual.
BTW, no one is stopping you from being a better writer, try it.
Hey libertarians: What is your opinion of the $12 billion dollar aid proposal?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-readies-plan-for-12-billion-in-emergency-aid-to-farmers-caught-in-trumps-escalating-trade-war/2018/07/24/7bec9af4-8f4d-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.727a5767504c
Oppose trade war.
Oppose corporate welfare AKA aide to farmers.
Well you stretch my thinking. Technically I am against this. I am against anything that is unfair to America and most all welfare programs. I am against corporate welfare where states and local government give tax breaks.
But when America has made horrendously awful trade agreements and have allowed other countries to screw over us, then certain actions need to occur to put us on equal footing. But those actions that are going to help one segment of society is going to have negative impacts on other segments. Right now that is the farmers.
So I dont support programs taking from one segment to give to another under most situations. But I have less support for tax revenues staying with government. With that in mind, I have no problem taking the money raised on tariffs on Chinese $#17 and offsetting the lost revenues for family farmers. The best I can figure is we import about $1 billion of steel from china. With a 25% tariff, that is $250 million additional federal tax. Use part to help the farmers and use the rest against the deficit.
😂😂😂😂😂 Use the rest against the deficit. Oh my god, I am rolling on the floor. 😂😂😂😂
“I have no problem taking the money raised on tariffs on Chinese $#17 and offsetting the lost revenues for family farmers.”
Huh? Those tariffs are a tax on those goods, paid by American consumers – so the consumers will be paying the farmers for the reimbursement, and will get screwed additionally with higher prices for farm products as farmers won’t have to reduce domestic prices to stay in business. And we have a 2 billion pound surplus stockpile of beef. Is Commisar Trump going to give a couple of billion to cow ranchers too?
I dont like tariffs and I said that! But when government has given away the store, there comes a time to close the door and stop giving things away unless you get something in return. So the time has come to say “stop screwing us!!!” we buy your oroduct without tariffs, you buy ours without tariffs. Free and fair trade!
Fixing a disease is more painful than preventing the disease. So to fix the disease, it takes tariffs. And using part of that money to prevet another problem is not unreasonable.
And yes, I am the only one here who believes that. Dave believes no tariffs by usnisbgood and others can do what they want. You and I think dduck think this is a tax and raises prices, while overseas production does not harm jobs. I support free and fair trade and support getting that in place as I believe unfair trade hurts jobs.
When a country puts a tarrif on foreign goods – it is not punishing the foreign country. It is punishing its own people, by making them pay more one way or another.
There is no reason we should do the same stupid thing China is doing.
My lack of vigorous attack on Trump on this subject is because:
1) According to everything I am reading thus far, the reall effects of everything Trump has done are negligable.
2) the market is routing arrround the tarrifs.
3) I trust Kudlow when he says the real goal is free trade.
4). So far no destructve trade war.
5). Everything I am reading says that at this moment in time the economic balance of power on trade favors Trump – i.e. he is ultimately likely to win this as the harm to other countries is greater than to the US.
That is NOT the same as “supporting Trump”.
I reserve the right to shift from muttering about the stupidity of this to something more akin to outrage, as this is STUPID.
Whenever people start to talk about “fair” they are preparing to say something stupid.
“fair” is always followed by a demand to convert something into a right that is not.
There is no right to have people buy what you produce.
There is no right to a job.
There is no “fair” with regard to jobs or purchases.
Though nations that impose tarrifs do punish their own people.
I would prefer that government completely stay out of this.
But if you want a quasi libertarian approach – something I would only tepidly oppose.
just flat out offset Tarrifs.
IF China tarrifs a good going to the US – the federal government can have an anti-tarrif on that same good to restore the price to what it was before.
If China tarrifs a good coming from the US, put a similar anti-tarrif on the before export price.
But confine this PURELY to those goods in foreign exchange that are actually tarrifed.
Do not generally subsidize.
In fact in a perfect world I would like to see the anti-terriff go to the consumer not the producer.
Our food stockpiles are just another reason to get government out of the economy and subsidy business.
No welfare – corporate or otherwise.
Would anyone doubt Brennan, and Clapper’s revulsion at Trump ?
What of Hayden, Rice, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Rhodes ?
It is clear that all of these – as well as Obama himself were heavily involved in orchestrating the investigation of Trump and the Trump campaign.
Todate we have NOTHING, except the direputable Tabloid Steele Dossier – as well as media stories – about the Steele Dossier that exists to support any investigation into Trump. Yet such investigation existed and still exists.
Absent a credible basis for this investigation, the investigation itself is a political crime of the largest magnitude.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-trump-collusion-investigation/
An exceelent story on the nature of Trump’s support
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support
Ron, PS, both Carhartt an Duluth clothes are made in various countries, but Duluth has the greatest TV commercials. 🙂
What Jay said.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. And if we, the tax payers, are going to subsidize farmers and ranchers, can’t we also pay the extra cost for a car, etc.?
Yes,if that is what it takes. I know no one accepts what I am supporting. It is about as far from Libertarian one can get. I never thought I would be aligned with organizations like the steel workers union. Only after this plays out will we know if it was good or bad. If it doesnt, then we really need to determine just what can America do to insure good paying jobs since there will be few jobs that produce anything. And can we survive economically by swapping dollars for services? Does that make us richer when A gives B $100 for a plumbing job and then B give A $100 for a carpentry job, both with products produced in Mexico.
Keeping clothing manufacture in the US is the perfect way to guarantee crappy low paying jobs and expensive cloths.
Or in the alternative highly automated clothing production and very few high paying jobs.
What it will not do is provide high paying jobs and cheap cloths.
It is a GOOD thing to dump the poor paying jobs on other countries.
Clothing manufactuing jobs are so low paying they are LEAVING China for elsewhere.
If you want to pay more for US made clothes – that is fine by me.
But if you want to force the rest of us to pay more that is NOT OK.
All of us should be free to buy what we want from wherever we want.
Including choosing to buy what you think are crappy cloths from China – or soon enough Bangeledesh and Aftrica. Because that is where those jobs are moving.
The other choice you have is allow more immigrants in and allow clothing manufacturers to legally hire them at wages below the minimum wage.
That will bring clothing jobs back to the US – but not high paying clothing jobs.
No subsidies for anyone.
Besides from what I am reading the Soy tarriffs have had little effect.
The chinese are buying soy from Brazil, and the rest of the global market has shifted to the US.
In most instances global supply and global demand are fairly tightly coupled. Any tarrif that is targetted at a specific country just causes global distribution to shift at only small increases in cost, mostly do to suboptimal shipping.
Warning: Don’t go on the Duluth site, your computer will be deluged with ads.
Sorry.
Did Trump do something right?
I know how sensitive you Dems/Trump haters are, so I warn you not to read any further since I am about to congratulate trump on something he did right, er.. correctly.
“Trump Administration, in Reversal, Will Resume Risk Payments to Health Insurers”
Buried on NYT, page 12 (it should have been on page 1 or 4) :
“If payments are not made, it said, “there is a serious risk” that insurers will substantially increase premiums in 2019 to make up for the loss. The higher premiums could make coverage unaffordable for some consumers, especially those who do not qualify for subsidies, it said.
Insurers are now deciding whether to participate in the marketplace in 2019 and setting the rates and benefits of the plans they intend to offer next year.
Republicans in Congress, afraid of being blamed in the midterm elections this year for even higher premiums, had urged the Trump administration to resume the payments to insurers.”
This would have been disastrous to the ACA.
Well just another politician that sells out to the insurance companies. Just like government gaurenteed student loans, there is no incentive to control cost. Just increase the amount government gaurentees and providers can keep raising charges since insurance will get government subsidies. Drug companies can raise their prices without any worries that insurance will reduce payments.
Please explain to me what has changed significantly since 2008 when I decided I was tired of government BS in hospital finance. When I left, the average cost for a normal delivery in this metroploitan area was right at $6,500. Today, 10 years later, that same delivery cost $13,000. What else doubled in price in 10 years? Salaries have not doubled. My daughter is a RN and she has averaged 3% per year. That is 30%, not 100%.
The major change is Obamacare that was suppose to control cost. Really? Gaurentee someone a specific subsidy based on their costs and you believe they will control their cost? Sorry it doesnt work that way!
I can write a book on all the ways I figured out how to raise cost, get it covered by third parties and increase the health system profits. And that was before Obamacare. That legislation created a cottage industry of healthcare consultants that figured out how to do just what I use to do with Medicare and Medicaid. Thus the doubling of maternity cost and huge increases in large health system margins.
Look at prices of ANYTHING.
If they have been rising faster than inflation – you can be certain they are highly regulated.
If prices are stable or declining – they are unregulated or lightly regulated.
The natural trend for ALL prices is down.
As I keep noting rising standard of living means producing more value for less human effort. That means priced in the ultimate measure – human effort. Rising standard of living requires declining prices.
Inflating is always and everywhere monetary – government. It only exists because central banks can not manage monetary policy without inflation. All inflation is bad.
All this demonstrates is that PPACA remains a horrible disaster, and that somehow idiots on the left think that is the fault of Republicans.
Like if HRC had been elected some miracle would have precluded price rises ?
Another question. So they reverse this decision and according to some sites, this totals about 7 Billion. Then the house passes the repeal of the medical device tax, another 22 billion or so. Total increase in deficit spending 30 billion.
Who’s paying for this?
Drain the swamp. BS. He is getting just like the other politicians, worried more about party and re-election than doing whats right.
Guess the next change will be repealing his directive to allow scaled back insurance policies like those where single males or individuals over 50 don’t have to buy policies that cover maternity care.
The actual cost of healthcare should be paid for by people – either as consumers of healthcare or as consumers of insurance.
Government should not subsidize in anyway or involve itself in the market in anyway.
As all government involvement does is increase prices and cause shortages, and delude people into making poor choices.
If as an example you engage in behavior that increases your health risks – such as smoking, in the free market insurance companies will increase your insurance premiums.
You are free to smoke – but the additional healthcare cost falls on you.
When you involve govenrment it acts to protect people from the costs of their decisions the result being they make decisions that increase costs, without paying the increased cost.
That is called moral hazard.
No !
He is making a mistake.
Government should not be paying insurers.
If the premiums need to rise to cover costs – then they should.
interfering with the price of things interferes with the natural market process that regulate those prices.
If something is too expensive – we make different choices.
When government subsidizes something – we have a false perception of its cost, and we make our choices based on bad information.
That alters our choices, distorts the market and inherently means we get less and it costs more, just indirectly.
The NYT article and those who wrote it and those who beleive such nonsense are complete idiots.
I am repeatedly told that Democrats are smarter than the rest of us.
Well who blames the people who said “no do not do something stupid” when others go ahead and do the stupid thing ? What intelligent person holds those who tried to stop failure acountable for the failure ?
PPACA is a disaster. Left alone it will fail. Republicans are not responsible for it, and should do ablsolutely nothing to prop it up.
And anyone trying to make republicans responsible to make a stupid idea of democrats work is an idiot – and if they have a college degree – it should be revoked.
“And anyone trying to make republicans responsible to make a stupid idea of democrats work is an idiot – and if they have a college degree – it should be revoked.”
Even if he bought his degree?
And I was just commenting on how bad Obamacare was and its impact on rising cost. SO the state of California wants retired military and Medicare covered senior citizens to give up their medical coverage and get something the state will offer. The veterans may have issues with their current coverage, but I bet they have a fit when this comes out. How about the individuals with Medicare advantage where everything is covered including drugs and the only cost is the part B premiums that is deducted for any medicare coverage. Wonder how the seniors are going to go for that. How many grannies will their be on TV ads?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Universal-health-care-now-California-law-more-13105587.php?t=d291815c6e
Not to mention the fact that working citizens will again be tapped to fund services for illegal immigrants. I hope they get that through as that will be an inducement for the illegals to stay in CA and not drift east. But $100 Billion additional cost on top of the already $400 billion would require additional taxes of about $3,700 a year for each adult ($100 billion divided by about 27 million adult legal citizens). Or they might just add that to their deficit spending and let the adults in 2040 pay for it. (Note: CA population about 39 million, 25% under 20 and about 2M illegals. 27 million adulats and legal)
I think people have lost their ever living mind. Choose incompetent idiots to run for president, support government programs that do nothing but have negative impacts on the nation and support spending programs with no apparent way to pay for them. Damn, the snowflakes are in for a rude awakening when the chickens come home to roost.
Once you entitle someone to something for “free” whatever it is, you can not fix it.
They will fight for it. They will fight to expand it. They will bitch and moan about it,
but they will never give it up.
Those who create these entitlements are immoral.
Either they are stupid, or they place their own personal short term political advantage over the best interests of the country.
If you want to help others in need – do so. Yourself, with your own resources, directed where you want.
Do not steal from others.
There are many thing government can do to help, assist and instruct to make things better. I am not one that believes as much in government compkete separation from strategic needs as you are. But I also believe that there needs to be much less government direct involvement.
So take for example the Medicar program. What should not have occured in 1968 did, so one can not completely dismantle the program. But after run away cost and multiple attempts to slow the growth of government spending, the government said ” ok, insurance companies, we will give you the money we spend, you agree to provide the basic coverage medicare covers and you sell an insurance and see if you can do any better. In return, we will cap cost each year and slow cost increases considerably”.
What happened? Damn, insurances began selling Advantage plans. They covered more. The deductbles and coinsurance was less or eliminated. Part D coverage had reduced or no premium. Drug list had increased drugs with no coinsurance. Patients no longer needed high cost AARP supplemental plans since the advantage plans covered those costs. Patients got more, costs went down, insurance companies made more money. And preventive care improved the health of most of those covered.
My point is government should not be the answer. It should be the facilitator to help things happen. And those making it happen should bethe private sector. Government should be limited to areas like safety and security of the country.
It is not governments job to help.
The left likes to say “government is what we do together”.
That is close.
Government is what we do together BY FORCE.
I do not understand why that is so hard for all of you to understand.
We have myriads of ways of doing things – either alone or with others.
Nothing precludes us from gathering other like minded people together to do anything that anyone seeks to try to accomplish through government.
There can be only one reason that you choose instead to seek to do something through government.
That is because you wish to do it by FORCE.
I am not deeply religious, but I am deeply spiritual
I do not know of any god that seems the slightest positive merit in forcing others to feed the hungry, ….
In fact, I do not beleive you can do good by starting to do evil.
Government is FORCE.
Government can only be used for those tasks where force can be justified.
Anything more is immoral, it is wrong. It corrodes those seeking to do it.
The original sin of this country is slavery. Why would any of us seek to take liberty from another unnecescarily ?
I do not accept that there are many things government can to do help.
In fact the mere act of Helping – through governmnet makes us all on net worse off not better.
If you are goijng to use government to meet “strategic needs” – then those needs had better justify the use of force. If they do not, You make things worse not better.
Many of our choices have little or no moral components.
But some do.
Deciding whether force is justified is the most fundamental moral choice humans make
All decision regarding government are unavoidably fundamental moral choices.
“I do not understand why that is so hard for all of you to understand.”
IT ISN’T! Damn can you not understand I don’t want government involved in most things.
But I do see government being a facilitator. Bringing together various groups and becoming the tool that is used to develop ideas where the private sector does things they may not do as desperate entities. That doesn’t cost anything. That is not government doing any programs or services. It is just brings X on the west cost together with Y on the east coast to discuss an issue.
Different entities do that all the time. Why should government not be the same.
Your chucrch is a faciliator, the chamber of commerce is a faciliator, Green Peace is a facilitator
Government should NOT be a facilitator.
Government should not have any voice in what we should or should not want.
That is our role as individuals or through voluntary groups that think as we do.
THOSE are facilitaors.
Another name for facilitator is ADVOCATE.
Dave, dont just pick one synonym for facilitator. There are many more. Look them up.
So your saying my church, my chambernof commerce , Green Peace, Lion club, AMA and other organizations are going to be able to bring together the CEO’,s of the ten kargest companies, the CEO’s of the four largest insurance companies, and other players and develop healthcare services that would provide services on a national basis and solve the issues with rising cost.
In your dreams!
I do not care what your definition of facilitator is.
It is not a task where the use of force is justifiable. Therefore it is not a legitimate role of government.
You ask if some other group can bring together all the parties.
If there is a generally recognized problem – or common ground where most everyone benefits from cooperation – certainly.
The ONLY thing government can do that a private “facillitator” can not – is threaten credibly.
Often government need not do so explicitly.
Regardless, that one thing that only government can do, is the one thing that requires justification that you do not have.
This is pretty simple – the ends do not justify the means.
While I do not really beleive that government can “facilitate” a working outcome, even if it could, doing so would be wrong – immoral, because it is accomplished by force.
I am all for voluntary coopoertation. But it must be voluntary.
And if you can not get sufficient cooperation – then I can live with the results.
Though I would note, there are myriads of extremely powerful forms of persuasion available without govenrment – strikes, protests, boycotts,. …..
But these only work when people care enough – and that is exactly as it should be,.
If you can not accomplish “facilitation” without government – then the really problem, is that people do not really care about what you care about, and in that case you should not get your way.
This loops back to a fundimental problem with polls and voting and even government action.
None of these accurately measures what people want and need, how strongly they want and need it, and how that want and need ranks with all other wants and needs.
Ultimately that is not something that can be directly measured.
And that is why ALL top down management ultimately fails.
At the same time, a free market – without any imposed mechanism for doing so, accomplished ALL of this, constantly, all the time, accross billions of wants and needs, accross billions of people, and while imprefect no other arrangement ever devised comes close.
There is a simple way to demonstrate this.
Gather a bunch of your friends.
Go out to the modern equivalent of a 5&10 and get lots of different cheap junk.
distribute them approximately randomly amoung your friends until you run out.
Ask everyone to score each item 1-10 as to how highly they value it.
Now allow everyone to trade what they have however they please for 15min.
After that is done have them score things again.
Guaranteed:
The aggregate score after the trading will be higher than before.
Nearly everyone – and probably everyone will individually score what they have higher AFTER trading.
So how can that be ? How can the same junk be worth more ?
Because we do not all have the same values.
Because each of us wants different things than others.
It is possible – though not likely that some “government” can step in and re-arrange things and produce a slightly higher total value.
But the likelyhood is just random chance.
While allowing people to attempt to meet their needs on their own will always not only increase the “common good” but it will also increase the good of every or nearly every individual.
Polls can not do this.
Voting can not do this.
Congress can not do this.
Government can not do this.
But free markets not only can – but do, all the time.
with respect to medicate and SS and some similar programs – we have taken peoples money from them – BY FORCE, and we have made promises to them in return we can not keep.
FIRST – we should cease doing this stupid and wrong thing moving forward.
NEXT – we need to determine how to best address promises that can not be kept that never should have been made.
Because we made an immoral choice in the past, we no longer have a moral way out.
We are going to have to do something that is wrong no matter what.
We can not keep the promises we made.
We can not not.
We can not continue to steal from others.
Someone is getting screwed no matter what.
How did we get where we are with Medicare – it is called “moral hazard” it is what ocurrs whenever the person making a choice from which they benefit is not the person paying for that choice.
It is pretty standard that when you introduce moral hazard – prices skyrocket.
We saw that with medicare, With Part D and with PPACA.
