[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-11, 14:15, said:

The point is an acknowledgement that unless criminality can be proven, there is no way to impeach and convict in the Senate by politics alone; however, what you seemed to have missed is that the Russia part of the criminality investigation is about conspiracy with crimes that have already been proven to have been committed.

First, here are the crimes:


And here is an explanation of criminal conspiracy for juries:


Although I agree that until the investigation is over we will not get the big picture, I also think it ludicrous to ignore the administration's attempts to sidetrack or kill the investigation or to ignore the public domain facts that demonstrate attempts to hide contacts or otherwise mislead the public.

When you understand that there already have been crimes committed by Russian hackers, and you see and understand the criminal conspiracy jury instructions, it gives a better understanding of why the president and this White House are so adamant about stopping the investigation into its behavior concerning Russia and Russians.

Only presidential parrots still chirp about campaign collusion with the Russians; no one else cares.
The genuine question is whether or not there was a conspiracy by the president or his advisers with a known crime or crimes, either before or after that crime or those crimes were committed.

Once you have that understanding, the meeting by McFredo Jr., Manafort, and Kushner with Russians to discuss "dirt" collected by the Russians whose government supported McFredo looks much more ominous.

The last I heard that "ominous" meeting didn't result in any dirt being offered or in any agreement tacit or otherwise about dirt on Hillary or the Dems. Likewise, Pappadoupilous' offer to set up meeting with the Russkis was turned down. So where's the conspiracy? If Mueller turns up something that reasonably contradicts what we've heard so far, that would be another story.

Did the Russians commit a crime by hacking the DNC? Yes, if we could lay our hands on the individuals that did it -- try them, send them to jail and throw away the key. But Putin has enough animus toward Clinton that it is certainly assured the leaks of e-mails would have occurred in any case and in such manner to provide maximum damage to Clinton. There's no doubt that the leaks helped Trump because they revealed the Dems to be considerably less than as pure and wonderful and morally superior as they claimed to be. They also revealed a preoccupation with special interests and a fatal disdain for everyday people. So, I'll agree that the Russians interfered in the election to the extent that they revealed information that would have been otherwise unavailable. But I don't see any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin acted as he did only because of any understanding unstated, tacit, or otherwise with the Trump campaign. Indeed, I think it's entirely reasonable to think he'd have acted as he did in any case.

So the American electorate had to deal with an imperfect election where "unauthorized information" was provided. They had to decide how to take it. Unlike Bridge, it was up to each voter to decide how they processed that information or not in deciding how to vote. They may not be fair in your eyes, but it's just a fact we have to accept. Had Hillary won, this all would be gone now. But she didn't win, so we've been going through a long kabuki theater about "collusion" to undermine the result of the election.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-13, 22:23, said:

The last I heard that "ominous" meeting didn't result in any dirt being offered or in any agreement tacit or otherwise about dirt on Hillary or the Dems. Likewise, Pappadoupilous' offer to set up meeting with the Russkis was turned down. So where's the conspiracy? If Mueller turns up something that reasonably contradicts what we've heard so far, that would be another story.

Did the Russians commit a crime by hacking the DNC? Yes, if we could lay our hands on the individuals that did it -- try them, send them to jail and throw away the key. But Putin has enough animus toward Clinton that it is certainly assured the leaks of e-mails would have occurred in any case and in such manner to provide maximum damage to Clinton. There's no doubt that the leaks helped Trump because they revealed the Dems to be considerably less than as pure and wonderful and morally superior as they claimed to be. They also revealed a preoccupation with special interests and a fatal disdain for everyday people. So, I'll agree that the Russians interfered in the election to the extent that they revealed information that would have been otherwise unavailable. But I don't see any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin acted as he did only because of any understanding unstated, tacit, or otherwise with the Trump campaign. Indeed, I think it's entirely reasonable to think he'd have acted as he did in any case.

So the American electorate had to deal with an imperfect election where "unauthorized information" was provided. They had to decide how to take it. Unlike Bridge, it was up to each voter to decide how they processed that information or not in deciding how to vote. They may not be fair in your eyes, but it's just a fact we have to accept. Had Hillary won, this all would be gone now. But she didn't win, so we've been going through a long kabuki theater about "collusion" to undermine the result of the election.

