[cherdano]

Here is why I said "most of your post", not "your entire post":

 weejonnie, on 2017-July-21, 05:28, said:

What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

This paragraph is amazingly full of factual ignorance.
Here is a quiz for you, little jonnie: are you aware of any policy decisions by the Trump administration that would favour Russian interests?

[billw55]

 PassedOut, on 2017-July-20, 15:17, said:

Trump has already announced that he's running for reelection, and raised $10 million at his first fundraiser.

I see. And what do you think his statement means?

And, just for thoroughness, what is the source for the $10m figure?

[billw55]

edit: strange semi-duplicate

[Winstonm]

 weejonnie, on 2017-July-21, 05:28, said:

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away.

I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't.

In the UK we have a situation where many people require long-term care, for dementia. The costs and resources required are very large. However when one political party put forward a possible solution (a charge against the assets owned by the person) it was screamed down as a 'dementia tax'. In effect people were encouraged to vote for a system that allows other people to hand down their houses to their offspring. A similar situation occurred with 'Student fees' - a promise to let students have their university education 'free' instead of paying $12000 a year. This would cost $140,000,000,000 - and people voted for this party because it would benefit their own children, not realising that their, and their children's taxes would have to increase astronomically to pay for it.

What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

It is easy to tell you immerse yourself in conservative media - your last paragraph is straight from those sources. Have you considered this, though.

The issue with Trump and Russia may not be a simple as direct collusion between the Trump campaign and the GRU. What if Trump owed millions to friends of Putin or he had loans guaranteed by some oligarchs in Russia? What if Trump had saved his business by helping launder billions of Russian oligarch money through high end real estate?

That there is no conclusive collusion information publicly known does not mean there is no such proof - that is what investigations are for. When the investigation becomes quite convoluted - like RICO cases are - the investigation can take months or even years.

The other aspect it looks to me like you are not admitting is that Trump is acting like he has something to hide. If there was nothing to worry about, why the obsession with stopping the inquiry? To stop the inquiry, all Trump would have to do is be totally open and order complete cooperation with Mueller's probe, release all his tax returns, and hand over all documents from the campaign.

Finally, when you use phrases like, "If the Americans want 'free' healthcare...", you display an anti-government bias. We Americans do not want "free" healthcare. But we understand that there is a great disparity among the nation's populace as to what is affordable - yet the needed care is equal. To level that playing field, the wealthiest Americans were asked to pay a small percentage (I think 3%) more in taxes in order to offset the costs of healthcare to the less well-to-do.

From my perspective, the problem with your positions is that you assume automatically a redistribution of some of the wealth is inherently stealing from the "producers" by the "needy and undeserving", and you take no account that spreading that wealth dramatically increases the size of the entire economy and is actually a positive for "producers" and the "needy" alike.

[PassedOut]

 billw55, on 2017-July-21, 09:49, said:

I see. And what do you think his statement means?

And, just for thoroughness, what is the source for the $10m figure?

He filed with the FEC for reelection on January 20, 2017, meaning that his campaign can continue to solicit funds legally in the US.

Trump rakes in $10 million at first re-election fundraiser

Quote

President Donald Trump was whisked a few blocks from the White House to the Trump hotel on Wednesday night for his first re-election fundraiser, where he raised an estimated $10 million behind closed doors.

Some 40 months ahead of the 2020 election, the president held court for about two hours at a $35,000-per-plate donor event at the Trump International Hotel. About 300 people were expected to attend the event, which was expected to raise about $10 million, said Lindsay Jancek, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

[jjbrr]

So long, Shouty Spice. You lost your integrity, became a national joke, and received immeasurable abuse for 6 months of employment. Good look opening that Dippin' Dots stand!

[y66]

From In Congress, Obstructionists Are Obstructing Themselves (July 18):

Quote

Republican legislative leaders are in a bind. While they appear to have failed for now in their goal of destroying the Affordable Care Act, their eagerness to shower tax breaks on the wealthy at the expense of health coverage for millions of Americans has crimped their ability to pass other fiscal legislation.

This is not a lament. It’s just as well that they haven’t done anything big, given their goals. But it is a stunning demonstration of incompetence that, with control of the House, the Senate and the White House for six months, Republicans have not only failed to enact any major bills but have also created a legislative logjam that is bound to get worse.

This is largely because congressional leaders have tried to overcome solid Democratic opposition by using “reconciliation” rules — which prevent a Senate filibuster when applied to certain legislation on revenue, spending or the debt limit. But until the health care reconciliation measure is either passed or abandoned, they cannot use those rules to pass other legislation, like broad tax cuts for the wealthy that are a key element of their agenda.

With Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas announcing their opposition to the health bill on Monday night, and with only two weeks before the summer break, passage of a bill that some Republicans believe would cut coverage too deeply and others believe would not cut taxes or benefits enough seemed doomed.

But Republican infighting and, by extension, legislative disarray won’t stop there. When Congress returns in September, lawmakers will have less than a month to pass budget bills before the 2018 fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. If they miss that deadline, they risk a government shutdown.