Now somehow republicans are on the hook to continue a scheme they opposed, that they have said would fail, and now it is ?
That argument revelas how morally depreved the left has become – not that the right is moral giants.
BTW Ron we have been over this before. With extremely few exceptions preventive medicine is MORE expensive not less.
Just to be clear – I am not opposed to people paying for THEIR OWN preventive medicine.
It can result in better quality of life.
But it does not “pay for itself”.
Significant preventive medicine requires a society affluent enough to afford it.
Well you go run for office on ending Medicare and see how many votes you get.
That is part of why it is a moral hazzard.
It is a bad idea. Anyone half honest admits it is a bad idea.
But it is suicide to try to get rid of it.
Ron, did you see the latest Obama plan now being pushed by- drum roll- Trump on trade with the E.U. LMAO
dduck, for some reason I am not getting notified of some posts by word press, so if I missed any I am not ignoring you. I just happened to see the one about Obamas trade plan.
I searched for “Obama trade proposal with EU supported by Trump” and nothing came up. All I got was pages of the same story about Trumps meeting with the EU presidnt, whatever that is.
Can you link in the article you reference so I can read it?
Thanks
dd
Cite?
The news I am seeing is that Trump is openly admitting he is threatening Tarriffs in order to get a real FREE TRADE deal.
That is what Kudlow said after G8.
It is now explicit.
My guess is that being explicit is timed because of the Economic report indicating 4.1% growth in 2Q 2018.
Regardless i have never heard Obama push a “free Trade” plan.
I do not actually beleive that what Trump calls a “free trade” plan will be a free Trade plan.
But it will likely be far more free than anything Obama or Clinton would come up with.
There is another big difference between Trump and Obama.
Obama sought Multilateral agreements.
Trump is explicitly seeking unilateral agreements.
If you want the abstract purity you constantly accuse me of, then you want one multilateral global trade agreement. With the same rules everywhere.
Good luck getting that. The more parties the exponentially harder it is to get a deal.
Trump knows that.
The US will always have a substantial edge in unilateral negotiations.
I would also suggest reading Scott Adam’s on Trump.
A standard Trump tactic is to start negotiations by threatening (or actually) taking something away. Making your opponent start off behind.
Trump has done this with Kim Un, with China, with the EU, with NATO.
It is a thuggish tactic and it does not build trust,
But it is very very effective.
“The United States was pursuing much the same under Mr. Obama through a deal called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. And the collapse of the deal still smarts for large segments of American and European business who had fervently hoped to create a trans-Atlantic version of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The European Union has repeatedly told the Trump administration that it would be happy to revive trade talks.”
Sorry, but the NYT seems to have the best coverage on this.
Sorry but unless someone shows me that Obama was going to do anything but another crappy trade agreement like all the other crappy trade deals we got screwed on over many years, i will take this as media BS.
I also am waiting to see the final outcome on what Trump is negotiating. If it is like all the other deals, it will be crappy also. Most likely it will be something like the BS Trump laid on us with the ACA and how he was going to put an end to that, until he decided the ACA was not so bad and gave the insurance companies what they wanted. Likewise, he most likely will give all these countries what they want and we will not be any better off.
Now Dave will think they are just fine and dandy because he will be free to do whatever he wants because no one is making him do otherwise and he will still be able to buy his cheap imported good. Others will think it is fine because there wont be any tariffs. And all those working in steel mills or have been promised a job where steel mills are reopening, sorry, that was the Trump card played on you.
And I will continue to be Debbie Downer with my thoughts on how f’ed up we are with both parties screwing this country!
First Obama did not finalize any Trade deals to my knowledge. So giving him credit or blame for something that never came to fruition is odd.
Next, though I would greatly prefer real free trade, arrived at unilaterally if necescary
These Trade deals – like NAFTA are NET overwhelmingly positive.
They are far better than high tarrifs and stupid trade regulations.
The bone I have to pick with Trade deals is there is inevitably some bad coming with the good.
Trade deals are a potent backdoor way for the executive to legislate.
Trade deals must only be approved by the Senate – not the house.
Further quite often the executive is given unconstitutional fast track authority.
The senate can then only vote up/down or a trade deal.
They have must take it or leave it.
Virtually all trade deals have lots of things in them that have nothing to do with Trade.
They virtually always result in changes to lots of our laws.
The US spent 200 years with copyrights expiring after 14 years. Eventually we added one 14 year renewal Through nearly all the 20th century every year more and more works entered the public domain. That has not happened in several decades.
It is nearly impossible to tell if something created after 1923 is copyrighted or not.
Worse still we have actually gone backwords.
Much of disney’s work is based on tales that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years. But somehow Disney has manage to copyright Hans Christian Anderson’s (an others) work. It used to be that you could not copyright a derivative work.
Now doubt you could reprint Andersen without Disney suing you.
Anyway these and many other similar messes are brought in through trade deals.
Otherwise Trade deals are better than no trade deals but not as good as free trade.
Anyone promissing a job – is lying.
There is no right to a job.
“There is no right to a job”
EXACTLY! There is no right to most everything except the handful of things in the constitution.
But we should also should require our elected officials to have a brain cell to function, which we do not. When the government gets into deals where our products going to them are taxed by tariffs at 25% and our manufacturers can not sell in that country due to the tax, that causes our manufacturer to not hire additional people. Then when we allow their same type product (lets say cars just as an example as I dont have any knowledge as to what goes on with cars now) to come into this country without tariffs, that causes another deterrent to domestic production because they are selling their cars here and jobs are lost again.
That to me is not using that one brain cell that the politician is expected to use. Now you can tell me over and over and over how great this is because it reduces costs. maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. If the imported car came in with a tariff, would the domestic product be more expensive? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t.
I think we have argued this point to completion as neither of use is going to change our positions.
There is no right to have people buy what you produce. Not your neighbor, not your countrymen not people from other countries.
If “our” manufactureres can not sell somewhere – so be it.
The primary harm is to the people who can not buy their products.
If our manufacturers do not hire people – so be it.
You accept that there is no right, and then respond as if there is.
We should not tariff products from other countries – because that is harmful to our people.
Frankly I would prefer if we eliminated the income tax and returned to tariffs and excise taxes to fund government.
But tarrifs as a means of punishing foreign countries is stupid. It is hitting yourself on the head with a sledge hammer as a means of punishing someone else.
Why would you want to retaliates against the chinese doing something stupid, by doing the same stupid thing ?
Production and Jobs are NOT the business of the govenrment.
Securing out rights is.
You note the lack of beain cells in our political leaders – why do you trust them with the economy ?
You keep fixating on things you have no right to.
Speculating about how things could be better if others would make decisions to your liking is insanity.
I keep getting accused of seeking utopia. Yet it is the rest of you who are after utopia.
No or uniformly low tarrifs are utopian.
Speculating about how things might be if you rulled the world is utopian.
There may not be a right to government making decisions that benefit Americans and not foreigners, but there should be expectations that they would make these decision that benefit Americans.
Your thinking is what has destroyed our manufacturing. Isolationism and protectionist tariffs helped mess up the economy in 29. Now we have just the opposite. China WILL become the economic engine of the world because all production will reside in China. America will be a consumer economy. And if you dont produce anything, how do you afford to consume? Where does your income derive from?
In the 20’s 82% of GDP was consumer spending. After WW2 and the economic environment normalized, consumer spending leveled out around 60% in the 60’s and 70,’s. Then piss poor trade agreements became more acceptible and consumer spending increased to 71%. At the same time, business and manufacturing decreased from 17% of GDP in 70 to 11% in 2017.
Soexplain to me just how low can business and manufacturing activity decrease and personal spending increase as percent of GDP before it becomes a problem? Can we have an economy where we just earn dollars for services and buy everything from foreign countries?
“There may not be a right to government making decisions that benefit Americans and not foreigners, but there should be expectations that they would make these decision that benefit Americans.”
Why ? that is a bizzarre presumption ?
We do not all want or need the same things. There is are very few things government can do that are universally good for all.
Maybe I think that It would be good for government to benefit my church. That OK with you ? With everyone ?
The tarriffs you are arguing about are pretty clear. They do NOT benefit everyone.
Tarrifs MIGHT benefit americans who produce the same goods as foreign producers – but at higher prices – an actual pretty rare occurance.
But they harm americans who buy those same goods by forcing them to pay higher prices.
“Your thinking is what has destroyed our manufacturing. ”
Doubly wrong.
There is no right for the US to manafucture for the world.
At the same time there has never been any long term decline in US manufacturing.
We produce more that ever before by a long shot.
What has changed is we do so with fewer people.
That is a process that has been occuring for hundreds of years.
It is a requirement to raise standards of living.
If you do not continuously make more with less – the economy stagnates, we may even become poorer.
Regardless, you can either either low wage immigrants will produce goods in the US, low wage foreigners will produce them elsewhere,
or the goods will be produced by very few high skill well paid workers and lots of machines.
Those are your choices. What is not a choice is to continue the same way for ever.
We strive to improve standard of living that ONLY occurs when we produce more for less.
“Isolationism and protectionist tariffs helped mess up the economy in 29.”
Though a mistake they are not likely the causes of the depression.
At most they made it worse.
“Now we have just the opposite. China WILL become the economic engine of the world because all production will reside in China. ”
And 30 years ago we were told that Japan would, and before that Germany,
The standard of living in germany and japan have risen dramatically since WWII.
But neither Japan nor Germany, nor any country with over 10M people has a standard of living higher than the US. China’s standard of living has improved dramatically over the past 40 years. Absolutely the sell more to us than we sell to them.
But we sell far far far more to them today than 40 years ago.
Poor countries do not buy US goods.
“America will be a consumer economy.”:
And yet GDP keeps growing – apparantly by 4.1% last quarter.
The “P” in GDP is for PRODUCE.
The US is still the largest PRODUCER in the world.
330M people PRODUCE more than 1.6B in China.
330M people PRODUCE more than 550M in the EU.
And over the past 40 years we have taken in 45M immigrants – at the BOTTOM.
“And if you dont produce anything, how do you afford to consume? Where does your income derive from?”:
I production continues to increase.
“In the 20’s 82% of GDP was consumer spending. After WW2 and the economic environment normalized, consumer spending leveled out around 60% in the 60’s and 70,’s. Then piss poor trade agreements became more acceptible and consumer spending increased to 71%. At the same time, business and manufacturing decreased from 17% of GDP in 70 to 11% in 2017.”
And yet over the same time period manufacturing GREW ?
All you are noting is that other parts of the US economy – higher paying parts grew FASTER than manufacturing.
“So explain to me just how low can business and manufacturing activity decrease and personal spending increase” Not happening, what is happening in the economy is sustainable.
“as percent of GDP”
Not relevant. So long as the pie continues to grow, and so long as our slice of the pie continues to grow – why are you all fired up because someone else’s peice is growing faster than yours.
Growth in China is slowing – it is still high, but not as high as it was.
It is not possible for China to “catch” the US – without the US making many enormous mistakes. But even if it was – who cares ?
Do you want to be better off tomorow than today ?
Or are you more concened that someone else might be doing better than tyou ?
“before it becomes a problem?”
Its not.
The fiscal deficit is a real problem
the Trade deficit is NOT.
“Can we have an economy where we just earn dollars for services”
Actually yes.
“and buy everything from foreign countries?:”
Yup.
I do not expect that to happen but so long as the value of the services we produce is greater than the value of the goods we consume, we can continue indefinitely.
There is no requirement that any country do everything.
Look into the economics of comparative advantage.
So what is the argument here ?
That if Trump engages in anything short of a Trade war, he is channeling Obama ?
Regardless, I do not think that Obama managed a single consequential trade deal.
While Obama was not an outright protectionist, he was not a free trader and he really did not care much about trade.
Crediting Obama for anything on Trade – besides not screwing it up, is inappropriate.
Though “not screwing it up” is better than he did elsewhere.
To be clear – I am prepared to “wait and see” regarding Trump and Trade.
But if he actually proves ultimately to be a protectionist – then he is wrong.
Any resemblance between Trump and Obama is meaningless.
Is there a law against taking credit for solving a problem you yourself created? I don’t think so, but check the Constitution. It is an efficient way to show what a great job you are doing.
If he were a dog catcher, for which he is more qualified, he would open up the cages so the critters “could get some exercise”, and then meet his quota for capturing critters. His night job would be setting fires and putting them out (most anyway) after calling the media and friends to be witnesses to his bravery.
dduck, not sure what you were referencing, so I will just ask based on this comment.
“Is there a law against taking credit for solving a problem you yourself created? ”
What problem is solved? I have not heard anything getting solved, but maybe I missed something.
Ok, this might be a little long, but it is an excellent example of how government fixes problems.
Outer Banks NC, vacation destination. Bridges to all islands. Stop light on main road north and south intersection with east/west road going to bridge. Traffic backups when vacationers hitting thhe beach.
Government solution. Traffic circle. Remove light. Problem solved right? Wrong!
Once one road direction traffic makes claim on circle, the three other directions at stand still. Traffic backed up to fire station blocking fire truck from exiting.
Solution. Four employees directing traffic, allowing one direction at a time to enter circle.
Traffic still backs up like it did with stop light, but now it takes four employees to do what stop light did prior.
Our tax money working well!
Ron, that was an attempt at levity, you need some cheering up, as we all do. Trump creates problems, right. Then he “solves” them, right; that to me is humorous. Sorry if you don’t agree.
If you want me to argue that government doesn’t screw up- a lot-, I won’t.
In my midtown Manhattan neighborhood, there are cross streets coming from the Mid Town tunnel that often get jammed. So what did some genius do? He put bicycle stalls that take away a lane. And, there is one on 36th St AND 39th ST. So back ups are worse.
OK I need to scan back to what I responded to seriously to see what you said was levity so I can respond to your response to my response. And then you can respond if you find a response is needed.
OK GOT IT!!!!!
Sorry dont agree Trump creates a problem then solves the proble.
Why? Because Trump IS the problem. He can only solve that one by doing a disappearing act.
Whoops, then we get Pence. Hmmm.
If the money starts drying up will Trump pend his own? Nah, he is a cheapskate.
“The influential conservative Koch network opened up their summer meeting with an emphasis on bipartisanship while also delivering sharp critiques of President Donald Trump and his administration.
“The divisiveness of this White House is causing long-term damage,” said network co-chair Brian Hooks, who also chided elected officials who are “following” his lead.
The Koch network’s influence, even among Republicans, has come into question in the conventional-wisdom-shredding era of Trump. The network has during the past year and a half fruitlessly pushed for comprehensive health care and immigration reform; and like other leading conservative groups, the network has been powerless to persuade the President to rethink his strategy on trade generally and tariffs specifically.
The weekend conference comes with fewer than four months until the midterm elections, as the network, led by billionaire Charles Koch, gears up to spend millions to protect Republican majorities in Washington. Yet the networks’ leaders did not sound like they were on war footing on Saturday, instead highlighting bipartisan cooperation.
“It is radical, particularly given the divisive climate that we’re in right now and how polarized and factionalized the country is in many ways,” said James Davis, a spokesperson for the network. “But we want to focus on aggressively finding areas of common interest where we can make progress on some issues, even if we disagree on other issues.”
Although the Koch network has not adjusted its spending projections for the midterms, its thematic shift suggests the GOP-aligned group could be contemplating a new power dynamic in Washington and its place in it. Indeed, in spite of significant investments by the Koch network and like-minded groups, Democrats have maintained an advantage in generic polling and appear as well positioned to compete for majorities in Congress now as they did earlier this year.
The Koch network has dabbled in working with and supporting Democrats when their interests have aligned, and the network alarmed some Republicans earlier this year when it funded a digital ad campaign applauding North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s support for rolling back bank regulations. Heitkamp is one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents this year, and her race could help decide partisan control of the senate.”
Some evidence that Kudlow is correct, and Trump actually is negotiating for actual free trade.
“evidence” LMAO.
You do not think that Junker and Trump publicly agreeing to no tarrifs and to work on eliminating subsidies is not evidence ?
I would like a signed binding agreement.
But Trump already has much more actual Trade successes that Obama in less than 2 years.
He talks wrong, He does somethings wrong, but he appears to be headed to the right ends.
A part of how things actually work
https://capx.co/how-progress-turns-scarcity-into-abundance/
“You do not think that Junker and Trump publicly agreeing to no tarrifs and to work on eliminating subsidies is not evidence ?”
No, another Apprentice episode.
Good to know.
Same standards apply to others ?
Buy your standard I am not sure that Obama accomplished a single thing in foreign policy as a president.
I do not recall a final agreement on anything.
On the Cohen/Trump tape, Trump was in a panic and shouted: “Get me a Koch, please”
When someone finds out he was taped, the tape has undeniable conversations that hush money was paid, the person on the tape says publically he never paid hush money and then waives attorney/client confidentiality, he did not say “get me a Koch”. He has said “get me THE coke” , too many times in their life as their brain is fried. Why Trumps attorneys waived confidentiality is inconceivable to me!
There has never been any question that “hush money was paid.
It is not illegal to pay people to be quite about legal activities.
The only “criminal” allegation involving Cohen is his games with taxicab medallions and Trump has nothing to do with that.
Beyond that there is nothing that the SNYC ADA has to investigate.
There is a political question – Trump has quasi denied and later retracted the denial of foreknowledge of Cohen’s payoff arrangements.
There is the legal question of whether they are binding – they were poorly crafted which does not speak well of Cohen’s legal accumen
Why did Trump waive priviledge ? Because there is nothing here.
Ha, Ha!
Like Putin the Koch’s have very successfully gamed the left while spending little.
The Koch’s do not like Trump and did not fund him- The Mercers actually on of the top 10 donors that is republican, funded the initially Trump Dossier work before the Clinton campaign became involved.
Regardless, the Koch’s have become the boogeymen to the left, their miniscule spending invested with super powers.
And Putin actually spent something like 1/60th what the Koch’s did and if I were to beleive the media/left managed to tip the election.
If only the Koch’s actually had these superpowers.
Everyone knows Trump does not do coke or alcohol, so it has to be Koch.
More evidence of the close relationship between Trump and the Kochs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kochbrothers/trump-calls-koch-brothers-total-joke-overrated-idUSKBN1KL1G4
Revolution based on some socialist doctrine is a slow and methodological process. Where revolution in third world nations occurs from the outside, revolutions in developed countries occurs from the inside. Divide the country between the rich and poor. Get the people attacking each other. What do we hear daily from the Democrats? Do they try to work to end the division, or do they stoak the fires of division in their words.
Another in their playbook is to infiltrate the schools and indoctrinate the kids from a very young age. We see and hear daily how the liberal agenda is promoted at a very young age. High school kids are ostracized by their peers for being conservative. The dean of the law school at U of Georgia tweeted a congradulatory message to a many years friend from their early age who won the GOP gov. primary in GA. He received death threats amoung the hundreds of attack messages. The hate was so great that today he tweeted an apology for congradulating his friend. He had not endorsed him.
Divide the country, control the education system, indoctrinate the kids
and in a few short years you have accomplished your goal.
Ron, you do not understand.,
The ends justify the means.
If it is necessary to torture and kill “capitalist roaders” to achieve some perceived positive benefit – then kill them, The common good requires it, Even if that end used to justify the means is never achieved or achievable.