You are wrong. What this president wants you to think is that it is kabuki theater - and maybe it will turn out that way. Right now, though, it is a serious criminal investigation coupled with a counter-intelligence investigation, and the criminal investigation has already had two convictions and two other arrests made.

Maybe you are right. Maybe there was no criminal conspiracy. Still, what was the cause of all the secrecy, then, about contacts with Russians? Why all the denials and lies? Why did this administration immediately start working on overturning the Russia sanctions? Why won't they even now impose new sanctions on Russia that was mandated by Congress? Why don't they produce the list of oligarchs they were supposed to provide? Why does the American public hear about calls from the president to Putin only when Russia releases their information?

And on and on...

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-12, 10:57, said:

Let me chime in on this troll discussion.

It seems to me that hard-core Trump supporters have an inability to discuss. Instead, they rely on regurgitation of talking points relayed by right-wing media. I have no problems with people holding a conservative viewpoint who use reason and legitimate data to support their positions. I do have problems with professional wrestling fans who crow wildly about their "victories" over arch rivals.

Ridiculous when the bulk of the reporting on collusion uses unattributed stories to fan the collusionist fury on a continuing basis.

Quote

To think or even suggest that it was not McFredo but the Clinton campaign that colluded with the Russians and the FBI is so unrelated to reality as to be viewed as the processes of a diseased or totally biased and evil mind. All one need do is the tiniest bit of research to know that turning the accusation back against the accuser is a classic Roy Cohn/McFredo tactic.

Or it is a complete blindness on your part that the Russians aren't just for one side or the other, but will use both sides of the body politic here to spread chaos in order to undermine our democracy. So far, Putin has to be pleased with what's happening.

Russia will use any means or anyone available to try to achieve its aims. So going to the Russians to obtain dirt on Donald Trump is ludicrous. There is a logical purpose for the Russians to spread disinformation about Trump in order to further weaken faith in our democracy. And as much as you'd like to paint it as opposition research, it's essentially doing the same thing as you claim of the Trump campaign -- a political campaign going to a foreign government for dirt about another candidate.

BTW, something that really disturbs me is Fusion GPS's role in the Trump dossier. It's probably not in a manner you'd suspect. Fusion GPS was doing business with the Russians in creating a disinformation campaign to overturn the Magnitzky Act. This relates to the testimony by British Financial Analyst William Browder before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Browder claimed that Glenn Simpson had pitched a false story about him and his Russian associate Magnitzky to discredit them as part of that campaign. Browder also asserted that he was aware that as late as Spring 2016 Fusion was still getting money indirectly from the Russian government. What's troubling is that this coincides with the time that Fusion was working on opposition research against Trump. Now, Fusion GPS claims that they can keep clients information strictly confidential. But if the Russians got any whiff of what Fusion GPS was working on, they'd be sophisticated enough to plan a devious seemingly credible disinformation campaign about Trump.

As for the Cohn reference, interesting. I recall back in the McCarthy days that at one point, the HUAC discussed whether preferring Strawberry Ice Cream made you a Communist sympathizer. Yet, the current predilection of the Russian collusionist cult with the fact that anyone meeting with a Russian was proof of collusion seemed to be of the same ilk.

Quote

Had I found out that Obama used those tactics to deflect outrageous behavior I would have voted against him and his ilk. That the McFredo supporters cannot bring themselves to even criticize his repeated attacks on the democratic norms of free speech and the rule of law is enough to make anything they say unworthy of legitimate consideration.

But then again, it seems strangely beyond coincidental that during "scandals" that came up, the government kept denying the existence of information that might shed light on what was being investigated. Then when it was found to exist very visibly slow-walked any potential release of it. Even worse key technology components with potential evidence were destroyed. Eventually, through litigation in the federal courts and judicial threats of contempt of court if it was not provided, some of the information has become available.

How did the Obama administration try to portray these investigations? -- "phony scandals".