To complicate matters, soon after the next fiscal year starts, the debt ceiling will need to be raised, which will be a difficult vote for Republicans who have threatened in the past to default rather than approve more borrowing. During most of the Obama years, Republicans used legislative tactics to delay or block Democratic bills, precipitate government shutdowns over Democratic budgets and risk default rather than raise the debt limit in a timely way. Now they are in charge, and yet legislation is stalled, a shutdown may be impending and a raise in the debt ceiling is again in doubt.

After years spent as obstructionists, obstruction seems to be all they know. Now they’re obstructing themselves, a good thing since it may limit their ability to do harm.

Too bad Leslie Nielsen died 7 years ago. He could have played Mitch McConnell in Congress! Maybe he still could with a prop or two.

Trump: What is it, Senator? What's going on?
McConnell: I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2017-July-21, 13:18, said:

From In Congress, Obstructionists Are Obstructing Themselves (July 18):


Too bad Leslie Nielsen died 7 years ago. He could have played Mitch McConnell in Congress! Maybe he still could with a prop or two.

Trump: What is it, Senator? What's going on?
McConnell: I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert.

McConnell: We'll have to get it through Congress first.
Trump: Congress! What is it?
McConnell: It's a big domed building with Senators and Congressman inside. But don't worry about that now. Did you have the fish or the steak?

[y66]

McConnell: Mr. President, have you ever been in a Russian prison?

[Winstonm]

McConnell: Donny, do you like movies about gladiators?

[y66]

Trump: Senator, how soon can you land this bill?
McConnell: I can't tell.
Trump: You can tell me. I'm the president.
McConnell: No. I mean I'm just not sure.
Trump: Well, can't you take a guess?
McConnell: When pigs fly Mr. President.
Trump: Do you know what an airplane is Senator?

[Winstonm]

McSpicer: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

[y66]

McConnell: Would you like something to read?
Trump: Do you have anything light?
McConnell: How about this leaflet, "Famous Jewish Black Female Republican Immigrant Sports Legends?"

[Winstonm]

Trump: I want Obamacare repealed today!
McConnell: Surely you can’t be serious.
Trump: I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.

Ted (Cruz): It was a rough place – the seediest dive on the wharf. Populated with every reject and cutthroat from Bombay to Calcutta. It’s worse than the White House!

[y66]

Tower: What’s the sitch Mitch?
McConnell: Coal is king. Congress is in free fall. The country is in pieces. Winter is coming. And the President is in Mar-A-Lago.
Tower: Where are the robots? Can they save us?
McConnell: The robots are playing bridge in the NABC Online Individual!
Tower: Mayday! Mayday!

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 10:06, said:

Yes, what is critically wrong is delegating so much power to government if the first place. And the world's history of leaders appears to be much the same, they all use their positions to gratify their personal desires. But are we even accusing Trump of such activity while he is President? Not to my knowledge. Do you have other information?

No. You were the one who made the ludicrous suggestion that we should provide him with pussies to grab if it would help him be a better President. Are you really willing to satisfy any of Trump's indulgences for this purpose?

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-July-23, 11:07, said:

No. You were the one who made the ludicrous suggestion that we should provide him with pussies to grab if it would help him be a better President. Are you really willing to satisfy any of Trump's indulgences for this purpose?

So you are taking the position that even if it made a difference in the number of lives saved/killed, that providing pussy is ludicrous/unacceptable?

[Winstonm]

And who told you that?

Quote

President Donald Trump still isn’t sure whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election,, despite determinations by the major U.S. intelligence agencies that it did so, new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Sunday.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Scaramucci initially cited an anonymous source who he said called on Saturday to tell him that if “the Russians actually hacked this situation and spilled out those emails, you would have never seen it.”

Scaramucci referred to Democratic National Committee emails whose release created controversy for the party during the late stages of last year’s campaign.

“You would have never had any evidence” of the Russian interference efforts, Scaramucci said his source told him. “Meaning they’re super confident in their deception skills and hacking. My point is, all of the information isn’t on the table yet.”

Pressed on who his source was, Scaramucci said it was the president himself.

It is understood that Trump is not an expert in cyber security. So where did he come up with the idea that Russia would be so good at hacking that no one would know it was them? Sounds to me like he is trying to sell boasts he heard from Putin, Kislyak, or Lavrov or he is repeating an idea he heard on a far-right website.

As usual, he is ignoring his own intelligence community.

[ggwhiz]

 ldrews, on 2017-July-23, 11:18, said:

So you are taking the position that even if it made a difference in the number of lives saved/killed, that providing pussy is ludicrous/unacceptable?

Count me in for that!

This may be the most ludicrous/repugnant statement of all time. Let's just give Kim Jung Un the golden key before he hurts somebody.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 08:08, said:

Our very survival depends on how effectively our President makes decisions, particularly concerning military/defense decisions. How balanced is he, how relaxed is he, how rational is he in the midst of conflict.

For example, the president is currently considering options on handling North Korea, including military options. Most military experts concur that initiating military action against North Korea could easily cost millions of lives. Do you want an emotionally off-balance person making that decision?

So, how many lives are you willing to gamble by putting the President in a personally frustrating condition? If providing pussy to the President will save lives, then I say provide pussy. How about you, are you willing to potentially sacrifice those lives to uphold your sense of morality?

How about a better idea? Instead of lowering ourselves to Trump's standards, why don't we get rid of him and install a new president who has the moral character to uphold our values without need of coddling?