Aspirations are not a justification for the use of force EVER
I know there’s only three of us left, but maybe you can share this somewhere else to get more people informed.
Excellent way to insure the upcoming generations are introduced to the socialist doctrine of dependency. If your never taught personal responsibility, being dependent on others will inflate the lefts popularity.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mowing/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Traffic%20Driver&utm_campaign=Facebook%20Stout
Unbelievable. Sickening. I can add it to my list of sickening things from the right and left extremes that are F******* up our country.
I am sure that far from killing it the trump presidency has only greatly upped the strength of this PC idiocy. Eventually, I guess there will be an actual shooting civil war between treasonous trumps idiots and the intolerant and absurd forces of PC and every other flavor of left wing stupidity?
Putin will watch (is watching) from the sidelines with a big smile. We won’t have to worry about socialism, we will have bigger problems on our hands.
I can only hope that the history books 50 or 100 years from now will report our era as a time of instability and turbulence that we somehow survived, like England’s time of troubles.
perhaps trump should interest himself in how King Charles ended up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
I was responding to the story on the Dean having to apologize for his tweet, not the lawn mowing crisis, (which I bet gets sorted out OK despite the fact that its occurring in Alabama.)
twitter is the product of the devil and anyone who uses it is I guess, doomed anyhow. What a stupid world we live in today. Bring back rock and roll and teenagers seeing how many they could get into a phone booth.
Your comment about future generations and this being like UK’s troubled times might come true, but I think we are in for much worse before it gets better. I was debating (,vigoriously) with my son-,in-law that I had heard that gen-z was much more accepting of conservative lrinciples than the previous two generations. He set me straight. He is active in church, youth organizations and youth activities. He gave me multiple examples where bullying in school is totally unacceptible unless that student has been identified as a conservative. Any one of them that support Thom Tillis, Richard Burr, Virgina Foxx or Donald Trump are targets daily by those on thd left. Reporting this to the schools does no good. One principle stated “,they should not make their political views known when they think like this”.
So the dean’s making it known he was friends with a republican action was unacceptible, so is the fact that kids can not be of a political persuasion without the same backlash. Bullying should be unacceptible for any reason, not just for reasons that fit one view. And this is not just telling someone they are wrong, it is consistent and constant bullying from the time they hit school until the next morning with tweets and Instagram post taking place in off school hours.
Hitler dividednthe people. Hitler got people to report neighbors and friends. Hitler used indoctrination to brainwash the youth. He used the education system and other means to do this. And our educational system is heading in the same way promoting the leftist agenda. Get them young and they wont ask questions.
So I wonder who is really dividing the country. Trump with his desire to build a wall and deport people who should not be here, or the left that finds it totally acceptable to allow bullying and death threats on school officials that have conservative friends to politifians on the right.
“So I wonder who is really dividing the country. Trump with his desire to build a wall and deport people who should not be here, or the left that finds it totally acceptable to allow bullying and death threats on school officials that have conservative friends to politifians on the right.”
Badly phrased question (since there is a Whole lot more to trump than just building a wall and because the left is not a monolithic group where every left leaning person finds bullying conservatives acceptable, for example I don’t) but the answer is easy. No need for a choice between A or B. Both extremes with their mindless and rabid extreme members are really dividing the country!
Yep, the same thing that ended up giving us Trump is driving the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democrats, giving the country the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Is there any hope the democrats will choose someone qualified that wont shove Obama/Sanders type of government programs down our throats.
Yes, I am still predicting a Pelosi house in 2019, impeachment hearings tobdestroy Trump and a Democrat president in 2021, along with a democrat coat tails senate.
Ron;
The left can not succeed.
Their own successes are the driving force of their own failure.
My crystal ball view is different than yours. I believe the undercurrents that surprised us with Brexit and then Trump’s election in 2016 are if anything at the moment stronger now than ever.
I think the purported rigidity of Trump support is a direct consequence of the vigor and lunacy of the lefts attacks.
Almost any rational analysis suggested 2016 was highly likely to be a republican year.
The country was tired of 8 years of socialism lite. Inarguably it failed. Obama did not bring about a return to prosperity. Democrats did not enter the 2016 election with a strong argument for continuing the policies of the previous 8 years.
The question was not whether republicans would win in 2016, but which republican.
Trump appeared to be the most unlikely choice. At the same time I think it is very important to contemplate why Trump won – by that I mean what is it about his voice that resonated with so much of the electorate.
Are you actually arguing that those fighting PC are to blame for increasing PC ?
And, taking my tongue out of my cheek, the chances of a real socialist revolution in America are 0. Forever.
Many young people will tend to start out on the wacky left, and then they will drift rightward over their lives, just like they always have. You will never get a majority of Americans to buy into actual socialism long enough to make it happen. As soon as the actual costs are shown what happened, for example, to single payer in Vermont (it died stillborn when the dem legislature and governor were faced with having to sign onto real costs instead of the fantasies of some Harvard professor) will happen to socialist programs. Now, you can mistakenly call things like social security socialist but that is nonsense. Look up the actual definition of socialism. Words do have some meaning still, even in the present mess. The PC mess is the sign of the PC mess, not the sign of impending socialism. Things are bad enough without that kind of confusion.
Well you hit on a pet peave of mine. SS is not a socialistic program. SS is not even an entitlement program. Only the program has become one due to piss poor govefnment oversight.
I took my SS taxes and entered them by year . I then used an average S&,P return compounded over my career. Then I took what I get and there is plenty to cover that over my projected life expectancy. And had the funds been actively managed,bthe compounded amounts would be much greater.
Government took the funds, spent them, put in IOU’s with minimal government interest rate returns. This means most will withdraw more than they paid in . But that is not how the program was designed to work.
Yes Medicare is an entitlement because it never covered cost. Government has always paid more than collected, so there can be no compounding for income.
Of course it is socialist and of course it is an entitlement.
The SS law is very clear – SS benefits are entitlements, they are not earned.
Any relationship between the taxes you pay and what you collect is a coincidental function of politics,
SS is not even insurance – thought that is part of its name.
But most importantly it is and always has been a ponzi scheme.
A full time person making from HS graduation through retirement who invested about 12.5% of their wage – the total of just SS taxes collected would have at retirement an investment worth atleast the equivalent of 450K.
That would be for any 45 year period since the start of the 20th century, including through the great depression.
There is plenty of data out there – because SS ends when you die – your contributions to SS are NOT an asset that you own that you can give to your heirs, on average – we collect from SS about the same amount as a MW person contributes.
Not only is SS a Ponzi scheme – but it is one run by the government that the government – not the people benefited from.
You make my point. $450K over 20 years (66-85) is 22,500 a year the same as the max one can get from SS or close. And that does not include earning on investments while withdrawing about 5% each year.
If you can make 5%/year which is not unreasonable, you can draw 22,500/year forever and leave your children 450K when you die.
Regardless you can do SS calcs with a slightly more than dirt simple spread sheet.
Further a small number of contries have tried privatized equivalents of SS – and they have been tremendous successes – especially for the poor.
BUT the building investment always becomes a huge target for government.
Many successful “private” retirement finds in countries with private SS systems have been taken over by governemnt and pillaged for money, in return for a promise of from government such as we have.
Even in the US every now and then the left talks about confiscating IRA’s and pensions and replacing them with SS+.
” Even in the US every now and then the left talks about confiscating IRA’s and pensions and replacing them with SS+.”
Well dont be surprised when a Sanders type is president, Pelosi is Speaker and Shumer is majority leader and this passes. Once Shumer is majority leader, he will change the rules so the senate only needs 50%+1, so getting this passed will be easy.
Just to be clear – we are a long way from confiscating IRA’s.
But we should not forget – it has happened, the results are bad, and people are worse off
Nor should we forget that it is an idea that does rear its ugly head on the left even if as of yet without strong support.
The point is not this is about to happen.
But we should trust the left really does mean what it says.
I really do not care alot about house and senate rule changes.
I think that rules that empower minorities are an excellent idea.
I think one serious mistake our rules have that should have been fixed in the constution is that while it should be hard to pass new law, it should be EASY to get rid of law that does nto live up to expectations. It should not merely require super majority support for government to act, it should require that support to be maintained for government to continue to act.
How is SS NOT Socialist ?
The funding of retirement is a consequence of the control 0f the means of production.
Where do you think government is getting this money ?
From production.
Regardless more broadly inarguably statist, and all forms of statism fail in pretty much the same way.
Socialism in its pure form is a form of government where the people own most everything and that community controls most everything.
Statism can exist in many forms of government philosophies since it is a belief that government should control many facets of programs but ownership can exist outside government.
SS is a statist program. It began as a forced retirement program that was designed to fund itself to insure everyone had some form of support after retirement. People and their employer funded the program for the employee but was controled by government.
Over the years government screwed up SS due to their lack of adequate fiduciary oversight and allowed funds to be used for the community and not for the purpose it was intended. A statist program became a Socialist program since it is transferring wealth which the original program was not designed to do.
I constantly harp that “words have meaning” – and that is important.
The problem is that ambiguous use of words miscommunicates.
With respect to debates over the meaning of socialism – I do not care how you define the term – you can distort communications just as effectively by narrow definitions for broad terms as by broad defintions of narrow words.
What matters is what is being communicated – NOT what is being said.
I rant constantly about FORCE and using FORCE correctly – the precise meaning of force is not what is relevant.
What matters is that failure to abide by the wishes of government ultimately results in men with guns taking your property, your rights and your freedom – whatever you wish to call that.
Is Social Security Socialism ? If I accept someone else;s argument that it is not, or that it is not PURE socialism, does that change the fact that it is a bad idea that does not work, and that was predictable from the beginging, even FDR thought social security was a bad idea, he ultimately supported it as a tool to win an election that he expected would be close and because the piper would not need to be paid during his lifetime.
Was the USSR Socialist ? The PRC ? The Khmer Rouge ? Cuba ? Denmark, Sweden ? Venezuela ?
Does technical differences matter ? Do the edges of definitions matter.
The USSR and Khmer Rouge were failed states.
Venezuela has not yet failed but is following the same trajectory as the wiemar republic and Zimbabwe. Worse still Venezuela and the left have openly touted themselves as a model for socialism. Yet, in a short term they have taking the most prosperous country in south america and turned it into a third world nation.
Castro did much the same for Cuba – but unlike Venezuela he has done so “sustainably”.
Cuba is poor with only very slow improvement, but it is not getting constantly worse, Venezuela is.
The PRC is still an example of very bad totalitarian government. But it has improved its govenrment and it has essentially transformed itself from failed totalitarian socialism to far more successful totalitarian capitalism.
I can go on and on. But the fact is we have excellent knowledge and data of what works better in govenrment and what works worse.
Whatever labels you wish to give to what democrats seek to do – we KNOW they fail.
Do they help some people ? Almost nothing government does has zero winners. But the losers always far outnumber the winners . Often the winners win big and the losers lose small obscuring the fact that the harm is still orders of magnitude greater than any benefits.
If we can not agree on the definitions of words that should not obscure the fact that everything encompassed by the broadest definition of socialism fails.
It fails, even if you do not call it socialism.
Just as you can call the actions of employers with respect to their employees FORCE, but no one will face men with guns seeking to take your property, your liberty and ossibly your life because of the FORCE used by an employer. Conversely any confilict with government will ultimately result in men with guns taking your property, your liberty and you life.
Clarity in words matter – because they are how we communicate.
The need for clarity is to communicate effectively.
Too broad a defintion of FORCE conflates actions of government that we see as benign with those of private actors which was see as malignant – despite the fact than the likely harm of a bad act of a malignant private actor is far less that of a good act of a benign government actor.
The broadest defintion of socialism might not accurately reflect the detailed operation of that government, but it does accuratley reflect the end result – failure.
Ron SS was screwed up from the begining.
It doesn’t work as a concept.
The issues you cite with SS reflect the stupidity of government – not SS itself.
The use of SS funds for other purposes allowed politicans to play with money they thought was free.
The money from the SS “trust” may not have been invested. But it is owed by government to SS. And it si being paid, the SS trust will ultimately be made whole and SS will still FAIL.
And that is what matters – is it possible that in some mythical world SS could have been run such that it worked ? Of course it could. There are successful private pensions and retirement investments up the wahzoo. It is not even hard.
But there is no possibility that government was ever going to run SS well.
It is not in the nature of government to do so.
Who knew “socialism” was so nuanced and varied. And who knew any long-term program originally launched as a basic safety net could get screwed up and earn the negative socialism label.
The claim that SS is not socialism is bad word play – words do have meaning.
But lets ignore the “socialism” part
“who knew any long-term program originally launched as a basic safety net could get screwed up”
That answer is trivial – anyone with a brian.
Name ANY long term Social Safety net program by government that has worked ?
Name ANY long term program of any kind by government that has worked ?
Name any program of any kind by government that has worked ?
If you are very very knowledgeable you can think of a few gvt programs that were not abject failures. But nearly all of those were small progams – usually trial programs.
And all failed when scaled.
Even the purported great success of government – infrastructure, is historically inefficient and corrupt on many levels.
Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Without government the few sociopaths among us would destroy us all – it is in their nature.
The most fundimental purpose of government is to counter the destructive effect of sociopaths – those who are willing to use force to get their way – even when that is not in anyone’s interest.
That is the primary value and purpose of government. Expressed more eloquently government is their to protect our liberty from those who would take it by force.
Everything else we are best able to provide for ourselves.
Even Sociopaths constrained from using force to impose their will are more likely to act not only in their own self interest – but in the interests of all.
LMAO. As usual, you didn’t get it. “Who knew” is a Trumpisim. I made a rhetorical statement and didn’t put in a :-). I apologize.
Of course, I am making fun of Trump; I doubt it if he was even awake during any civic or history classes he may have taken.
dduck, sorry, the levity went right over my head. Since I am bald, things dont stick like people with hair☺
Seriously, I had not idea this was a Trumpism. Dont listen to him, dont listen to much on the news. I know whats happening because I research whenever I hear something on local news or other sources.
By the way, I caught part of a show (they called stand up comedy) that left me wondering how four letter words became so amusing. While watching this cesspool mouth and due to our earlier comments, I began to wonder how would Don Rickles rate in todays environment where personal attacks are attacks and not comedy.
DD
I do not care if you are being serious or joking.
Though I would again note that satire, sarcasm, irony are really hard to do on the internet.
I took your post seriously and responded seriously.
If you are claiming it is rhetorical – that strongly suggests that absent humor you agree with me.
You are free to post as you please and on occasion I resort to humor too. I hope I am more clear. Though I do so relatively rarely as all too often you take humor literally – as you are claiming I did.
Yep, there are a lot of “who knews” now.
Who knew:
……social media would become a major tool that divides the country and promotes bullying.
……the GOP and Democrats would move so far left and right, leaving a void as large as the grand canyon where the vast majority of voters reside.
……that voters would pick two of histories top bad candidates for president in 2016
……that unfair, totally screwed up trade agreements are acceptible to politicians
……that government would create laws that require people to buy private enterprise products and services.
……and that government could screw up a self funding, self sufficient program so bad it is going bankrupt.
…..that the oath of office the president takes where supporting the constitution that includes article 1,,section 8 of the constitution would be so divisive.
And many many more!!!!!
“who knew social media would become a major tool that divides the country and promotes bullying.”
Don;t care, and nothing new. I am not sure how it is that ne is “bullied” on social media. I was actually bullied as a kid. Other kids would steal my things, get off at my bus stop and try to beat me up. That is bullying – the use of force to get your way.
If people are saying things you do not like about you on FB or Twitter or .. unfriend them, block them, or do not listen.
If you express an oppinion – you are not entitled to expect that others will not disagree,
“the GOP and Democrats would move so far left and right, leaving a void as large as the grand canyon where the vast majority of voters reside.”
The GOP has moved slightly left not right. If you do not see that you are blind to the past.
“that voters would pick two of histories top bad candidates for president in 2016”
I would strongly suggest serious thought about why voters picked Trump.
The logic of picking Clinton is easy – continuing the policies of Obama.
For all her many many many flaws, the left had very good reason to expect that Clinton would govern much like Obama.
But voters CHOSE Trump. Whatever you feel about him personally – he did not end up as the GOP choice by “cheating”. He won the primary and the election playing by the rules and with the support of sufficiently large numbers of voters.
Trump did not come out of a vaccuum. We picked him for reasons – maybe not your reasons or mine, but we shoudl still think about those reasons – because getting rid of Trump will NOT change the wishes of Trump voters.
“that unfair, totally screwed up trade agreements are acceptible to politicians”
Why limit this to trade agreements?
“that government would create laws that require people to buy private enterprise products and services.”
Government will grown – there are natural (though bad) forces that require constant strong resistance. to delay that.
“and that government could screw up a self funding, self sufficient program so bad it is going bankrupt.”
Not self sufficient and never ws.
“TSA considering eliminating screening at smaller airports”
https://fox43.com/2018/08/02/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/
Really, can we talk about this a little? Perhaps a taller wall.
Eliminate the TSA entirely. Leave the security of air travel to those providing air travel.
The TSA does not scan you and go through your belongings when you take a taxi or uber.
Airlines have a vested interest is BOTH the safety of their passengers and their convenience.
I spent this week traveling to LA. The travel was hell.
Just another example of the media trying to fan the fires of dicord amoung the people. The article I read earlier indicated this is a year occurrence sincd 2011. Why was it not headline news then, but it is now? Why hadnt this been news every time the agency meets to discuss this, but it is now?
Whats changed? Are we in more danger now than in 2011? If it wax jot news then it is not news now. Likewise, if it was news then, it should be covered now. I just could not find anything about 2011.
But should we not be reviewing 100% of all government programs for effectiveness and/or improvements/elimination? Or do we just continue pouring money into programs without any over sight?
We can do much better – just get government our completely – but still a step int he right direction.
I would note that all these rule changes reflect two things – a return to conformance with the actual law, and walking away from “we know better what is good for you than you do yourself”.
These changes do not FORCE anyone to do anything.
They allow them to make choices they did not have before.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obamacare-is-now-optional
Both the article and the interview with Nunes are quite interesting.
http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/399970-the-real-maria-butina-scandal-fbi-could-have-prevented-it
Interesting? Yes, to some, boring to others.
“I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” Trump said. “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.” Trump throughout his campaign publicly pledged to quickly kill and replace Obamacare, while never getting specific about what the alternative would look like.
dduck ” while never getting specific about what the alternative would look like.”
That is because the government should never be telling anyone they have to buy a servic or product from a private company for any reason. The ACA should have never passed!
So had I been in his position I would have left the awful bill repeal on the agenda and offered a government alternative for individuals with preexisting conditions using the same funds allocated to supporting insurance companies risk amounts. I believe that one senator would have chaged his vote from no to yes.
HOW…You allow people to buy what they want, not some plan where lesbians, gays, males and post menopausal individuals are covered for maternity cost. You allow people HSA’s and catastrophic plans if they want. You allow them to go uncovered. You allow insurance companies to sell national plans.