Well, the information about the "phony" IRS scandal did eventually reveal that the IRS had acted for political purposes towards conservative organizations. In fall 2016, they settled a suit with those affected and admitted guilt. What disturbed me most during that investigation was that at one point some potential evidence of the political connections of the IRS' actions that seemed to have disappeared was traced to 6 PCs. It was reported back that the computer disk drives that potentially had that information had all failed and were destroyed. Having spent 25+ years in computer infrastructure support, I knew such an occurrence was virtually impossible for that many computers. So, I'm of the opinion that someone was getting away with obstruction of justice by destroying potential evidence of political wrongdoing.

Then there was --

Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Clinton e-mail investigation

Throughout the Administration used the same MO, stonewalling any investigation -- the information wasn't available, then if found to exist release was delayed, backups destroyed, etc.

Heck, if Trump did such a thing you'd be screaming for impeachment. I can abide Trump's diatribes about the press and whatever as his BS. Everyone recognizes it as such and that makes it less of a threat to democracy than you see. But I really believe that the Obama administration got away with a more pernicious threat to our democracy by politicizing the government. I'm firmly against anything like that by Presidents of either party. Fortunately, some evidence of potential government wrongdoing has surfaced and appears like it may lead to a lot more revelations coming out. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Stay tuned.

BTW, the Trump administration has pretty forthcoming in supplying any information or witnesses requested by the Special Counsel which is in stark contrast to the Obama administration in similar matters.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-14, 00:16, said:

Ridiculous when the bulk of the reporting on collusion uses unattributed stories to fan the collusionist fury on a continuing basis.



Or it is a complete blindness on your part that the Russians aren't just for one side or the other, but will use both sides of the body politic here to spread chaos in order to undermine our democracy. So far, Putin has to be pleased with what's happening.

Russia will use any means or anyone available to try to achieve its aims. So going to the Russians to obtain dirt on Donald Trump is ludicrous. There is a logical purpose for the Russians to spread disinformation about Trump in order to further weaken faith in our democracy. And as much as you'd like to paint it as opposition research, it's essentially doing the same thing as you claim of the Trump campaign -- a political campaign going to a foreign government for dirt about another candidate.

BTW, something that really disturbs me is Fusion GPS's role in the Trump dossier. It's probably not in a manner you'd suspect. Fusion GPS was doing business with the Russians in creating a disinformation campaign to overturn the Magnitzky Act. This relates to the testimony by British Financial Analyst William Browder before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Browder claimed that Glenn Simpson had pitched a false story about him and his Russian associate Magnitzky to discredit them as part of that campaign. Browder also asserted that he was aware that as late as Spring 2016 Fusion was still getting money indirectly from the Russian government. What's troubling is that this coincides with the time that Fusion was working on opposition research against Trump. Now, Fusion GPS claims that they can keep clients information strictly confidential. But if the Russians got any whiff of what Fusion GPS was working on, they'd be sophisticated enough to plan a devious seemingly credible disinformation campaign about Trump.

As for the Cohn reference, interesting. I recall back in the McCarthy days that at one point, the HUAC discussed whether preferring Strawberry Ice Cream made you a Communist sympathizer. Yet, the current predilection of the Russian collusionist cult with the fact that anyone meeting with a Russian was proof of collusion seemed to be of the same ilk.



But then again, it seems strangely beyond coincidental that during "scandals" that came up, the government kept denying the existence of information that might shed light on what was being investigated. Then when it was found to exist very visibly slow-walked any potential release of it. Even worse key technology components with potential evidence were destroyed. Eventually, through litigation in the federal courts and judicial threats of contempt of court if it was not provided, some of the information has become available.

How did the Obama administration try to portray these investigations? -- "phony scandals".

Well, the information about the "phony" IRS scandal did eventually reveal that the IRS had acted for political purposes towards conservative organizations. In fall 2016, they settled a suit with those affected and admitted guilt. What disturbed me most during that investigation was that at one point some potential evidence of the political connections of the IRS' actions that seemed to have disappeared was traced to 6 PCs. It was reported back that the computer disk drives that potentially had that information had all failed and were destroyed. Having spent 25+ years in computer infrastructure support, I knew such an occurrence was virtually impossible for that many computers. So, I'm of the opinion that someone was getting away with obstruction of justice by destroying potential evidence of political wrongdoing.

Then there was --

Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Clinton e-mail investigation

Throughout the Administration used the same MO, stonewalling any investigation -- the information wasn't available, then if found to exist release was delayed, backups destroyed, etc.

Heck, if Trump did such a thing you'd be screaming for impeachment. I can abide Trump's diatribes about the press and whatever as his BS. Everyone recognizes it as such and that makes it less of a threat to democracy than you see. But I really believe that the Obama administration got away with a more pernicious threat to our democracy by politicizing the government. I'm firmly against anything like that by Presidents of either party. Fortunately, some evidence of potential government wrongdoing has surfaced and appears like it may lead to a lot more revelations coming out. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Stay tuned.

BTW, the Trump administration has pretty forthcoming in supplying any information or witnesses requested by the Special Counsel which is in stark contrast to the Obama administration in similar matters.

You obviously get your information from Hannity or Breitbart and thus are so far into denial as to be unwilling to see what is in front of you. Sad! For your conspiracy theories to be valid, "the government" would have to be a single gigantic entity that acted in concert - but all you have to do is look at Congress's actions and you would know that is a ridiculous assumption.

It's O.K. to favor one side over another; it is not O.K. to buy in to a single side to the exclusion of the other. At some point you have to use your own intelligence to determine if what you are reading or being told sounds possible or likely.

If you are still buying into the Clinton's conspiracy theories keep in mind they have been around since the 1990s and have changed from Whitewater to Vince Foster murder to Benghazi to Foundation and more - do you really think all of those can be true? The one thread of truth that runs through Clinton is Bill's propensity to look for sex outside his marriage - and, if you care to notice, the mainstream media reported on those scandals.

Anyone who claims information false because a newspaper cannot reveal a source is a human who has allowed himself to be deceived - or conned. Instead of regurgitating right-wing spin why don't you stand on your own two feet and think for yourself? Woodward and Bernstein did the same thing - used unnamed sources - and their information was so accurate it caused a president to resign. Yet, you believe Hannity or the Washington Post?

It just occurred to me that the only people who can still support this president ARE the people who live in a non-reality bubble and are thus incapable of seeing the world in any but a skewed and artificial manner. It is like trying to convince a schizophrenic that what he sees isn't real.

I will leave you to your fantasies about the evil left and the superheros on the right. Only the one being duped can decide when he can no longer believe the con.

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-13, 22:23, said:

But I don't see any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin acted as he did only because of any understanding unstated, tacit, or otherwise with the Trump campaign. Indeed, I think it's entirely reasonable to think he'd have acted as he did in any case.

Just because he would have done the same thing without colluding doesn't mean they didn't collude, nor does it lessen the criminality of such collusion if it occurred. You don't get a pass on driving the getaway car because the bank robbers would have found someone else to drive if you refused. People are responsible for the results of their actions, even if the same results would have occurred without their actions.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-13, 11:52, said:

I'm sorry, but after the way Obama was attacked (You lie! screamed out during his SOTU address, accused of not being legitimately American), it seems disingenuous to complain about calling this president by names he has surely earned: Fredo Corleone: "I'm really smart." Donald Trump: "I'm a smart person."
When one side supports personality instead of the rule of law and democracy there can be do legitimate debate.

Sorry, but it's hard to claim the moral high ground when you stoop to the opponent's level.

Trump did attack Obama quite a bit during his presidency, but "You lie!" wasn't him. The entire GOP side of Congress was against him.

[PassedOut]

As Ken has pointed out on occasion, many folks have neither the time nor inclination to follow politics with the intensity of posters here. So what can be obvious to those of us following the misadventures of the current US administration won't be obvious to everyone.

Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has this advice: Democrats, here’s how to win over the newly independent, ex-Republicans

Quote

So what’s a Democrat to do? Don’t scare them off for one thing. Sound like sober grown-ups. Reject anti-immigrant hysteria on moral grounds as well as economic (we need trade and need immigrants). Remind voters that what makes us American is not race or ethnicity but values and a shared democratic creed. Be tough but sane on foreign policy. Trump has left us with our guard down and saber rattled with no real game-plan for defusing the North Korea crisis. Being clear that Russia poses a threat, our intelligence community is valued and we face a dangerous world where allies are needed will sound reassuring to these ex-GOP voters. And as for women, Democrats should be determined to expose and end abuse (in the executive or legislative branch, in the military, in business). That means candor, transparency (e.g., hearings) and a clear moral voice.