As someone closely associated with unsavory actions by insurance companies providing health coverage, I know people with preexisting conditions would have no way to buy a plan listed earlier. So in my humanitarian persona and not libertarian persona, you create a public/private agency headed by former insurance company managers and CMS managers to manage an agency that provides insurance plans in competition with insurance companies. They not only sell government subsidised plans for individuals dropped by private companies with preexisting conditions, they also sell to anyone else at market rates.
You fund these subsidised plans with the current ACA funding PLUS a tax on BOTH for profit and not for profit 501 C 3 hospitals since this should significantly reduce the estimated 10%-12% bad debt on net revenues hospitals had before ACA.These entities are well able to pay a tax after the bad debt is reduced. And you have premiums coming in from subscribers.
Now this will set off Dave for hours. I know. In his world people get no help. If they cant get coverage because insurance wont sell it due to preexisting conditions, they sell their homes until they have nothing, then die. Thats their choice. No force by government.
Sorry, but I cant be that inhumane.
whatever fears you have of actors in the market, you should have greater fears within government.
The same people you think are evil in the free market do not become saints in government.
The same things you think are bad motives privately exist on steroids in government.
I would suggest looking at public choice theory.
With respect to misconduct by private actors – absolutely bad choices are made. Or choices are made for bad reasons. But to a far larger extent than you consider those problems are self correcting over time.
Insurance companies can not sell whatever they want at any price they choose.
Absent government interferance they must sell something that people will buy at a price they will pay. When one company or several companies abandon’s a market – someone else will look to serve it and profit from it.
If as an exampel we value coverage for pre-existing condictions highly enough – insurance companies will have to offer it at prices we can afford.
Quite often whenb something you wish for does not happen that is for one or more of several reasons.
Actual market demand is low. “I want that if it is free” is not demand.
“I want that and I am willing to pay X$” is demand.
The state of current technology does not allow delivering that good or service economically – yet.
I agree “The state of current technology does not allow delivering that good or service economically – yet.”
And therein is the problem. If you have a total possible market of 100M subscribers and 10% of those have preexisting conditions, 3 conditions exist.
1. you offer to cover PE conditions and spread the risk, increasing premiums for everyone buying a policy.
2. You do not cover PE conditions and offer PE plans at a cost that covers risk, but in most all cases they will be so expensive few could afford them.
3 You dont sell PE policies.
Selling insurance is not like selling a car. No one is going to die if they dont have a brand new car. (,But government subsidized government motors that shipped jobs to China anyway).
People may want to buy insurance, but when it cost $2k to $3k a month and they make average income, after taxes this can be 60% of net income. They cant afford that and afford food, rent etc for an average family of 4.
Government screwed up the healthcare cost model since 1968. There is NO WAY it can be fixed without a partnership between government providing subsidies and the private sector. I want to stop the insurance company welfare payments and use the subsidies in a new partnership program where a new entity offers coverage and its funded by premiums, subsidies and taxes on providers.
We have been through this before – Insurance is about money, not healthcare.
It is about protecting what wealth you have – which is why it is virtually impossible to get the poor to sign up for free health insurance.
I am not worried about the poor. The poor get Medicaid or they generate $25M to 30M a year is average sized community hospitals that the other paying patients cover in their charges. They can do that because they have no assets to protect.
I am concerned about the middle class family in a middle class neigborhood with two kids. The dad loses his job and he loses his employer health insurance that he covered his family. He gets anither job, but due to a medical issue that formed during prior employment, he can not get coverage. Coverage for him and his family cost close to 50% of his income. His wife is diagnosed with stage two breast cancer. After 12-28 months, they have drained assets and now have a choice of divorcing so she has no income and has dependents, thus qualifing her and the kids for Medicaid, selling the house and using whatever equity on a few more months of chemo, or keeping their remaining assets in tact and discontinuing treatment knowing that choice is a death sentence.
Insurance CEO’s could care less! Depending on the state, remaining assets will be encumbered by collection agencies to cover treatment and once accounts go to bad debt, providers cut off treatment.
You tell me what your choice would be.
You make my point.
If the poor will not die from lack of insurance, then neither will the middle class.
I worry about the middle class too.
But the answer is NOT to convert them into the dependent poor by bathing them in entitlements.
You want to do some good – just completely eliminate taxes for anyone making under 40K/year. but at the same time completely end any government benefits to most of them too.
They will be able to afford insurance without subsidies and because they are paying themselves the market will work and costs will be pushed down.
You will never control healthcare spending until the consumers of healthcare start demanding their money’s worth.
The only person who can properly guage the value of healthcare and insurance for me is me.
End the deductibility of employer paid health insurance.
All insurance will rapidly move to the individual market and you will not lose it when you change jobs or are unemployed.
Beyond that you are again arguing hypotheticals.
I beleive I linked an article elsewhere that noted that Insurance companies were offering short term coverage that was affordable, and included affordable pre-existing conditions options. and that could affordably have guaranteed renewal provisions.
Trump just killed off Obama era regs that severely limited such policies – they did not need to be PPACA compliant, by setting the rules such that “short term” meant 90 days or less and that insurance companies were barred from offering pre-existing conditions and automatic renewal options. The idea was to kill any insurance that was not PPACA compliant.
I do not grasp why you do not understand that government is NEVER going to do things such that you will be happier than you would be on your own.
We can pretend to like SS, but anyone with a brain knows they would have been better off without it. And SS is one of the less bad federal programs.
“Government screwed up the healthcare cost model since 1968. There is NO WAY it can be fixed without a partnership between government providing subsidies and the private sector.”
Nope.
Government screwed it up, if you want it fixed – get government out.
Public Private partnerships are at best less inefficient than government doing something on its own, but usually more corrupt.
“I want to stop the insurance company welfare payments ”
Ending some form of government spending is just about the hardest thing possible in politics.
“and use the subsidies in a new partnership program where a new entity offers coverage and its funded by premiums, subsidies and taxes on providers.”
If you tax providers costs will rise. This is a horribly inefficient approach.
All the problems you claim need government help are tiny compared to the cost and problems of your solutions.
Contra the left – people do not die in the US because of “pre-existing conditions”.
No one dies because healthcare is not available to them.
The poor get whatever they want no matter what. It was actually hard to get them to sign up for PPACA. as all PPACA did for the poor was add lots of paperwork.
The “bad outcome” of pre-existing conditions – is that some small percentage of people go bankrupt. That is all.
Total medicat debt discharged in bankruptcies each year is less than a few hours worth of the total cost of PPACA.
“Contra the left – people do not die in the US because of “pre-existing conditions”.
No one dies because healthcare is not available to them.”
Please provide link to study indicating this
….and that those receiving treatment to keep them alive is not driving up healthcare cost shifted to paying patients.
“Please provide link to study indicating this
….and that those receiving treatment to keep them alive is not driving up healthcare cost shifted to paying patients.”
I have not claimed what you are saying I did above. Nor is it related to what I did claim.
Thanks for your insight Ron.
Approval ratings.
Trump: 50%
Macron: 36%
May: 30%
Merkel: 29%
Putin 87%, your point?
Trump: 50%
Macron: 36%
May: 30%
Merkel: 29%
Ha, you wish. I love to watch you feed yourself distorted information, its fascinating. Garbage in, garbage out.
trump is under 42% today in poll aggregates such as rcp: 53.9 opposed to 41.7 support and 538: 52.8 opposed 41.4 support. And that is about the Best he has ever done.
I’d bet you are off on the poll numbers of the other leaders by as much but I don’t have time to go hunting.
Q much?
The number of people with truly scrambled brains is quite mind boggling. Overheated and fanatical political thinking is a disease that causes extensive brain damage in the majority of users.
Figures dont lie, but liars can figure. Polls dont mean a danged thing in this day and age. Rassmusen has him at 50% approval, Quinnipac and NPR at 40%. Fox latest at 46%. So pick people you suspect to lean left or right, ask them and you get vast differences like these. Rasmussin also says Trumps approval exceeds Obamas at the same time in their presidency. Wanna bet NPR and Quinapac comparison has Obama exceeding Trump innthis same comparison.
What matters? 3.9% unemployment, 7.2% ACTUAL unemployment rate (unemployed plus underemployed), lowest in years, lowest minority unemployment in years, 4%+ growth rate, interest rates still historically low, increased manufacturing jobs, fewer illegal immigrants in 17 years (fact checked by politifact) and constitutionalist appointed to SCOTUS.
That is all fact. The rest is to be proven.
Rassmussen is the only major poll that had Trump winning on election day.
Yes,they lean republican – but they have a track record of being right more than anyone else. They have beaten all other polls in 4 of the last 5 election cycles.
Regardless, that is not the point.
The real point is that Trump’s numbers are not unusual for world leaders.
Many polls have Trump through his presidency thus far tracking Obama’s approval rates at the same point within about 1.5%.
We are getting distracted by the noise from the left and the media.
Trump’s numbers are NOT unusual.
Yes, the things you noted are what matters – and what will drive the polls.
You missed that wages in the bottom quintile rose 2.4% in the past year – the first significant gain since 2008
As of yesterday Rasmussen has Trump at 48.
Regardless – I do not care who’s polls you use, the fact is that Trump is polling about other european leaders
On July 18 according to Putin’s OWN polling his approval was 46% (WaPo) and dropping – though it purportedly rose after Helsinki
Regardless, you do not like the numbers – go find your own.
I do not have a problem with your challenging specifics of polls – we all know from Brexit and the 2016 election how bad polls are.
It will still be difficult for you to find Trump polling below most EU leaders.
According to RCP Trump is 2pts below his April 2017 peak, and 5 points above his low.
As to my sources – such highly biased sources as Rassmussen, Wapo, RCP,
But I do not care go find your own.
The specific numbers do not matter – what actually matters is the relative rankings from the same source.
“The number of people with truly scrambled brains is quite mind boggling. Overheated and fanatical political thinking is a disease that causes extensive brain damage in the majority of users. ”
Absolutely – but check the mirror Your forehead is bright read from the Overheated and fanatical political thinking.
We have been at this a long time – reality has rejected you – over and over and over.
Whether the issue is polling and politics or economics or ….
Your track record for accuracy is pretty bad – and that is a sign of disease you are accusing the rest of us of.
Well run poll aggregates will be closer to the truth than individual polls, by their nature. 538 and rcp being almost identical through the trump presidency is one sign of that.
50% according to Rasmussen is an outlier and has been throughout. A poll to feed to Fox viewers. If trump solves the NK problem in the future and/or Chinese trade deficits then he might actually break 50% and even deserve to. But as of now, nope, 42% is the best estimate, and disapproval is steady and never less than 52% as a low point.
That good economy comes along with an $800 billion dollar budget. Obama’s last budget had a $500 billion requested deficit and a $666 billion actual deficit and the trend in his 2nd term was stable in the $500 billion neighborhood. I wonder that the actual deficit will be for the 2018 budget when all is said and done?
This graph shows the reality of the unemployment trends and kills the idea that the present low rate is due to trumpenomics. Unemployment is cyclical, the crisis pushed it to a terrible level and then it fell just as rapidly in the last 6 years of Obama. That trend has continued under trump but most of the descent occurred under Obama.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&hl=en&dl=en
No Poll agregates are NOT more likely to be correct.
They are just less likely to be radically wrong.
Those are NOT the same.
RCP and 538 blew 2016 completely.
538 was so bad it still had Clinton 65/35 over Trump when the media called the election.
538 has been very good much of the time. But they have been horrible sometimes.
At this moment the most accurate poll by track record is Rassmussen which has been right overall all the last 5 elections, and closer than anyone else to the election results 4 of the last 5.
Yes, they lean republican – need I remind you that Republicans have done incredibly well since 2009 ?
At the same time – the debate over specific polls is irrelevant.
The fact is that Trump is polling better than other european leaders.
He is polling better than he did on election day.
You can pick whatever poll you want and get different absolute results – but not different relative ones.
With respect to deficits – Absolutely I am opposed to the increased spending under Trump.
But you are still in error – the national debt increased 9T under Obama – you can not get a 500B average from that.
Further we do not know what the current deficit will be as tax receipts have risen – as they do when the economy improves.
But it is highly unlikely that improved receipts will fix the deficit increases.
Unemployment does increase dramatically with economic downturns.
HOWEVER The recovery during Obama’s presidency was the weakest since the Great depression.
unemployment does not take 8 years to recover – unless you F up.
BTW the graph you are pushing shows unemployment at the lowest levels since 1970
It also shows the 2010 recovery to have a very shallow slope for a serious recession.
You are correct that UI declined SLOWLY during Obama’s last 6 years.
But the fact that it CONTINUES to decline is UNUSUAL and NOT reflective of Obama.
We have only seen levels this low twice in the past 70 years.
It is unlikely that Trump’s declining UI can continue.
But as UI reaches its low wages will rise – and they have started to do so.
That too is how economics works.
I would further note that Obama’s economists told us what is occuring now is not possible.
“RCP and 538 blew 2016 completely.”
If I were to believe that you mean this nonsense it would mean that you do not understand the very concept of probability. Really, I think you do and you are just blowing hot rhetoric. Who are you fooling, yourself or me? Silver did quite well with his 2016 presidential race prediction, showing trump surging and with a definite chance to win. He picked the final popular vote quite closely as well. Polls can only give probability, not certainty, we both know that. So why the BS? Habit I guess.
Silver did a good and honest critique of his and other polling in the 2016 election.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
“At this moment the most accurate poll by track record is Rassmussen which has been right overall all the last 5 elections, and closer than anyone else to the election results 4 of the last 5.”
Silver once had a good opinion of Rasmussen, but it has faded to a C+ rating and he believes that Rasmussen has a strong house effect. I’ll go with Silver who really IS the gold standard. If you wish to believe that trump is at 50% favorability, well, its your life, and I am not surprised by your choice.
There has been some improvement in trumps polling in the last 6 months. By eye, looking at the 538 graph I see that 3-4% of the poll respondents were capable of swinging to trump, leading to an improvement in his numbers of 6-8%. Still, after that move in his favor he is Still underwater by 12 points.
I think that trump can win in 2020, if everything goes his way, the economy remains strong, NK and/or the trade war work out in his favor and the dems nominate a candidate that pleases their base and does not attract the center. If all that works out for him (and the dems avoiding picking a left winger would take a miracle that I have a hard time believing in) he could crack 50%.
As of today he has 42% on his side and 53% opposed, with a good economy.
Its going to be a very interesting set of elections, events we cannot predict today will decide them.
I am not sure why I am engaging in this debate – it is completely tangent to my point – which though obvious, your completely missed.
Of western world leaders Trump is the least unpopular. t is irrelevant whether his approval is 50% or 40% it is still way above Macrone Mays, Merkel, …
That said you have committed yourself to nonsense regarding the polls, and whether relevant or not, I am driven to call you on the errors.
I am not criticizing Silver or RCP as persons. Nor am I specifically commenting on their methodology.
I am addressing ONE thing – their results.
Silver in particular had done quite well in previous elections.
But he and most poltsters completely blew the 2016 election – just as they had Brexit, and likely for many of the same reasons.
Absolutely every poll showed the election closing as election approached – that is quite normal.
The question is NOT whether Sliver accurately tracked trends – even the worst polls of 2016 accurately track trends.
The question is whatever Silver’s particular model of secret sauce – how good were his results. The answer is in 2016 they were abysmal. In other years they were quite good.
Getting the popular vote purportedly right and the electoral vote wrong – discredits your popular vote results. It means your popular vote numbers were just a guess – or you would ALSO have the electoral numbers correct.
It means that you had to have large balancing errors – it makes you LESS accurate not more. If you are off by 1M voters in one place and off by 1M in another but those errors balance – your actual error is still 2M votes – not zero.
Yes, I actually understand probability and statistics.
But that is irrelevant to this discussion. The entire purpose of ranking an evaluating polsters, in fact the entire purpose of polls is to beat probability or more accurately to reduce the degree of uncertainty.
Which is BTW doable. Los Vegas bans card counters – because additional knowledge and skill reduces uncertainty and increases your odds..
pretty much by definition probability is our educated guess about what we do not know.
The more we actually know the more we shift from probability to fact.
If a random steel beam has a 90% probability of distorting with a load of 37KIPS
knowing more about the steel it was produced with or the specific characteristics of the beam decreases the uncertaintly and changes the results – for the good.
My “guess” regarding the errors of modern polsters is that it is the result of political bias.
We know that scientists and medical researchers can not help but incorporate their own biases into their studies. There are even studies on the effect of preconception on the results of scientific studies.
It is incredibly difficult to get even highly intelligent people to see something that contradicts their expectations. A couple of years ago Economist Paul Romer wrote and incredibly paper essentially stating that accurate complex mathematical modeling is virtually impossible. With a sufficient number of coefficients, you can always create a model that will confirm your expectations, perfectly reflect the past, and still fail tomorow.
More simply all polsters are biased and no matter how hard they try their biases effect their results.
My guess is that Rasmussens recent accuracy and 538’s recent failures are a reflection fo the fact that Rasmussens “biases” more accurately reflect those of the electorate.
The “gold” standard is that which produces the best results.
Over the past 10 years – that is Rassmussen – not Silver.
I have no doubt that Silver is right about Rassmussen’s “house effect”.
But Sliver and all polls have their own.
Silver can claim to quantify that effect and account for it.
But there is a difference between precision and accuracy.
Silver is precise. He is not accurate.
Rasmussen is not nearly so precise. But their track record is greater accuracy.
Silver’s oppinion is relevant to the extent that his own work is accurate.
In that contest, he loses to Rasmussen.
Put more simply Silver needs to spend more time trying to figure out why Rasmussen has been more right than everyone else for 5 cycles and less on trying to figure out what might be wrong with them.
Regardless, there is an election coming. Claims of a blue wave come and go.
If there is one – you will be proved right, and Silver will restore some of his credibility.
There are lots of reasons to believe a blue wave is probable.
There is also alot of contradictory evidence that is being ignored.
An enormous amount depends on who shows up to vote.
Further I think that Brexit and 2016 demonstrate that there is a reverse bradley effect that polsters are missing.
That the polls are not properly addressing the fact that many polled people do not accurately indicate their positions to olsters.
Trump is near certain to win in 2020.
There is nothing to indicate that he has lost his supporters,
He will have the enormous power of the incumbancy against any challenger.
There are only two serious threats:
The appearance of actual evidence of Russian collusion.
That has always been unlikely and gets less so with time.
A recession.
He can weather most anything else.
He does not need anything else to “work out”.
Even war with NK or Iran or … will result in re-election.
No president has ever lost re-election during a war.
It does not matter who dems nominate. Though I am expecting them to go left.
That is my crystal ball view. We will see who is right.
BTW it is NOT necescarily what I want.
But I am not getting what I want.
“The question is whatever Silver’s particular model of secret sauce – how good were his results. The answer is in 2016 they were abysmal. ”
Just hyperbolic rhetoric and not at all persuasive, all of it. Between some guy who rambles on and on on an internet blog and Nate Silver guess who’s opinion I am going to put more stock in?
“The “gold” standard is that which produces the best results.
Over the past 10 years – that is Rassmussen – not Silver.”
Some references, please, that prove that claim. I find no such claim by anyone anywhere in a google search. I suspect its a Davism. You are welcome to prove me wrong with some hard verifiable facts.
Grump;
Your response is typical.
Facts are “hyperbolic rhetoric”
Obviously I am not persuasive.