If Democrats can do these things — promising to end Trump’s abuse of power and the presidency (e.g., conflicts of interest, corruption) with hearings, transparency and accountability — they’ll win over a whole lot of “Republican-leaning independents.” What’s more, they’d lay the groundwork for 2020 when, Democrats better hope, a presidential nominee without Hillary Clinton’s baggage will provide the alternative to the unhinged party of Trump.

For my part, I hope that Trump (for whatever reason) does not appear on the presidential ballot in 2020. It's better for the country to have a legitimate choice of competent candidates who won't be a complete embarrassment if elected.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-February-14, 10:25, said:

Sorry, but it's hard to claim the moral high ground when you stoop to the opponent's level.

Trump did attack Obama quite a bit during his presidency, but "You lie!" wasn't him. The entire GOP side of Congress was against him.

That's my point. It is not just this president but the entirety of the far-right wing of the Republican party and its propaganda machine that cannot be taken seriously by serious-minded people. The notion is that it is O.K. to be a fan of pro wrestling if you like mindless, crass entertainment as a temporary escape from reality; however, it is not O.K. when you begin to believe that pro wrestling represents reality.

I mean, how mind-numbingly biased do you have to be to pretend that this administration is not one of the most corrupt and dishonest in US history, regardless of party affiliation, and if this president could turn the U.S. into a Russian-style oligarchy he would? https://www.washingt...m=.dc4d317ca5f3

Quote

Veterans Affairs Secretary David J. Shulkin’s chief of staff doctored an email and made false statements to create a pretext for taxpayers to cover expenses for the secretary’s wife on a 10-day trip to Europe last summer, the agency’s inspector general has found.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-February-13, 11:23, said:

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just trying to rationalize our minimalist approach to moderation.

You're not wrong. Not about the best approach to moderation, anyway.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-14, 13:14, said:

I mean, how mind-numbingly biased do you have to be to pretend that this administration is not one of the most corrupt and dishonest in US history, regardless of party affiliation,

Many on the other side still believe the claims that "Crooked Hillary" was behind Benghazi. If that were actually true, it would totally dwarf use of government funds for personal gain.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-February-15, 09:51, said:

Many on the other side still believe the claims that "Crooked Hillary" was behind Benghazi. If that were actually true, it would totally dwarf use of government funds for personal gain.

And in all the investigations about Benghazi, what was found? Nothing. Nada.

It's one thing to talk the reality of actions that occurred - the Lewinsky affair and Bill Clinton's attempts to hide it - but to keep alive rumor, innuendo, lies, and balderdash is wrongheaded, and to purposefully create and orchestrate the perpetuation of a gross lie (such as Fox News did with the Seth Rich murder) in order to try to influence a potential future pool of political jurors is borderline obstruction of justice and should cause any person of personal integrity to abandon those broadcasts as a viable source of information.

"There is no difference between the Russia investigation and the Clinton Foundation scandal or Benghazi tragedy because none of them has been proven yet", I can hear the right-winger claim. This falls back on the same false equivalence that many religious use to equate belief with non-belief because both are based on faith, or that evolution and directed creationism are equal because both are "theories" only.

Well, the difference is that Russia has been shown to have committed crimes against the U.S., and the investigation into those crimes and who may have participated is ongoing. That other crimes may be uncovered during this investigation is a legitimate and stated part of the investigation process.

Benghazi is a closed investigation that found no wrongdoing.

[nige1]

MrAce, on 2018-February-12, 19:35, said:

.As you all know I do not write in this topic a lot but I follow it. And I find some really helpful/smart arguments which helps me to look at things from the shoe of others, or replies which I think is expressed the way i feel, with better words than I would and you can see this from my +1 likes now and then. But it is really frustrating to see the trolls and those who pretend like they complain about trolls when they actually love it!