I may even be somehow diviceive
Because 538’s catastrophic failure in 2016 is self evident.
I am not trying to beat up on Silver. I like him and respect him and what he is trying to do.
I think his general approach is an excellent idea.
But he still got is WILDLY wrong in 2016 – as did MOST polsters.
Silver mostly accepts that and is mostly looking to determine what the problem was and to fix it. I wish him well. Though I am strongly suspicious that he can not overcome his own ideological biases as I think he needs to find the problem.
There is little doubt that Rassmussen comes into things with atleast as strong an ideological biases. But Rassmussen has nailed nearly every cycle for a decade, and when they were not the most accurate they were 2nd.
Either they know something that other polsters do not, are very lucky, or in fact they are NOT actually biased, but a reflection of the fact that the political center is a few points farther right than we presume, and that most polls show.
Regardless, I am not asking you to do anything. I am not asking you to accept my views.
But I am suggsting that you consider weighing 538 as less than biblical truth or you are likely to be disappointed.
While I do not think Silver is going to do what is necescary to correct his problem.
He atleast recognizes that a problem exists – you have more faith in Silver than he does in himself.
“Some references, please, that prove that claim. I find no such claim by anyone anywhere in a google search. ”
Search, don’t I do not care – though your argument is quite odd.
You are saying that unless other people you respect say something is true – then it is not true even though the facts are self evident.
You can look up however many cycles as you wish and check who was most accurate in each. Silver has absolutely nailed a few. But 538 is NOT consistent.
Rassmussen has nailed a few too. More importantly in the past decade they have no instance where they have totally blown an election as Silver did with 2016.
“I suspect its a Davism.”
Call it whatever you want – the facts are out there and not that hard to find.
I would further note that While I have offered Rassmussen as more accurate – despite (or possibly because) or their biases, than Silver.
That is NOT the core of my argument, or disagreement with you.
The core is that 538 is particular and most other polls have grown increasingly inaccurate, and that the error is in one direction.
The high profile examples are Brexit and 2016.
Most of the time I think the error is small – though in Brexit is was quite large.
But it is still pervasive and for most polls always in one direction.
“You are welcome to prove me wrong with some hard verifiable facts.”
Actual facts are readily available. As I noted 538 was still giving Clinton 75% odds of winning after most of the media called the 2016 election.
Your argument about the nature of statistics – has atleast some merit,
Regardless, some people through whatever means manage to do consistently better than probability would dictate and others do not. Sliver has been highly accurate sometimes and pretty far off others. There is no evidence that despite his impressive methodology that he produces overall better results than the average pollster.
There are however many specific polls that are historically worse.
And a few that are historically better.
You are free to rely on Silver. I would suggest that you apply a 2pt rightward handicap to Sliver and you will likely be right.
One big smoke screen. You have offered no factual proof whatsoever to support your claim that Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster over the last five cycles.
Its a very simple clear statement you made and you should be able to support if it is true.
But, looking up Rasmussen in Wiki I find that he has had some reasonably good calls and quite a few far off calls, bad election predictions in the last ten years, and certainly has not been close to being the most accurate pollster over that period.
So, if you think you have actual facts that specifically show that Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster over the last 5 cycles now is your chance to bring them out.
From the facts I found on Wiki you can’t nearly do that because it ain’t nearly so. From my reading of the actual facts, he has been middling at best over than period and completely in the rear of the pack on several elections.
An excerpt:
“The final 2012 Electoral College projection by Rasmussen Reports showed 237 safe electoral votes for Barack Obama, 206 safe electoral votes for Mitt Romney, and eight toss-up states with a total of 95 electoral votes.[46][47][48]
The final Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll showed Mitt Romney with 49 percent national support and President Obama with 48 percent national support.[49] Obama won the election by close to 4 percentage points. The final Rasmussen Reports’ pre-election polls showed Obama winning Nevada and New Hampshire, tying Romney in Ohio and Wisconsin, and losing in the other five swing states, including North Carolina. Obama won in the swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Virginia, while Romney took North Carolina.[50]
A Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos compared pre-election polling with the results from election day. The study ranked Rasmussen Reports 24th out of 28 polls in accuracy, one slot above Gallup.[51] An analysis by Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight ranked Rasmussen 20th out of 23 pollsters for accuracy in the 2012 elections with an average error of 4.2 points.[52] After the election, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times wrote that “Some conservative media outlets used the Rasmussen polling to prop up a narrative in the final days of the campaign that Romney had momentum and a good chance of winning the White House.”[53]”
You are simply making shit up.
“One big smoke screen. You have offered no factual proof whatsoever to support your claim that Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster over the last five cycles.”
No I have not. You have the ability to use google or check things out.
You are not going to beleive something because I said so.
BTW Rassmussen called the electoral college for Obama BEFORE the 2012 election.
They were off on popular vote by 3.7 % but they got nearly every state right.
They had a few tossups and I think Obama won all the tossups.
And 2012 was Rassmussens worst election.
Regardless, you are making this about rassmussen.
It is not. It is about the fact that in most of the past 5 election cycles most polls has significantly under estimated republican or conservative strength.
Even in the UK thy under estimated Leave significantly.
This means something and you are ignoring it.
I would also note – my argument is not even specifically about polling or who won and who lost.
Lets say that a few votes changed in the right places and clinton somehow won in 2016.
That would not alter the fact that a significant portion of the electorate hated her so badly they voted for Trump.
BTW the same is true in reverse.
Obama never had a manadate, Trump does nto have a mandate, and clinton would not have had a mandate.
That means something. You need a mandate – actually much more than an mandate to ACT to impose something new.
However you do NOT need a mandate to UNDO, to remove something.
The 2016 election does not get Trump the power to act – atleast not outside of issues where he has very broad popular support for an issue.
But much of what he has dones since getting elected has been to UNDO, and that he has the mandate to do.
That is what you and the left do not understand.
A sufficient minority of americans have the absolute right to say NO! to increasing government. You need supermajority support to ACT.
You do not to undo.
The left is angry because Trump’s election means the rolling back of myriads of things thy never had the real authorotiy to do in the first place.
Time for a cockatoo break, grump:
“Time for a cockatoo break, grump:”
Thanks for that Priscilla.
Its time for a wife and Portsmouth and Isles of Shoals break as well for the rest of the week. I hope to have turned the grumpy political area of my brain back to standby mode by the time I return.
“538 was still giving Clinton 75% odds of winning after most of the media called the 2016 election.”
Hilarious bullshit! That’s a junk argument. I watched Silver’s election night coverage. Silver and his team were well aware that trump had won for all practical purposes long before the networks called it. The probability counter became a nonsense and he turned it off. SIlver has a vast output of work on a wide variety of problems of probability and statistics, turning off a pointless probability counter has no bearing on his 2016 output. Silver correctly gave trump a large and rather rapidly growing chance of winning in the week or so leading to the election, much to the chagrin and irritation of many democrats. Either you understand the basic concept of probability or you don’t. If you Do actually grasp probability, then saying that Silver blew the election or that Silver’s 2016 results were abysmal is all posturing, not worthy of a person who actually understands probability. Bzzzt, you are wrong.
As well, from your posts it is possible for me to wonder whether you grasp that Rasmussen is a pollster and Silver is a statistician and they do two different sets of tasks and produce very different products. Seriously, do you even grasp that what SIlver does is distinct from what Rasmussen does and that he is not about to adjust his work to be more like Rasmussen? What a laughable idea!
If SIlver told you that the odds of getting heads ten times in a row is one over 2 to the tenth power and then someone Does flip ten heads in a row would you call SIlvers work abysmal, say that he blew it? Seems you would, simply for rhetorical effect.
I have a great deal of respect for Silver and his work and for good reason, he is a true expert. No internet blatherer is going to have any impact on that reality.
I am not missing your point. Simply, you and I have different points and different interests that both start from your initial post giving trump credit for 50% support. I AM interested in the question of whether Silver’s data analysis and statistical metastudy of polls is more likely to be correct about popularity than a single, especially a single clearly biased, poll. I Am interested in the question of whether trump has support of 50 or 42% because those are two very different political situations. I could not care less about how trump polls compared to foreign leaders.
Do not try to oppress me, libertarian, into only discussing the repetitive libertarian dogma you are interested in. I am free to choose for myself what to discuss! Thbbbbbt!
““538 was still giving Clinton 75% odds of winning after most of the media called the 2016 election.”
Hilarious bullshit! That’s a junk argument. I watched Silver’s election night coverage. Silver and his team were well aware that trump had won for all practical purposes long before the networks called it. ”
I watched too. I had 538 up all night. I think it was after 11pm before 538 dropped Clinton’s probability of winning below 50%.
I have no idea what “silver and his team were aware of”. Neither do you.
I know that their web site was showing. I can only assume that the information on their web site reflected “what they were aware of”.
I suspect that you are correct and Nate was “aware” that Trump had won much eariler.
But Nate’s methodology attempts to be algorithmic and objective – those are pretty much his words. It is based on his carefully crafted model.
And his web site was producing projections from that model all night – and they were hillariously wrong.
Again you are likely right – Nate probably realized, with the rest of us that Clinton had lost much earlier.
But his model did not. And his model is what he is selling. It is the 538 Secret Sauce.
Nate is not some political science junky who gathers information mulls it arround in his head and spits out his informed oppinion. His forte is statistical modeling. He came to politics from baseball. He is selling his model, not his personal oppinion.
He is not Larry Sabatto, or Chris Chizilla, or any of the other doing voting analysis based on personal expertise and experience.
His claim is that he can outperform them empiracally
The probability counter IS his model.
It is all that matters. It is his secret sauce. it is a graphic representation of his model.
His algorithms.
The moment he turned it off or started speaking substantially at odds with it, he was admitting that his model failed.
Without his model he is just another political talking head – but one without much actual experience.
538 IS the model.
Read your own post.
Nate is highly experienced – at statistics. – his background is sports – particularly baseball.
I have significant respect for Silver’s statistical skills.
I fully understand probability – that is NOT the point.
The “probability counter” is the primary output of Nate’s statistical model.
If it is wrong – the model is wrong.
Nate is NOT selling his expertise as a political pundit.
He is selling his expertise as a statistical modeler.
If I write a computer program to drive a medical centrifuge and the centrifuge spins out of control and self destructs – I have failed.
I do not get to say – sorry, that is not how it was supposed to work, here is my explanation for how things really are.
I absolutely grasp that Rassmussen is a pollster and Silver is a statistician.
In fact that is part of my point. Both are selling the quality of their results.
Tassmussens “results” are based on their polling, how well they do that, partly on the statistical methods specific to polling, partly on a variety of political judgement calls based on experience. Absolutely there are decisions that Rassmussen must make that are judgement calls and can be colored by their political views.
Silver gets his raw data from the output of polsters. What he is selling is his skill in constructing a model that uses that data to come up with a result that he beleives is more accurate than the individual polls. But in constructing that model – Silver must make a bunch of choices that too can be colored by his own ideology. If no skill was involved – if no judgemnt was needed then anyone could create 528 by rote.
One further point – and part of Silver’s failure.
Statistics are highly important to polling.
They have nearly nothing to do with elections.
Statistics are highly important to baseball.
They have everything to do with whether the better hits the ball.
There are massive elements of random chance in polling.
There are large amounts of random chance (tempered by skill) in hitting a baseball.
The amount of random chance in an election is quite small.
People choose how to vote. Our a priori speculation of how they will vote is highy probabalistic. their actual voting choices are not.
Sounds great, Ron, I can stop worrying. 🙂
I caught part of cspan coverage of this committe meeting. I may not agree with Mark Warner on many things, but I can say I respect him and Richard Burr in the way they are conducting a seemingly non political investigation into Russian social media propaganda.
Here is Senator Burrs closing remarks at yesterday meeting with a number of private sector cybervsecurity experts.
They lose me completely at “what are we going to do about it”
Yes there ARE easy answers.
With respect to social media
We damn well better do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
There is nothing that can be done that will not do far far far more harm than good.
Any attempt to filter the miniscule Russian social media presence will seriously infringe on the actual rights of real americans.
We do not need to repeat the stupid mistakes of 9/11 and have government dicking arround in social media.
There are things that the Russians did or could do that we should care about.
That is actually dick directly with the elections – hacking voting machines and voter registration.
The evidence is they tried that and failed.
But that is all the more reason for us to improve our protection.
Fortunately that is a very easy problem to fix.
Get rid of computerized voting machines and remove all election related computer networks from the public nets.
Finnally I would note that though the russians may have tried to cause chaos.
They did not succeed.
The actual chaos is the consequence of the left ludicrously stupidly believing that meaningless efforts by the russians actually mattered.
They did not.
To pretend there was an actual effect by the Russians, you have to beleive in unicorns.
You have to beleive that a million or so spent by Putin was more effective than the 1.6B spent by clinton. You have to beleive that the russians who are quite obviously abysmal at social media were better than the best of the Clinton and Trump campaigns.
Trump spent a tiny bit more than half what Clinton did, The russian effort was a blip.
Nothing even a speed bump.
Clinton lost because:
She was an absolutely abysmal candidate.
Because even with the FBI/DOJ CIA and Obama protecting her, the majority of us – including large numbers of her own supporters grasp that if she is not an actual criminal, she is damn close.
Paul Manafort is in the midst of a very difficult trial.
He is likely to lose because we understandably do not like him.
There is very little to distinguish manafort from Clinton – except that Clinton is worse.
IF the Russians actually hacked the DNC and provided Wikileaks with emails – that may be the closest thing to “flipping the election”.
BUT we must not forget that the DNC emails were still real.
Like everything else related to Clinton and the election. A political candidate does not have an entitlement to delude thge public into thinking their shit does not stink.
The closest thing to something problematic has nothing to do with Russia, but entirely to do with the Obama administration.
The DOJ/FBI investigation into Clinton’s state department emails should have been done with the same secrecty that FBI managed with the Trump/Russia investigation at the same time. The publicity of the invistigation harmed clinton (deservedly).
At the same time the FBI/DOJ should have indicted her, and that would have ended her.
Again Clinton was entitled to an investigation that did not leak.
Bjut the public was entitled to an indictment.
Clinton’s shit stinks most pungently.
I would further note that Trump did not get all the breaks either.
The access hollywood tapes with a damning October surprise – but again one of his own making.
And that is the real story of the election.
The lest repugnant candidate won.
Two of the better politicians.
dduck, could you add something to your comments that reference your responses. These are getting so long trying to fugure out what they reference is getting difficult.
If this was abkut Burr and Warner, yes.
About Burr and Warner, yes.
This posting system is horrendous. I post a comment right below, say a Ron comment, and it gets shuffled way down and there are intervening posts by someone else with a latter post time. And with the shear amount of posts and words and we are participating in a Tower Of Babylon. Garbage in understanding out.
The extreme left is heard from: “Anarchy Breaks Out in Portland, With the Mayor’s Blessing
A vicious mob targeted the ICE office and even a food cart. The police followed orders to do nothing.” WSJ
The extreme right is heard from: Brett Stephens a conservative opinion writer at the NYT, received a explicit death threat telephone call with racial epitaphs included:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/opinion/trump-fake-news-enemy.htm
Words do matter, and Trump is fanning the flames of potential violence with his extreme rhetoric.l
If you are told to jump off a cliff – and you do so, who is responsible ? You or th person who said jump off a cliff.
We have used this stupid these stupid arguments from the start of the nation.
Our founders passed the first alien and sedition act criminally punishing political speach.
Fortunately it died quickly and all prosecuted under it were pardoned.
Wilson imprisoned Eugene Debb’s and others for violent socialist rhetoric in oposition to the war.
Please actually read John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”.
We need SPECIFICALLY to hear from the very worst.
Censoring – even pressure to self censor makes us WORSE not better.
Makes serious violence more likely not less.
With respect to Portland – the obligation of the police was to arrest those engaged in actual violence. that is their job.
Not to go after speakers because of incitement to violence or potential violence.
Not to ignore actual violence.
The more you blame Trump and Trump’s words for everything the more powerful you make Trump.
Get a clue – most everything Trump is a REACTION.
Too much of our press is in the tank for the left.
Therefore many of us, myself included cheer on Trump’s battle with the press.
I do not care much to watch the process, but I am happy to see the press discredit themselves – and Trump has helped them do so very successfully.
There is a war going on = that to this point Trump has stayed out of regarding Sarah Jeong’s hiring at NYT. NYT can hire whoever they please. But many many people have pointed out that Jeong prolific racist tweets violate both NYT policies, and standards, and precedent. NYT has fired people for far less.
I do not care about Jeong, but the hypocracy of the NYT reveals who they really are.
Further the dispartiy between the handling of different people is evidence of the spin in their reporting. Almost anyone not on the far left is capable of noting that even in straight reporting in most of the modern press the sympathies of the reporter are crystal clear, the choice of adjectives, and the decisions when to include them and when not, whether a figure is referenced by name or title, or whether some past action is attached to them as a millstone, and the characterization of complex past actions in single sentences.
I do not care that the press is tilted. I think that is something to expect in a truly free press. I am happy in the modern era. I would far rather have literally hundreds of outlets most of which have their own overt axe to grind than the homogenous 3 network low key manhattan liberalism of the 60’s.
Dave, the bill of rights identifies specific rights that the founders specifically wanted protected. (Guess they were smart enough to see 240 years into the future on what would happen if we lust relied on the other words minus the Bill). One is freedom of speech that allows you and I to say just about anything, wrtten or verbal.
Before we discuss the issue with speech, do you support extending these right to foreign governments and foreign individuals who are not American citizens?
Sorry Ron but the founders quite explicitly thought about the rights that the did not specify.
They fought about it.
Initially there was no bill of rights BECAUSE everything not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution was out of bounds.
Many of the framers did not think a bill of rights was needed.
Many thought it was a bad idea specifically BECAUSE it would be understood as the ONLT rights we have – which it ha been.
The 9th and 10th amendmets were added specificallya to address that.
I do not think there has EVER been a SCOTUS decision referencing the 9th or 0th amendment. They might as well not exist.
What the opponets of the bill or rights feared has come to pass – but it did take 150 years for the federal government to breach the chains of the constitution.
Wilson hated the constraints of the constitution.
FDR was more pragmatic. He just threatened to expand the court until it gave him what he wanted – and we are all the worse.
The federal government has increased from 3-5% of GDP in the 19th and early 20th centuries to 23-28% of GDP starting with FDR.
There is no evidence that has benefited us.
“Before we discuss the issue with speech, do you support extending these right to foreign governments and foreign individuals who are not American citizens?”
Governments do not have rights – individuals do. So that addresses part of this.
Outside the US our government has very little obligations regarding the rights of individuals – even US citizens., We do have some limited responsibility to protect our own citizens in foreign countries, but it is pretty limited. If you go to another country you should expect to comply with their laws – however bad they might be.
My guess is your real question is what rights to “illegal immigrants” have inside of the US.
They have the same natural rights as the rest of us.
And mostly they have the same constitutional rights.
But the constitution does not include a right to be here.
If you have entered the country without proper permission, you may be removed.
You are entitled to due process – about the same amount as a citizen who receives a parking ticket. The burden of prrof is on the government but If you are caught crossing the border that is pretty easy – a quick hearing before a magistrate and immediate deportation.
But if you are caught away from the border, the burden is on the government to prove you do not have the right to stay here. But this is not a criminal proceeding and other criminal rights would not apply. At the same time if the US charges you with a crime – you ar entitled to the same criminal rights as anyone else charged with a crime.
Essentially what I am saying is the fact that illegal immigrants have the same natural rights as the rest of us, does not mean they have the right to stay here. Not does it mean the process of removing them must be difficult. The primary reason for due process with respect to deportation is yo avoid mistakenly deporting someone who is allowed to live in the US.
I would also clarify – that because I think our governent has the power to deport people who do not have the right to be here easily – does not mean I think it should.
“My guess is your real question is what rights to “illegal immigrants” have inside of the US.”
Nope, wrong guess. I wanted to know what you thought about who has rights and who does not.
Why? Because the real danger is not our people’s or our president’s words, it is the words that is being planted on social media by the Russians to undermine our nation. When all is said and done, very little will be found on collusion, but much will be found on covert actions taken by foreign countries to plant misinformation on social media platforms to divide the country.
Yes, people have the right to determine for themselves if something is true or not. People have the right to follow one or all social media accounts. People have the right to repost information they see on social media. And the MSM has the right to post anything they want to write.
But the issue is the millions of bone headed individuals that have no clue if something on social media is true or not. Russian bots flood social media with anti liberal and anti conservative information and it is of the nature to flame the tempers and hate that some have inside. You and I might be smart enough to check out the truth, but most individuals will not do that. They will blindly follow whatever their political leanings say to follow.
Divide and conquer. The left and right get so divided they will believe anything anyone says about the other. The middle gets so fed up they stop listening to anything, even the truth. So, I support whatever means that is developed to counter the attempts by foreign countries to divide us as we have for years with our covert activities in bringing down regimes and changing governments.
I do not support letting covert actions on social media to run willy nilly without some action to stop it. There are way to many more ignorant voters than informed voters to let that happen.
Agree …
Divide and conquer was/is Russian game plan.
“Agree …
Divide and conquer was/is Russian game plan.”
I agree – I do not care.
To care requires you to beleive that large portions of voters are dolts requiring your protection. If you beleive that – self govenrment is done. That simple.
You do not have the right to protect people from themselves.
Regardless – honestly the Russians did not succeed – the Pew data demonstrates the divide between left and right growing steadily since 2008.
If Trump was not elected in 2016 – someone like him or worse would have been elected in 2020.
The russians did not create our divides – they are their and real.
To the extent they are manufaturec – it would be by the left, not Putin.
“To care requires you to beleive that large portions of voters are dolts requiring your protection. If you beleive that – self govenrment is done. That simple.“
That you don’t recognize that IS what’s happening confirms that you are a DOLT.
That you don’t recognize that IS what’s happening confirms that you are a DOLT.
If you beleive that – the experiment in self government has ended.
In fact the experiment in individual liberty has ended.
Sorry, if I misunderstand.
Natural rights belong to all humans.
But the obligation of the US government to secure our rights is only to those legitimately under its jurisdiction. – citizens and legal residents.
“it is the words that is being planted on social media by the Russians to undermine our nation.”
Sorry, Ron not bothered by that at all.
While the russian effort was inconsequential – I do not care if it was enormous.
While the russian effort was ineffective – I do not care if it altered the outcome.
No force was used, and no rights were violated.
The US does not own the internet, or social media.
As I said – almost all rights are natural rights – they are not created by government.
Though they are protected by government.
Free Speech is a constitutional right. It is also a natural right.
The US government is NOT obligated to protect the free speech rights of people outside this country. But it is obligated not to infringe on them. Just as we can not murder foreigners because we feel like it.
I have no problem with anyone anywhere in the world speaking about US elections.
I have no problem with americans speaking of foreign elections.
I have no problem with anyone anywhere in the world trying to persuade people elsewhere to vote as they wish.
Each of us here voiced oppinions on Brexit before the UK vote. Are we criminals ?
“When all is said and done, very little will be found on collusion”
Thus far all “collusion” has been rejected overtures by Clinton plants and CIA/FBI/MI6 operatives to seduce the Trump campaign.
I find it hilarious that the left still fixates on Natalia’s meeting with Trump Jr.
Immediately before, and immediately after she met with Glenn Simpson.
At the time Fusion was being well paid by the Clinton campaign.
According to Simpson – they did not talk of the Trump Tower meeting.
They talked of her efforts to repeal the magnivinsky act – exactly what she talked about with Trump Jr. If the Trump Jr. meeting is a crime, the Simpson meetings were too.
I do not honestly beelive that was the topic of the meeting with Simpson, but it does not matter, Ut can not be illegal for Trump Jr. to discuss with Natalia what it is not illegal for Glenn Simpson to talk with Natalia about.
” but much will be found on covert actions taken by foreign countries to plant disinformation on social media platforms to divide the country.”
No the evidence on that is quite small. The Russian efforts were miniscule.
Do you understand that Clinton alone spent 1.6 BILLION on the election. That she spent multiple hundreds of millions on social media.
Sorry Ron the russian efforts were tiny.
While the NSA/FBI/CIA/DHS/…. do say they were real. None of these agencies have actually said they were unusual.
Remember right up to the election Obama was saying that US elections can not be rigged.
The administration did not take any of this really seriously until after Trump won.
From what we know what little the CIA/FBI/DOJ did was to investigate Trump – not investigate Russia. They did not care about Russian efforts on social media before the election.
Russia has become the left’s boogey man – because Trump won.
“While the russian effort was inconsequential – I do not care if it was enormous.
While the Russian effort was ineffective – I do not care if it altered the outcome.”
And I be there were many Germans that said “I don’t care if Hitler was using propaganda to indoctrinate the kids” or Cubans when Castro was using propaganda to promote communism.
I care! I AM NOT SPEAKING OF RUSSIAN ELECTION COLLUSION!!!!!!! I am speaking about the infiltration of various political views to create hate and discontent. One one hand there is a group of Russians creating unrest within the left against the right. On the other hand, there is a group of Russians creating hate and discontent among the right toward the left. So where words were used in the past Russia is trying to rachet that up to violent confrontation like in Portland.
I know you dont care! You wont care when there are violent demonstrations or someone gets killed. Bet you didnt care when the shooting happened at the congressional baseball game.Bet you wont care when the left takes control of congress and the Presidency. We are free to make that choice. But is it really free when the ignorant voters have been manipulated like puppets by a marionette into voting for groups that will become much more socialist in their political behavior? Bet you dont care when Russia manipulates us into decisions that weaken the country. We are free to do that.
You and some others here are short sighted when it comes to Russia. It is not the election I am concerned about. I am concerned that Russia is doing the same thing as our CIA did with Operations Mockingbird and Chaos before domestic operations were made illegal (So they say).
“And I be there were many Germans that said “I don’t care if Hitler was using propaganda to indoctrinate the kids” or Cubans when Castro was using propaganda to promote communism.”
You must be 18 to vote, Regardless, if “propoganda” worked – do you think that both political parties would not have massively engaged in it ?
Clinton – not the DNC, just Clinton spent 1.6B in 2016. If that is not sufficient “propoganda” to tip an election, what is ?
If we are going to buy this “the Russian’s brainwashed voters” then why didn’t Clinton ?
The Russian Social media program is rounding error on Clinton’s. It is rounding error on the total tweets and FB posts in one hour.
You have invested Russian propoganda in superhuman powers that it does not have.
Can you find a single voter that changed their vote because of social media advertising by ANYONE ?
There are massive studies that have been done on advertising.
You can not change peoples minds by advertising.
The best you can do is persuade them more likely to do something they already want to do.
If there was some magical ability to use social media to alter voting Clinton and Trump would have done it.
“I care! I AM NOT SPEAKING OF RUSSIAN ELECTION COLLUSION!!!!!!! I am speaking about the infiltration of various political views to create hate and discontent. ”
Does not happen. look arround the real world. If the Russians were able to do what you claim – every political party every fringe group would be doing it massively.
“One one hand there is a group of Russians creating unrest within the left against the right. On the other hand, there is a group of Russians creating hate and discontent among the right toward the left. So where words were used in the past Russia is trying to rachet that up to violent confrontation like in Portland.”
The violence in portland was not caused by the Russians. It was caused by us. It is caused by the systemic destruction of our values. It is caused by an education system that takes decades to inculcate us that we are victims, oppressed, and we must rise against our oppressors. That teaches us that speach is violence and must be responded to with violence. That teaches us that we can hate those we disagree with, that once you label someone as “racist, homophobic, mysoginist, …” that it is OK to hate them and to be violent to them.
The Russians did not do that to us. We did that to ourselves.
“I know you dont care! You wont care when there are violent demonstrations or someone gets killed. Bet you didnt care when the shooting happened at the congressional baseball game.Bet you wont care when the left takes control of congress and the Presidency.”
Bzzt wrong. I do not care about the Russian Social Media efforts.
If you honestly beleive they are the cause of any of the things you cite – you need to see a shrink. You have massive cognitive distortion.
I am opposed to violence – that is real violence, which is almost never justified. I see no Russian thugs in our crowds, I see no russians with guns shooting people.
If the left can take congress and the presidency by political persuasion – that is how our system works. My objective is NOT to control what party controls government. It is to assure that government has sufficiently little power than it does not matter what party controls the government. I do not expect good government from either republicans or democrats. I do not expect good government from highly impassioned people regardless of political affiliation.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the russians,
But in ourselves”
“You and some others here are short sighted when it comes to Russia. It is not the election I am concerned about. I am concerned that Russia is doing the same thing as our CIA did with Operations Mockingbird and Chaos before domestic operations were made illegal (So they say)”
You will never be able to stop the Russians from engaging in political speach.
But in attempting to do so you will open pandora’s box and you will see the expansion of government efforts to control the political speach of others.
In Canada, the UK and the EU you can be arrested and jailed for what you say.
Look at what happened recently to Tommy Thompson in the UK.
Though I would note that those who have studied the actual effect of laws regulating speach he found they inevitably tend to stiffle the speach of groups entirely different than intended.
These laws regarding speech have so handcuffed the UK and EU that violent crime by monority groups has exploded – because the police are affraid they will be accused of racism.
Ultimately you are seeking to make the US into China with a “great firewall” to supress outside voices from speaking in our elections.
You are looking to create a far worse problem than you seek to cure.
I am far far more concerned about the politicization of the IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI and DOJ during the obama administration.
The machinery of OUR government can not be used to target political opponents.
There are two huge problems there.
First we are talking about FORCE, not speech.
Second we are talking about giving government a voice in the process that government derives its power from.
You might as well eliminate voting entirely.
The Russians are no danger to us.
Our government is.
.
I am not worried about Russians or anyone else on social media. But I am worried about this
I have only one significant disagreement.
If you have a permament paper record of every vote that is readily available to the public and the media, you need not secure the process byond the actual collection and preservation of the votes.
The objective is NOT to make cheating impossible. It is to make sure that anyone rigging the reporting gets caught.
Again, I could care less about the election. Nothing happened!
“Again, I could care less about the election. Nothing happened!”
I have to revise my argument – if you actually beleive that Russia’s social media activities had a consequential effect on the US – then brain washing actually does work.
You have been persuaded that something impossible is true.
We are not divided by the russians – even if they are reveling in it.
We are divided because we have real differences – and because the left as is its wont has gone too far.
Our divisions are real and they are significant, and they started long before 2016
“But the issue is the millions of bone headed individuals that have no clue if something on social media is true or not. Russian bots flood social media with anti liberal and anti conservative information and it is of the nature to flame the tempers and hate that some have inside. You and I might be smart enough to check out the truth, but most individuals will not do that. They will blindly follow whatever their political leanings say to follow.”
If you start with the premise that there and millions of bone headed individuals that we must protect our elections from – we are done. Our experiment in self government is over.
While I do not beleive what you are claiming – I have never met a person who changed their vote because of a russian bot. even if it is true – there is nothing to be done.
You have just said that voters can not be trusted. Self government is done after that.
Skip the part about protecting the election from the russians and just go straight to protecting the election from millions of bone headed voters.
If Putin is so effective – why not Alex Jones or Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh or Jimmey Kimmel ?
Why are boneheads more susceptable to Russians than the thousands of other american voices trying to persuade ?
This is a snipe hunt, or as Trump likes to put it a witch hunt. It is much like the Salem witch trials.
The left is claiming that the demon Russians possessed normal voters and cast a spell on them to vote for Trump.
There is no difference here.
“While I do not beleive what you are claiming – I have never met a person who changed their vote because of a russian bot. even if it is true – there is nothing to be done.”
Maybe you need to come out of your protected cocoon and get on social media and watch some TV that shows ignorant people blindly spewing the lies planted by both the left and right. Just go to a redneck bar and listen to these asses regurgitate the words of Trump. Go on social media and read the words of Waters, Pelosi and Shumer being regurgitate by the ignorant on the left. They are not getting their news from news, they are getting it from social media! And what they are saying is a variant of the actual words of the politicians that has been made much more volatile. And that is russia doing that.
“Divide and conquer. The left and right get so divided they will believe anything anyone says about the other. The middle gets so fed up they stop listening to anything, even the truth. So, I support whatever means that is developed to counter the attempts by foreign countries to divide us as we have for years with our covert activities in bringing down regimes and changing governments.”
That leads to bad ends.
I support ZERO effort to stop any foreign country from speaking about our elections.
If you do not trust voters to sort things out – self government ends.
We are divided – but the Russians did not divide us – nor did Trump.
Our recent polatization started according to the Pew data with the election of 2008 – that is the closest we have been both before and since. And since that time we have moved farther and farther apart.
Further nearly all of that shift has been of the left moving further from the center.
I do not care all that much that we are divided.
Government must be limited – because we are a diverse people – we have only so much common ground and we can not legislate outside of that common ground.
WTF…….HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“WTF…….HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Does not change anything.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in Whitney v. California (1927)
“To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. . . .
“Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.”
“I do not support letting covert actions on social media to run willy nilly without some action to stop it. There are way to many more ignorant voters than informed voters to let that happen.”
You can not do as you wish without violating the first amendment.
There is no means to supress the speach of Russians that will not inherently supress the speach of others.
There is no means to restrict the russians that does not empower government to decide what we can hear.
I do not agree with Ron on Trade, protectionism and related issues.
Trump has capitolized on those issues and they were a significant factor in electing him.
While I do not agree regarding the policies,
I do grasp that the fact that this issues are to the fore is because a segment of the US electorate feels left behind and ignored.
It is the left driving the polarization in this country.
Whether you like it or not Trump is speaking up for a large group that feels like that are hated and in danger of being disenfranchised – Mostly white working class america.
The left has championed every single minority in existence. The left has created a value system based on the merit of victimization. A black transsexual female is close tot he apex of power within the modern left. A HS educated white male blue collar worker is the scum of the earth.
The left flows with hatred not merely for who they are, but for who the left thinks they are.
You do not seem to grasp that when you call much of the country – hateful, hating haters, whatever they thought before, they will grow to hate you.
The fountain of hatred today is from the left.
Trump is not the cause of this, he is the result of this.
If you obliterated Trump tomorow – he would be replaced.
“If you obliterated Trump tomorow – he would be replaced.”
Really? Who? Name a few, and don’t tell us to do our own research, it is your outlandish statement. And no Pence is not in his league by a mile, although he might do a lot of harm also.
““If you obliterated Trump tomorow – he would be replaced.”
Really? Who? Name a few, and don’t tell us to do our own research, it is your outlandish statement. And no Pence is not in his league by a mile, although he might do a lot of harm also.”
I do not need to find someone.
In 2015 if you had asked me I would have said no way in hell would Trump get half way through a primary.
Trump did not cause our divide. Nor did he Russians.
But he did find a large base of democratic voters that were disallusioned and he spoke to them – and he still does.
There is no research necescary. It is like the free market – when we want something – if it is possible to provide – the market will provide it.
Trump appeared because the political conditions in the US demanded it.
No I do not think Pence is a Trump protege.
I do not know who the Trump replacement would be.
As I said – in 2015 if you would have said president Trump I would have died laughing.
There was a Trump sized, shaped hole in our political sphere – TRump filled it.
If not him, someone else.
So long as the hole exists someone will fill it.
An article on the chinese economy by a prominent chinese economist.
Though he only touches it tangentially there is LOTS of historical evidence that you can not gain technological advantage by intellectual property theft.
I am a fierce opponent of the concept of “intellectual property” – ideas are not property and they can not be owned or stolen.
Nor is stealing someone else’s ideas ultimately very beneficial.
It takes particular types of people to create and exploit ideas. Stealing from them both leaves you behind and actually deprives you of the impetus to develop the skills to get ahead.
As this article notes – China does engage in some very real innovation – but that innovation is in very narrow areas – those furthest from the Chinese government.
I would also strongly suggest reading Coases “how china became capitalist”.
it is an ecxcellent book by one of the most respected economists of the past century and an easy read. It dovetails nicely with the article below.
There are fundimental changes that china’s leaders made – mostly because they had little to lose and did not consider those changes important, that resulted in China’s miracle growth since Mao died. But China has accomplished all that can be accomplished while maintianing the tight political control of the country.
China will continue to be a manufacturing giant – though even there, its higher modern standard of living is already driving low skill labor intnsive jobs out of the country.
But it MUST lag significantly behind until it makes changes that are highly unlikely.
China can not steal its way to innovation.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/myth-of-chinese-innovation-capacity-by-zhang-jun-2018-07?a_la=english&a_d=5b5f120478b6c72060a20e2d&a_m=&a_a=click&a_s=&a_p=/archive&a_li=myth-of-chinese-innovation-capacity-by-zhang-jun-2018-07&a_pa=&a_ps=
“I do not need to find someone.” Because you can’t. You just make outlandish statements that you can’t back up, or toss it to others to carry the water.
In 2013 if I had asked you about the possibility of Pres. Trump – you would have laughed. And I would not have been foolish enough to suggest that.
I can not find someone who would be the next Trump – because I do not understand (and neither do you) how he came to be a candidate and get elected.
The next DT could look straight into my eyes and I would not recognize them – but that does not mean they are not out there.
A part of your problem is that you fail to grasp that Trump really is the person most people who voted for Trump wanted.
Without understanding that you would not see who preplaced him if the bit you.
The fact that neither you nor I can fined them does not mean they do not exist. It means we can not see the next Pres. Trump – because we could not see the first one.
Speculation about the future is close to pure oppinion – you can not lie about it, it is impossible.
Ok, since we all agree that the Russians try to sow descent, who around here would make a good Russian bot.
“Ok, since we all agree that the Russians try to sow descent, who around here would make a good Russian bot.”
Rachel Maddow sows dissent – should we silence her ? Alex Jones ?
“Rachel Maddow sows dissent – should we silence her ? Alex Jones ?”
People need to make a concerted effort to watch Mad(c)ow. They have to want to watch MSNBC.
I am talking about the crap that pops up[ on their phone while they are walking down the street with their phone stuck in their face. They did not choose to click on that or find it. Its just there and they read it. The stupid one believe it, the smart ones know its crap.
I am not trying to protect people from themselves. I am trying to protect me and my family from the dolts that have no clue. Elections have consequences. Just look at the past nominees for president. That should show you people our out to lunch when picking a candidate. Was Obama an educated choice or was it because he was black?