A troll is somebody whose views are so much at variance with our own that we feel they must be suppressed. For example: "racist" arguments -- unless directed against Russians

IMO, we should not wantonly impede freedom of speech, for which our forebears sacrificed so much.

This thread is rife with hypocrisy. On disputed evidence, the Russians are accused of hacking into Hilary's emails. This just resulted in the exposure of a conspiracy against democracy. In the unlikely event that Putin was responsible, he should be eligible for honorary US citizenship

Countries routinely interfere in each other's politics. Propaganda and Espionage are deplorable facts of life. In the past, the US perpetrated awful political crimes (e.g. in South America). Recently, we supported Pol Pot and Al Qaeda, funded the ousting of the Ukraine president, killed the presidents of Libya and Iraq, and are currently fighting with Isis against Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Increase in military expenditure seems to be the main justification for proxy wars.

[Winstonm]

Didn't I read someone on these forums writing that this president's words were unimportant, that what was important was only what he does?

(emphasis added)

Quote

TERRORIST?
Nikolas Cruz Trained With White Supremacists, Group Claims
Hate group says the accused Florida school shooter did paramilitary exercises and got a rifle from members. Ex-students say he wore a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat in school.

I am going to have to not-so-respectfully disagree with that poster.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2018-February-15, 12:33, said:

A troll is somebody whose views are so much at variance with your own that you feel they must the suppressed. IMO, we should not wantonly impede freedom of speech, for which our forebears fought so hard.

This thread is rife with hypocrisy. On disputed evidence, the Russians are accused of hacking into Hilary's emails. This just resulted in the exposure of a conspiracy against democracy. In the unlikely event that Putin was responsible, he should be eligible for honorary citizenship

Countries routinely interfere in each other's politics. Propaganda and Espionage are deplorable facts of life. In the past, the US perpetrated awful political crimes (e.g. in South America). Recently, we supported Pol Pot and Al Qaeda, funded the ousting of the Ukraine president, killed the presidents of Libya and Iraq, and are currently fighting with Isis against Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Increase in military expenditure seems to be the main justification for proxy wars.

Bull! An internet troll is someone who sows discord for the sole reason of enjoying the fleeting satisfaction and sense of power he feels at creating disharmony. It would be someone who made a post like you made who didn't truly believe what he wrote but simply did it to cause an uproar.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-15, 12:57, said:

Bull! An internet troll is someone who sows discord for the sole reason of enjoying the fleeting satisfaction and sense of power he feels at creating disharmony.

I'm not a mind-reader but I feel Winston's definition might apply to many of the contributors to this thread.

Winstonm, on 2018-February-15, 12:57, said:

It would be someone who made a post like you made who didn't truly believe what he wrote but simply did it to cause an uproar.

But Winston's definition doesn't apply to me. I post to persuade and to to learn from replies. I apologise when I make a mistake. Unfortunately, truth sometimes does annoy.. Nevertheless, I stand up for Truth.

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2018-February-15, 13:44, said:

Nevertheless, I stand up for Truth.

No you don't. You always inject an "allegedly" somewhere even when the facts are staring you in the face or sitting three posts above you.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2018-February-15, 13:44, said:

I'm not a mind-reader but I feel Winston's definition might apply to many of the contributors to this thread.

But Winston's definition doesn't apply to me. I post to persuade and to to learn from replies. I apologise when I make a mistake. Unfortunately, truth sometimes does annoy.. Nevertheless, I stand up for Truth.

And I appreciate that you noticed I did not accuse you of being a troll - only of being misguided in your beliefs. A genuine troll would continue to respeat the same nonsense in the face of repeated contradictory facts.

[weejonnie]

cherdano, on 2017-July-21, 07:29, said:

Why do people insist on sharing their views on topics where they don't know the facts?

Obamacare includes tax increases that essentially pay for the entire cost.
In 2015, CBO analyzed the net effect of repealing Obamacare on the deficit:

https://www.cbo.gov/...resentation.pdf

In other words, while the overall effect is uncertain, most likely Obamacare's tax increase are more than sufficient to pay for the cost, just as anticipated.