“I am talking about the crap that pops up[ on their phone while they are walking down the street with their phone stuck in their face. ”
So get an ad blocker – but do not dictate for others what speach they may and may not see
“The stupid one believe it, the smart ones know its crap.”
W can justify anything with the argument that we are merely protecting the stupid people we disagree with from themselves.
“I am not trying to protect people from themselves.”
That is exactly what you are doing.
“I am trying to protect me and my family from the dolts that have no clue.”
If those clueless dolts are engaged in violence – call the cops.
If they are actually violating your rights – call the cops.
Otherwise you are not seeking to protect your family you are seeking to control others.
“Elections have consequences. Just look at the past nominees for president. That should show you people our out to lunch when picking a candidate. Was Obama an educated choice or was it because he was black?”
So limit the power of government – restore the constitution.
You are seeking to give the very people you are most affraid of more power.
If you empower government to further regulate speech, it will be the very people that you do not trust who will be deciding what speech is and is not acceptable.
Maddow, Jones, Trump, all yes. But closer to here at TNM, there is you.
Would you silence the voices of those you disagree with by force ?
Well I am going to change the subject. I have beat the Russia social media propaganda to death.
So now my question is, “How can one segment of the working world attract all the incompetent individuals that can not make educated decisions?”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article216056560.html
This article states that there is no audit trail, there is no paper trail, there is no way to determine the accuracy of the vote. Well 600+ voters in a district with around 275 seems to indicate something might just be a little screwed up.
I like the voting machines. Now there are some that say we need to go back to the archaic paper copy and mark the block, count the marks and turn in the vote. Fine, we could do that, but how about a COMPROMISE (that awful word that means no one stands for anything)
How about a machine that registers the vote on two disks or inserts, the voter is provided a print out of their vote, one disk is then sent or transmitter to a central location on voting night so the vote is counted quickly and turned in so everyone in the nation can see the outcome by 11:00 (prime time TV, instant gratification) and the other disk or cartridge is locked in secure boxes and transported to the central location where they are then ran through a separate system not connected to a network and the results are compared.
Would that not solve the possibility of outside intrusion into the automated systems?
Yes, Ron, Until we make it easy AND secure, voting will be skewed by the “fixers” and the people that get out and actually vote, for one reason or another, especially the primaries.
They can send a man to Mars, track storms, get you a Netflix movie, manage a bank account
and they can’t come up with an electronic system for voting. They are NOT trying hard enough and the big money likes it like it is because they can manipulate the skinny vote, with the help of the non-voters (whether lazy, inconvenienced, or blocked) in their favor.
Think how many more people would vote electronically, perhaps with help at centers) and the shorter lines at the polling stations would make it easier for others to vote the old way too.
“They can send a man to Mars, track storms, get you a Netflix movie, manage a bank account
and they can’t come up with an electronic system for voting. ”
Thats because Mars, storms, Netflix and a bank account is managed by someone other than a GS or state equivalent employee.
Now I do not support nor do I ever wznt to see a day that I can go to my home comluter and vote. There will never be a day a hacker wont be able to crash a firewall on any computer. connect ed to the internet.
And remember, once you give someone something, they will never wzent it changed. We were given early voting in NC. now every time they want to change locations because churchs, community centers or others cant reach out to the needs, or the state want to change hours where the early voting is extended on weekends, but the week days are reduced ( same number of hours total) the ALCU or some minority group goes to court because it is unfair to that group.
So make it people have to go to vote during set hours, but find a wzy for voting machines that have an audit and backup system.
No “voting machines” at all.
Once you have marked ballots that you can protect for ever and that can be reviewed by anyone at a later date – you can count and transfer the count most anyway you want.
It is not necescary to secure something when it is impossible to change it without ultimately being detected.
The vote should be on ONE day. It should be in person at polls. Absentee ballots should be limited to real need. Automatic registrations should be eliminated, Mail in ballots should be eliminated.
It you really want to minimize the impact of dolts – make voting difficult enough that fewer will bother.
It is well known that the stability of a country INVERSELY correlates to the pecentage of the population that votes.
High voting rates mean strife and conflict and mean the country is less stable.
Secure – yes – easy – nope.
If you want better government, make voting harder, not easier
Everyone does not care as much about elections and voting.
The harder voting is the more we weed out those who do not care much.
Require walking barefoot over hot coals and see ho many people vote.
But you will not that every vote was from someone who cared alot.
You want to eed out most of the ininfored dolts – make voting HARDER.
You want to amplify the power of people who really do not care much – make voting easier.
I can probably fix absolutely every possible problem with an electronic voting system.
But anything I come up with will have two very serious flaws.
The first is given a billion dollars it can be cracked – and worse still cracked without anyone knowing.
The 2nd is I can not come up with any electronic system that does not ultimately require voters to TRUST ME.
All paper systems do not require much trust at all.
And that trust is HIGHLY distributed. You may have to trust poll workers as an example,
but they can not corrupt more than their precinct.
As the software developer for a computer voting terminal. I can flipp millions of votes and you would not know.
Even if you have systems in flace to Audit me – you must trust the auditors.
Regardless you have a single huge point of failure.
Paper voting does not have single points of failure.
I beleive I linked to a video on youtube by computerphile on computer voting.
Though the video is wrong about the need to secure the vote from the count all the way through transmission to the state and reporting. Otherwise the video is excellent.
There is no way ever to meet what I would call the required level of security and confidence using a computer voting terminal.
Regardless of how voting is done there are several absolute requirements.
There must be a permanent paper record of each vote.
The voter must be able to verify that the paper record reflects their actual vote.
There must be nothing that the voter takes with them from the vote.
All means of voting have some error rate associated with them – whether the errors are hanging chad or indecipherable OCR marks or multiple votes on a paper ballot or ….
The 2000 election drove us towards methods that have lower error rates.
That is a mistake. Both the real and perceived possibility of fraud are FAR more important than the error rate.
Error rates can be dealt with trivially – no result from any election that is inside the marging of error should EVER be certified.
Recounts when the difference is inside the margin of error are MEANINGLESS.
Further they are pollitically corrupting.
We do not want judges and lawyers arguing over which couple of hundred votes get counted when the difference between candidates is a few hundred votes and the error rate is in the thousands.
The simplest means to deal with too close elections is NOT recounts, it is runnoffs.
I noted the requirement for a paper record of each ballot – this is VERY important.
So long as there are paper records of each individual vote, and these are preserved and made available to the media and the public. The entire rest of the voting system has been secured. Only two important risks remain – the physical security of those paper records – we do not want ballots lost. We do not want ballots added.
So long as they are secure – any fraud in counting will utlimately be detected.
One of the reasons that the 2000 election did not result in the mess that 2016 has is that the media went to FL after the election and recounted ALL of the ballots.
No independent media ballot count ever resulted in Gore winning FL.
The last voting issue is making sure that those who are voting MAY vote.
That is where voter ID comes in.
I want to reiterate some things based on your remarks.
There is no need for an “audit trail” in the traditional sense.
There is an absolute need for a maintained paper record of ever single vote.
(clay tablets would also work) but the point is it must be LOW TECH and easily verifiable and recounted by third parties like the media.
Next while voters MUST be able to review the paper record, no voter can be permitted to take any record of their vote with them from the poll.
There is a whole massive other area of fraud that is possible if voters can leave the polls with a record of their votes.
One thing the computerphile video points out is that the incentives for fraud are gargantuan. Billions possibly trillions of dollars are often at stake in elections.
Clinton spent $20 for each vote she received. Lots of people would cast their vote for someone who gave them $20.
The most important form of voter fraud we must prevent is buying votes.
We should also remember that our standard paper ballots and the protocols arround them though less than perfect has been tested over centuries.
Do not underestimate the incentives to corrupt a vote.
As I said before I do not give a crap if Russia tries to influence people over social media.
Hacking voting machines – that is an entirely different story.
We know they tried. We MUST deal with that.
No system of voting is perfect.
I do not mean to insult you – but your proposal is pretty bad – when you grasp that many people would be motivated to spend BILLIONS to beat it.
Would that work for county clerk ? For a union election ?
Possibly for a shareholders vote ?
Sure.
For a US national election – not a chance.
You must vote in person. You must provide proof of indenty,
A raw paper record of your vote must exist for your review and approval, and it must be preserved.
So long as that is done – vote talies can be sent in the clear over the internet.
You do not need to protect against any form of voting fraud that you can easily detect.
Successful voter fraud requires not getting caught.
Computerized voting makes determining that fraud has occured hard to impossible.
I would silence all Russian bots. That includes you.
….dduck .. “I would silence all Russian bots. That includes you.”
..Хорошо…Ничего
Comrade Petterson
Not this “bot” nonsense.
AI is nowhere near the sophistication necescary for political posting “bots”.
The Russian’s used real humans – and even in that way – they stuck out like sore thumbs.
Have you actually looked at the Russian FB adds – the are crude and stupid, and if one of those fooled you it is unlikely you can find your won way to a poll.
Social Media has gone wild purging “bots”.
What they are getting is real american conservatives.
This is well documented.
When you hear people on the left talking about russian bots, they are really talking about americans conservatives who they seek to censor.
Just yesterday Twitter suspended Candice Owens account – because your copied Sarrah Jeong’s tweets and substitited Jewish for white. To prove a point.
She was banned in a few minutes and restored within a few hours when Twitter realized they had been gotten – as Owens noted – all she did was change from one race to another.
No one suspended Jeong.
If you have not figured it out social media has a double standard.
And it is going to create a huge problem for them.
FB;s stock had the largest one day drop of any stock in history when they reported earnnings exactly on projections. Why ? Because investors realize, FB can not continue to drive up add revenues at the rates they have done in the past.
Think of what will happen to FB stock if 5% of conservatives move to Gabb or some other conservative friendly alternative.
Social media will be fiscally masacred if they continue to piss conservatives.
And this witch hunt for russian bots – whether you beleive it is a ruse or whether you beleive it is honest, is going to piss of conservatives – not because they care about russian bots, but because they are the ones seeing their accounts shutdown.
While I think you are joking, you still make my point.
You do not want to shutdown russian bots. you want to censor voices you do not like.
Sorry, I disagree. It can be done and if it isn’t, we will continue to have a half-assed corrupted system for electing people.
The thread is broken so I am not sure what you disagree with.
Of course we have a half assed corrupted system for electing people.
Power and corruption are inseparable. Elections mean power.
We can not eliminate corruption. But we can limit it – the most effective means is to reduce the power of government.
Regardless, it would be wise to consider that with many of the problems that bother us – change may make the corruption different – not better.
We have had major debates over “gerrymandering”.
There is a pretense that there is a right way to elect representatives and define districts.
There is not. Every means of doing so has winners and losers, and there is no “right” group of winners or losers.
The process of redistricing is inherently corrupt.
And it will be no matter how it is done – as I noted it will change the winners and losers and there is no objectively right way to do this.
Involving the courts in districting (or elections in general) corrupts the courts – the instutiton we need to be the least politically corrupt.
The best computer modeling studies have shown that the net maximum effective gain from “gerrymandering” is about 4 seats in the house nationwide.
More than that an you radically increase the risk of a sweep election putting the other party in super majority control.
I would further note that if we look at state governments accross the country – the house and senate are LEFT of the state houses, senates and governorships.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others definition. A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.”
By all means make it harder for people to vote, they are the inferior animals and should be made to walk on burning coals (sorry we need to ban coal) with bare feet, while the ‘better animals have cool shoes allowing them to get to the line to vote.
Dave, your mask has slipped and you are outed as an elitist.
DD I said make it harder for EVERYONE to vote.
That is not “elitist”
“By all means make it harder for people to vote, they are the inferior animals and should be made to walk on burning coals (sorry we need to ban coal) with bare feet, while the ‘better animals have cool shoes allowing them to get to the line to vote.”
Logic problems – how are all people inferior to all people ?
I have not proposed that any “animals” have cool should allowing them to get to the line to vote.
EVERYONE must have ID.
EVERYONE most vote on election day,
BTW every time you try to pick winners and losers – I can assure you the winners are nearly always going to be the elite and the losers the “inferior animals”
I think everyone should have to pass the citizenship test every 10 years to be able to vote, but that wont happen either. What we have is what we have. Its how we fix what is broken because what you or I think should happen is a moot point. That is why I offered a solution that might pass the test any fix would have to pass.
We are not going to get home computer voting, and we are not going back to one day every 4 years on paper ballots. So the question is how we fix what we have that will pass the ACLU’s test where they claim every change is to dilute the minority vote. The fix may not be 100%, but neither was voting back in the day of paper voting when LBJ stayed in office using fictitious voters and dead voter records to stay in office in his early years.
“The thread is broken so I am not sure what you disagree with.”
Finally an accurate comment from Dave.
“He who causes problems often does not know he does so”- Anon
The thread is broken because YOU did not reply directly to a comment,
That is your problem not mine.
By your own argument you would be the cause.
I would further note that if WordPress does not work well for you,
or from some specific device, or from some specific browser – that is a Word Press problem, or a device problem or a browser problem.
I am personally responsible for the software I have written.
I did not write wordpress, or the firmware for your device or the code for your browser.
If you do not like being identified as a left wing nut quit channeling this bizarre left wing nut nonsense of blaming whoever you do not like for your problems.
Whatever your problems I am not in the list of causes.
It is unlikely but possible that you are.
Regardless, pointing fingers at the completely wrong place will solve nothing.
And it just makes you look stupid.
It makes it clear that ideology clouds your thinking on everything.
LMZAO. Luckily this reply will be right below your asinine comment above, but many times there is no reply button below a comment and the reply gets lost in the multiple long garbage comments Dave makes. If you don’t like pointing fingers, you are free to ignore them or go to a more hospitable blog. One that likes long diatribes which are often off point or completely wrong. Feel free.
The Thread Breaker.
Yes, I hacked TNM and randomly remove the reply button.
Wow you really are channeling the left.
If I am wrong about something – that can be addressed with facts.
I have not seen much evidence that you have any command of facts.
I have no evidence you ever use facts.
Facts or lack of facts, that is the question. Fact: you talk way too much. Fact: your comments very rarely hit the target and meander with useless facts and opinions. Fact:
you are a dissenter, that is your main talent.
Fact: I don’t care what you think about evidence or no evidence.
Opinion: you are as close to a Russian bot as is possible.
Corected
Opinion: you talk way too much.
Opinion: your comments very rarely hit the target and meander with useless facts and opinions.
Opinion: you are a dissenter, that is your main talent.
Opinion: I don’t care what you think about evidence or no evidence.
Opinion: you are as close to a Russian bot as is possible.
You don’t talk too much? LMAO. Forget the rest, you have NO credibility.
Opinion: You don’t talk too much? LMAO. Forget the rest, you have NO credibility.
Bad one at that.
You fixate on meaningless drivel and miss everything of substance.
Trump… “Space Force all the way”
Draining the swamp to bring to you a new and improved swamp.
Just what we need another bloated gove rnment agency that hires th ousand to waste money on programs that could be handled with current resources.
I agree, Ron. Bit this one will have snazzy uniforms and Trump Patches.
Beam me up Scottie. Time to leave this nightmare.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=spaceballs+youtube&view=detail&mid=670BDDFFAFD6970FAD64670BDDFFAFD6970FAD64&FORM=VIRE
There are many thing Trump can be blamed for. Wonder if the MSM will twist this report to place the blame on the Trump administration.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/governments-own-report-shows-tax-dollars-spent-afghanistan-boosted-opium-production/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Traffic%20Driver&utm_campaign=Facebook%20Stout
I am not a big Bannon fan – but Bannon wanted to get out of Afghanistan, and he was right.
I do not think Trump is to “blame” for Opium increases.
But Afghanistan is a mess we should have left long ago.
Post 9/11 we had the absolute right to go in as we did (as opposed to Iraq where we did not), but we should have destroyed the Taliban and left.
The governance of Afghanistan is the business of the Afghani’s NOT the US.
It is not the job of the US government to prop up afghanistan any more than it is to subsidize US business or provide assistance to the poor.
I apologize, Ron, I could have given the short answer: yes, they will skewer Trump.
dduck, I was not singling you out. Hope you did not take it that way.
So if the media today would skewer Trump with this, how does that fit with the founding fathers who wrote in 1774 during the continental congress “The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them……”
Should there not be some reguirement for a free press to “advance truth” instead of propaganda?
“Should there not be some reguirement for a free press to “advance truth” instead of propaganda?”
NO!
A right is only a right when we are not permitted to infringe even when those excercising that right do so in ways we do not like.
I think the press is far more heavily biased than is traditionally credited. The choice of words of even straight reporting is quite different between republicans and democrats, between things the reporter approves of and those they do not.
But we can not legislate an unbiased press. We tried equal time laws decades ago – the impact was to SUPRESS speach. Major media just did not address anything controversial and “special interest” media was effectively killed.
We are better off in a world with Rush Limbaugh AND Rachel Maddow.
Further the press we have today most resembles that of our founders – when small presses abounded and pamphleteers hawked “extremist” views of everything.
The cure for bad speach is more speach.
Unfortunately, when you give money away, whether it is to someone on the street, or to countries like Israel, Egypt. Afghanistan or others, you can’t predict or expect to go where you think it should go. Afghanistan needs money and the opium crop, as it was
in Columbia, is easier and more lucrative.
We and many other countries make LOTS of stuff to kill people, a lot of which is exported, should we stop? They sell poison (drugs) we sell death (weapons).
dduck, I was not commenting concerning how we spend money. Anyone with one brain cell understands the USA government has no reason to control spending and the money they collect can be spent without regard to the effectiveness of the programs receiving the money.
My comment was directed to the possibilities that the MSM that cares less about debt, deficits and waste in spending may take this report that covers years through 2016 and omit or bury that date when they write about how we have wasted 8.2 billion and tie that to the Trump administration. When you report government waste and dont include the fact this went through the Bush and Obama administrations, most everyone, except maybe a few that actually dig for more info, would assume it is reported info on the current administration.
I doubt the problem has improved under Trump.
Regardless, we lost the drug war LONG ago.
I want things like the 4th amendment back.
I am tired of the destruction of our rights that the militarization of the police to fight the drug war has caused.
People and businesses in the US should be free to produce and sell to a willing buyer whatever they wish. Afghani’s may do the same – but our govenrment is not obligated to protect their right to.
Increasing evidence is coming in from countries that have either fully legalized or decriminalized drugs. The results are compelling. If you are after perfection – go elsewhere that is not acheivable. But crime particularly violent is way down, drug use long term is down a little, overdoses are way down.
@Ron 1:53: No offense taken.
“Should there not be some requirement for a free press to “advance truth” instead of propaganda?”
No, hopefully they, both biases, will continue to express their “views” some each of us will agree with, some we won’t.
“No, hopefully they, both biases, will continue to express their “views” some each of us will agree with, some we won’t.”
Will I dont have any problem with any media telling us what is happening and then telling us why they think that is right or that is wrong. Most everyone would be able to make up their minds one way or the other.
What scares the hell out of me are the stories we read that are “real”, only to find out 6 months or a year later that they really were not real after all. It was some form of the truth manipulated to look like the truth, when in fact much of it was unproven facts and made up information to manipulate the readers views of a situation. Much the same as Trump does with his fake news on twitter to manipulate his readers into believing crap he post.
That is how we ended up with Clinton and Trump. After many months of investigation, we know exactly what took place with Clinton, the e-mails, the secret tarmac meeting and all the other stuff with the Steele Dozzier etc. And We know how Trump lies his way through every situation and when he gets caught, he just lies some more.
Had the media on both sides done their work and reported what really happened, we may have had a Sanders/Bush..Sanders/Kasich or Sanders/Anyone but Trump ticket. But since the media was in the pockets of Clinton and many supporting trump, we ended up with histories most screwed up election ever.
And now trying to turn this monster around is almost impossible as it is feeding on itself and only getting worse, with more and more people believing the crap they read and voting based on that info.
Thus far there is little evidence that Trump lies about anything of substance.
We now know as an example that Clinton both new EXACTLY what was going on at Benghazi – that it was a terrorist attack and what group was responsible within a few hours of the start. We also know that she had no doubts about that – there was no “fog or war”.
We further know that Clinton was the source of the “spontaneous uprising” garbage that was foist on us.
We know know – as a result of Strzok Emails and the IG report that Clinton’s emails including classified and top secret emails were acquired by a hostile foreign power that was NOT Russia.
What of similar import has Trump lied about ?
He claimed his campaign was spied on – it was.
He claimed his campaign was wired tapped – it was.
He has claimed “no collusion with Russia” – there remains to this date no evidence contact between the russian government or its agents and the trump campaign.
I would explicitly note that absent a connection between Russia and the Trump campaign – there is no basis for a special counsel.
We do not have special counsels to investigate whatever we please – that is what the FBI is for. We did not have a special counsel iin the Clinton investigation. Absent that investigation having a subject in the whitehouse there should not have been an SC investigation of Clinton.
As we learn more, we not only find there is no Trump Russia collusion, but that thought the FBI/CIA looked hard they never found sufficient evidence of such collusion to get a warrant – even though they lied to the FISA court and did.
I have no more problem with Clinton constructing the Steele Dossier than with Trump trying to get dirt on Clinton. That is politics. If you want to vote against Trump or clinton for getting dirt on each other through scurilous means – that is your perogative.
But it is not a crime or should not be.
Nor do I have problems with Clinton trying to push that dirt onto the FBI.
Nor do I have problems with the FBI investigating that dirt.
BUT there are some real problems.
The dirt did NOT get to the FBI through normal channels.
That is a huge issue.
The investigation (or both Clinton and Trump) was conducted out of DC.
That is HIGHLY unusual for the FBI.
DC shutdown the NYC FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
In BOTH cases the political leadership at the top of the FBI was directly running a heavily political investigation, That is exactly what you do NOT want in a political mess.
Next it is self evident that the FBI – as well as Mueller have to this date been unable to corroborate ANYTHING in the Steele Dossier.
That is important because there are rules – both in the DOJ/FBI guidelines, which Mueller promised to abide by and quite obviously did not, as well as less clearly in the constitution,
for investigations of private parties.
Clinton can go out and try to find dirt on Trump – just because she wants to.
Government can not. The 4th amendment requires government agents to SWEAR, that there is probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that the person being searched committed that crime – BEFORE getting a warrant.
Given that probable cause does not exist NOW, It is self evident that it neever did.
That means no FISA warrants should ever have been granted, and no grand jury ever should have been empanneled.
Getting into the DOJ/FBI guidelines – which are essentially a more finely graduated version of the 4th amendment – given only the things we know to be true today the requisit basis to use spies against the Trump campaign never existed – nor was their sufficient evidence to request bank or any other third party records.
While Mueller is allowed to pursue crimes he uncovers as a result of his investigation,
He is not allowed to use procedures beyond those justified by the evidence he has in hand at the time.
When Trump calls this a “witch hunt” he is correct.
Whether you loath or like Trump,
Do you want the FBI investigating you based on evidence of the poor quality of the Steele Dossier ?
I can answer that easily. If someone who did not like me gathered tripple hearsay allegations of misconduct and went to the police with those allegations – the police should “investigate” – they should do everything they can – without conducting an actual search to verify the information in those allegations, and if they can not find something that rises to probable cause – they are DONE.
There is no special law, constitution or procedure for investigating Trump rather than me.
The rights we allow those we hate the most are the most rights we have ourselves.
Sorry, OK, so let’s substitute news or policies for money. When you hand, lets call it a story, to either side of the MSM or OSM (other stream media), you can’t predict how they will use it to smear your “side”. That is the gist of tribal reporting/propaganda.
“That is the gist of tribal reporting/propaganda.”
And that is why Rick has enough data to write an article about extremist and their impact.
The extremely wide variety of outlets available to you today mean that most anything that has happened will get reported, and if you are capable of critical thinking the truth – beyond that of one tribe or another can be discerned from what is available to you.
Extremists are one thing, but enthusiastic partisans are another. I think the later are more dangerous and there are more of them to contribute to tribal animosities.
Your views are not dangerous no matter what they are until you seek to impose them by force.
Well I need to find a better way to communicate. I did not post this to discuss force. I did not post this to discuss how money was spent. I did not post this to discuss drugs and the impact of drug laws.
What I was trying to do was open a discussion concerning if and how the main stream media would approach the wasted money on opium production.
And Dave, is there not active force and passive force when it comes to politics. One that physically makes one do something and one that manipulates mentally into actions?
Is Rolling Stone a reliable news source?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/california-election-hacking-711202/
They say there was a successful hack in CA.
What is interesting is the sub title where it references Putins favorite congressman and then buried way down in the article it references law enforcement stating they have little info on who did the hacking. Knowing todays voter is headline and tweet driven, they can promote a position instead of attracting readers to a complete article as was the desire when journalist were true journalist.
Hard to say if this is reliable news or not. Rolling Stone was the source of the fraternity rape story at UVA which was later proven totally wrong by the Washington Post.
But if true, there is a compromise position between a hand count paper ballot that takes hundreds of manhours to count and voting machines connected to the internet that gets hacked. But in todays environment, compromise positions are unacceptible.
The odds are 100% that every single political campaign in the US is targeted for a phishing attack. All that is unusual here is that a leading scientist cum politician fell victim to something most ordinary people can sus out many times a say.
I an going to have to agree with you on reporting and free speech. There is no way one can have free speech and expect the free press to be responsible in their reporting of politics today.
The other thing is the stupidity of the voters, especially the younger generation.
You cant fix stupid.
One only needs to look at countries like Venezuela and Cuba.
This article shows exactly that. The students at Parkland High school go full speed on trying to limit gun rights, but then when the school system impacts their right to privacy they have a cow. If they don’t own a gun or want one, they have no problem with limiting rights. But if they want to carry something in a backpack they don’t want other to see, they freak out.
Just like the socialist movements where government provides, stupid thinks its great until government actually impact them, then it is not good.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marjory-stoneman-douglas-students-mock-clear-backpacks-with-live-fish-memes-10234785
“Stupid is as stupid does”!
I was going to respond that I fully support efforts to thwart Russian hacking of our voting machines and voter registration – that should be a no brainer.
But then I actually read your article.
As best as I can tell all that it says is that “Dr. Hans Keirstead, a stem-cell scientist”
is an idiot and fell victim to a spear fishing attack.
Why do you presume it was political ? Why could the attacker have been after money ? Or machines take over ?
Russian Hackers – NOT the Russian government rip americans off for $30B in credit card scams a year.
I read a story about a crime that someone tries to perpitrate against me many times a day.
While plausiable, I read no evidence that this had anything to do with Russia, much less the russia government. I read no evidence that this was political.
Do not get me wrong – it was a crime. but one that is committed billions of times each day.
It is not evidence of political hacking by Putin.
“Thus far there is little evidence that Trump lies about anything of substance.”
The accumulation, repetition and doubling down on lies makes for “substance” in most people’s minds.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/04/13/trumps-lies-corrode-democracy/
RE: Trump lies.
Doesnt matter what you lie about when you do it consistently and often. Chicken Little did not lie about anything anyone would pay attention to and then when something important happened, no one believed him.
So with all the small lies that take place almost daily, how can anyone believe him when he refutes claims of Russian collusion, Russian involvement in the Trump Tower meetings, etc.
It just took longer to build the reputation of a pathological liar with constant insigificant lies than it did Clinton since she did that with Bengahzi and the email server issue since they were major issues.
Why should we expect anything different from politi cians?
Chicken little ranted that the sky is falling.
The little boy who cried wolf ?
Just to be clear, I do not think lying – even about small things is a good idea.
It is a habit and it can easily lead to lying about big things.
It also tends to erode credibility
At the same time much of what Trump is accused of lying about is not questions of fact, it is questions of oppinion. And there is no “lying” there.
Or are we going to have to label Sander, Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
as liars because they are selling socialism an ideology that has NEVER worked anywhere.
“Doesnt matter what you lie about when you do it consistently and often. ”
Without condoning little lies – yes it does matter – a great deal.
One big lie can ruin your entire life.
It is something you can not recover from.
Whatever you call Trumps means of speaking it is a lifelong pattern, and it has not ruined his life.
Bingo
“So with all the small lies that take place almost daily, how can anyone believe him when he refutes claims of Russian collusion, Russian involvement in the Trump Tower meetings, etc.”
We have numerous MAJOR errors on the part of the press.
Trump has been proven RIGHT about Wiretapping and spying.
Those are not little issues. They are big.
The fact that Trump was right about those – enhances his credibility and diminishes that of the press and the left.
Thus far there is no evidence of Russian collusion.
Given that Trump has been right about absolutely everything related to trump russian collusion and the election that we are able to know for certain. We have every reason to beleive he is likely right about those things we do not know for certain.
That is actually how it works.
The damage to Trumps credibility from being wrong about the size of crowds – is minor – though I would note Trump USUALLY over estimates his crowds. The press ALWAYS under estimates them and has been caught BLATANTLY lying about them.
When a reporter uses a photo taken hours before the start of a rally to make claims about crowd size, and is subsequently proven wrong. That reporter and paper is dead to me.
That is a simple error, that can not originate from any source but bias or incompetence.
And it is the role of the press to get it right or not report it at all.
The damage to Trump’s credibility for making a substanative factual error about Trump/Russia collusion would be lethal.
With respect to the Natalia meeting – Trump has “spun” the meeting different than others.
But spin is mostly oppinion not fact.
Trump has said the meeting was about russian adoption and the magnitvensky act.
That is CORRECT – everyone who was there has testified to that under oath.
There are no disagreements.
The PURPOSE of the meeting was to get dirt on Clinton.
At times Trump has deemphasized that – but he has not actually lied about it.
In fact Trump released the emails setting up the meeting to the press. The evidence that Trump Jr. was hoping for dirt came from Trump Jr.
Trump has on occasion complained about Mueller’s delving into areas he thinks is out of bounds – but Trump has not YET asserted priviledge of any kind nor acted to deny Mueller access to any information..
Bill Clinton engaged in a scortched earth contest with Starr, fighting EVERYTHING.
Trump has not been to court once to impede Mueller.
We will see if that continues. But the Trump legal strategy todate has been to publicly complain about Mueller, while gbiving him everything he asks for.
That is not the condict of someone with something to hide.
It would not be my conduct.
My last comment on this subject.
Character is important. Trustworthiness is important. To some voters, those two determine if one will vote for or against a person. They could care less what the reason is, they just look to the outcome. And if we end up with a loser socialist leaning president worse than Obama, then Trumps character and trustworthiness has taken all the “lots of nothing” and turned it into a democrat president with a huge negative impact. We thought the ACA is bad, wait for Medicare for All and free college educations with billions of student loans forgiven.
And foreign countries see everything this president does. Should they support us or should they stay out of whatever issue we are asking for help. Should they deal with us or do they let the natural order of things happen without a deal. Can Mexico and Canada trust Trump in renegotiating NAFTA. If I were one of the leaders I sure would not.
Its not the one or two lies, it is the constant daily exaggerates or lies (parents discipline or used to for these). Energy claims, job creation since election day, NFL money going mostly to the players. deficits with foreign countries, etc, etc. There are list where it is three pages of small print of untruths spoken by this president over 20 months, with many days with 4-5 different incorrect statements.
I have bitched about the press screwing with the truth and you defend their right to do that. I am supporting dducks posting of the link about Trump lying and you are defending Trump and his lies. I guess that is the time we live in where it is acceptable to lie and mislead people, so I am a dinosaur when it comes to the truth.
“Character is important.”
I agree. I did not vote for Trump for that reason.
Trump, Clinton, unfortunately it appears Obama, Bill Clinton, a large portion of the upper tier of CIA/DOJ.FBI under obama – all lack character.
“Trustworthiness is important.”
I agree.
But trustworthiness is not black and white.
Obama seemed a trustworthy person, yet he lied about very important things.
Trump seems untrustworthy, but thus far he is doing a good job of keeping the campaign promises he made – even those I do not like.
Generally I think those who lie about small things can not be trusted with big things.
Regardless, Obama lied about big things. Thus far their is no evidence Trump lies about things of substance.
Further while I am not going to defend Trump’s rhetoric, a significant portion of what is claimed to be “lies” amounts to “I do not like what he said” or “I disagree with his judgement on something that is essentially a matter of opinion”
“To some voters, those two determine if one will vote for or against a person. They could care less what the reason is, they just look to the outcome. And if we end up with a loser socialist leaning president worse than Obama, then Trumps character and trustworthiness has taken all the “lots of nothing” and turned it into a democrat president with a huge negative impact. We thought the ACA is bad, wait for Medicare for All and free college educations with billions of student loans forgiven.”
The driving forces behind a voters vote are a mystery.
Maybe Trump will bring about “socialism” – I doubt it, but you can argue that. Obama and Clinton brought us Trump.
Frankly the more socialist the Democrats go, the more likely Republicans are to remain in power – my opinion.
“And foreign countries see everything this president does. Should they support us or should they stay out of whatever issue we are asking for help. Should they deal with us or do they let the natural order of things happen without a deal. Can Mexico and Canada trust Trump in renegotiating NAFTA. If I were one of the leaders I sure would not.”
Thus far Trump’s negotiations with foreign countries have gone far better than Obama’s
If they do not like Trump, if they do not respect Trump – they are still negotiating with him, and he is doing well.
“Its not the one or two lies, it is the constant daily exaggerates or lies (parents discipline or used to for these). Energy claims, job creation since election day, NFL money going mostly to the players. deficits with foreign countries, etc, etc. There are list where it is three pages of small print of untruths spoken by this president over 20 months, with many days with 4-5 different incorrect statements.”
Name a politiician that does not exagerate daily ?
Is Trump saying that something is “great” – when you and I think it is merely somewhat better than before a lie ?
“I have bitched about the press screwing with the truth and you defend their right to do that.”
We expect politicians to spin, to frame their answer in the most favorable light to them.
We explicitly expect that the press does NOT spin their stories.
While I am a strong advocate of a free press and absolutely do not want any regulation of the press. At the same time I am far more disappointed by the Press than the president.
It is the responsibility of the press to aprise us of the fact without spin – specifically because government, politicians etc. are all going to spin everything in a favorable light.
“I am supporting dducks posting of the link about Trump lying and you are defending Trump and his lies.”
No I am just not going barking frothing nuts over Trump’s face off with the press.
Mostly I am paying little attention – because it is NOT important.
“I guess that is the time we live in where it is acceptable to lie and mislead people,”
What is new ? Trump certainly did not start that.
Nor is he close to doing the most damage by his misrepresentations.
Provide me with an actual choice that is better for the country – and BTW truthfullness is just ONE criteria – it should be determinative, but given that all politicians lie, it is not.
I absolutely loath Bill Clinton as a person. He lied under oath, and he did so when telling the truth mattered. I would have impeached and removed him in a heart beat.
At the same time I must accept that he was a better President than Bush I Bush II and Obama.
At this moment if I am going to get worked up about lies – I am going to focus on ones that matter. Right now that would be the lies of Trump’s enemies, not Trump.
We have embroiled this country in Turmoil for nearly 2 years over GARBAGE. Worse still it is increasingly apparent that the purveyors KNEW it was garbage at the time.
ALWAYS the actions of those inside government is far more important than those outside.
It Trump actually “colluded” with the Russians AND The Obama administration plotted to interfere with Trump.
The latter is far more serious than the former.
You do not create substance by adding together lots and lots of nothing.
I can think of no Trump lie comparable to:
If you like your doctor !
or If you like your insurance !
or Benghazi was a spontaneous protest.
Just to name 3.
I would further note that saying things you do not like is NOT lying.
Expressing oppinions you do not like – is not lying.
Ron, I said Bingo to you and I am saying it again, not to the lying SOB Russian bot, dhlii
dduck, understood.
When you accuse others of something – you bet your integrity against theirs.
Either they are as you say, or you are not credible, and the burden of proof is yours.
What have I lied about ?
How I am to beleive you when you accuse others such as Trump of lying, when clearly lying to you means saying things you do not like ?
My mother is dead, but she would take offense at being called a bitch.
Regardless, you rant about divisiveness and vile language – and then dish it out.
I have zero relationship with Russia of any kind. I do not think I even know someone of russian dissent.
bot – A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions.
Sorry, I am quite human.
LMAO.
“What have I lied about ?”
As Rudy would say, sometimes the truth isn’t the truth.
A lie ain’t a lie and it depends on what is is.
And, sometimes a “spinner” sounds more credible then straight talkers.
Not a hard question. You should have no trouble answering it.
But you didn’t, you responded with abunch of sping and unrelated meaningless drivel and false analogies.
You are the “spinner”.
I asked a very simple question.
You made an accusation.
The obligation to back it up with specifics is YOURS.
When you challenge someone else’s integrity – you bet your own against theirs they you are right.
Only one of you walks away with their integrity intact.
AND the burden of proof is on the accuser.
So Identify an actual lie – that you can prove – atleast clearly and convincingly, with FACTS, Not opponions. Not your own oppinions, not appeals to authority, not a raft of fallacies.
You made the accusation – now back it up with FACTS.
If you can not – then Back it down.
YOUR integrity is on the line.
Oh my, the Russians are attacking Repubs too (as they have been doing all along)..
I remember many many MANY moons ago in high school, there were clicks, mostly girls, and the jocks, the boys, that used information to promote their status. The jocks bragging all the time about how great they were. The females using negative info about other girls to improve their status. If they knew a guy was interestec in a girls and they were interested in the same guy, all kinds of negative stories were the rumors of the week or month. Their desired results, to degrade their competition and calture the bounty.
What does that have to do with Russia. They are the “mean girls” spreading negative info to divide and conquer. And they knew that Trumps ego would never let “Trump won due to Russian manipulation of our election” stand, especially after the last Republican president became president due to controversial results. So they stirred the pot until their was not too much benefit and then concentrated on the left. Divide that party and deminish their influence.
The more you spread negative info, the more you undermine the government. The CIA is a master at that. We just do hear how they undermined Gorbachev.
Duck, I’m not sure if you noticed but about 10 days ago Rick broke down adn made a new post using his iphone: Why the extremists are winning. So, in general that’s where the posts are now going. I did not notice for about a week either.