Basically, most of your post can be summed up by the following two sentences. "I am a conservative in the UK. Hence I believe that Obamacare is a bad thing."

I could add a lot more - but this site is generally about Bridge. I do not know enough to know whether Obamacare is/ was a bad thing. I DO know that the State does have responsibilities to those that through no fault of their own need medical treatment. Equally it has no responsibility to help those that refuse to accept the rules of the State - one of which I believe is that you must not try and overthrow the Government - including POTUS,. (At least that is what is on my Visa application when I travel over there). Another is : people entering the USA illegally have no right to remain there. However: what is The State? The quote Margaret Thatcher's statement "There is no such thing as society" has to be taken in context. The State is the embodiment of the wishes of the people that comprise society. You need a society where people care and, to be honest, as people earn more money they become less caring.

A 'conservative' in the UK is probably more centrist than a Republican in the USA. I know Americans put great store on self-reliance, however such striving for betterment must not mean that those who need help can be wilfully disregarded. The USA really does have to review it's healthcare systems and decide how to make them affordable. Throwing extra money per se does not work. If organisations know extra money is available they will try and get it - the easiest way is to increase fees for the supply of drugs and medical care, rather than providing better and more cost-effective treatments. You have to run healthcare as a business. By which I mean that you look for value for money in your expenses and aim to provide your customer with great service. When I am over in the USA, I am always struck by how polite and cherful everyone is who serves me. Yes it may be a facade or the result of training - but it improves my day.

Most countries have healthcare systems that are both public and private. I pay a monthly 'tax' on my earnings to help pay for services provided by the state - usually those that are too large to be planned, developed and administered by smaller organisations. No doubt you, too,know your tax dollars are at work, hopefully for the benefit of all Americans, however in the USA (as well in the UK) there are pressure groups and lobbyists demanding 'special treatment'. The trouble is: very few people want their money to be taken away from them in increasing amounts for the benefit of others. In the UK the Government borrows ££billions keeping the UK population in a standard of living which, to be frank, they do not deserve. In America, I believe the amount is $$trillions. Whilst Mr Trump may be managing to get companies to bring money back to the USA and also increasing pressure to increase wages for Americans - and thereby stimulating the economy, he must surely know that reducing the tax take is basically just for keeping his supporters happy - which bring me back to the phrase 'bread and circuses'.

[Winstonm]

This sums up the principle reason to resist to this particular president:

From WaPo:

Quote

Winston Churchill is supposed to have said: “With integrity, nothing else counts. Without integrity, nothing else counts.”

In fact, that seems to be one of those Churchillian epigrams that Churchill never actually got around to saying. But it captures an important truth about politics, that dishonor is like a cancer that spreads inexorably as it feeds upon ambition, protects itself with lies and doubles down with cover-ups.

Looking at the chaos in the White House these days, I worry about inexperience, incompetence and lack of judgment. But maybe I worry most about an utter lack of integrity — and the way it is proving infectious.

The contagion of dishonor has spread irresistibly through the White House staff, turning aides into con artists. Indifference to ethics has spread through the cabinet and agencies, resulting in endless scandals. And the epidemic has rippled through much of the G.O.P. (with some heroic exceptions), turning lawmakers into enablers and hypocrites

The head of a snake leads - the body follows.

[ggwhiz]

I apologize in advance for trying to hijack this thread off topic but what about policy?

The infrastructure proposal makes it clear that the cupboard is bare after the tax reform went through.

Canada did something similar and about 1/2 of the money didn't go out the door. Granted, Trump proposes a streamlined application/approval process that was problematic for us but ours was for 50% fed money and even that was a problem too, despite our local and Provincial governments whipping out the ole credit card at the drop of a hat.

A 20% fed buy in and touting it as a $1.5 trillion plan is a sad joke, akin to you buy the meal, I'll give the tip. I predict the buy in from States etc. will make our plan look like a success.

More policy, any news on actual oversight of the "broken" security clearance situation? 30-40 staffers in the WH without one and if the guy ultimately in charge of who gets one had to apply he would be rejected at the speed of light. Co-operation with allied intelligence agencies may become a relic.