[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2018-August-03, 17:21, said:

FWIW, one of the members of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity just published a report

http://paceidocs.sos...INAL.080318.pdf

It hard to imagine a darker use of power than to use the power of the federal government to establish an official-appearing panel whose true reason for existence is to create a camouflage of officiality to further legitimize Dennison's lies, thus reducing the resistance for further action to suppress voter turnout.

What is so troubling about this is that it is not being exposed as widely and loudly as is should be, which makes me concerned that the will of the 4th estate is bending under the constant assaults of this president.

[Winstonm]

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

The NYT reports: (emphasis added)

Quote

By Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan and Sharon LaFraniere
Aug. 3, 2018

WASHINGTON — Paul Manafort’s services did not come cheap. His consulting work helped prop up foreign strongmen, who in turn kept him in $12,000 bespoke suits from Beverly Hills.

But by 2016, Mr. Manafort was broke. His longtime cash cow, the Ukrainian president Viktor F. Yanukovych, was out of office, living in exile. Mr. Manafort had $1 million in clothing debt alone, his business was hemorrhaging money and he was angling for bank loans to stay afloat.

He was in such bad shape that one of his accountants, Cynthia Laporta, who testified on Friday at Mr. Manafort’s fraud trial, said she had agreed in 2015 to fraudulently lower his reported income on a tax return because she had been told he was unable to pay what he owed. She saved him about a half-million dollars in taxes.

The problems did not go away by 2016, so it was a peculiar time to volunteer his services to the Trump campaign. “I am not looking for a paid job,” Mr. Manafort wrote in a memo proposing he help Donald J. Trump secure the Republican nomination for president.

Why would Paul Manafort, deeply in debt to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska while his business hemorrhaged cash, offer his services to the Dennison campaign for free? Was it his idea or was it suggested to him? What cash benefits did Manafort think he would accrue from that association, and from whom would it come? What would he have to do to earn that pay?

[ggwhiz]

I have bought into the concept of the deep state. Confirmation of it will be in Muellers final report.

[Winstonm]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-August-04, 09:04, said:

I have bought into the concept of the deep state. Confirmation of it will be in Muellers final report.

Perhaps you have gone Q-razy?

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 07:43, said:

It hard to imagine a darker use of power than to use the power of the UN to establish an official-appearing panel whose true reason for existence is to create a camouflage of officiality to further legitimize Strong's lies, thus reducing the resistance for further action to suppress skeptical opinions and studies .

What is so troubling about this is that it is not being exposed as widely and loudly as is should be, which makes me concerned that the will of the 4th estate is bending under the constant assaults of this green machine .

AYP because it also applies elsewhere.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-04, 11:54, said:

AYP because it also applies elsewhere.

What "powers" equal to the US government's powers with respect to its own people do you fantasize that the UN possesses?

If you are going to play the "Whatabout" game, at least get somewhere near equivalency.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 14:35, said:

What "powers" equal to the US government's powers with respect to its own people do you fantasize that the UN possesses?

If you are going to play the "Whatabout" game, at least get somewhere near equivalency.

The US is the "giver" and the UN represents the "taker" so they are inextricably related. Both have global influence and both include bureaucracies that are institutions unto themselves. The UN has a presence that pervades the world in numerous arenas (WHO, WMO, UNESCO etc.) The US has the dollar. They are almost twins and that would be obvious to you if you weren't so preoccupied with DT as the vector for your anxiety.

[kenberg]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-04, 16:31, said:

The US is the "giver" and the UN represents the "taker" so they are inextricably related. Both have global influence and both include bureaucracies that are institutions unto themselves. The UN has a presence that pervades the world in numerous arenas (WHO, WMO, UNESCO etc.) The US has the dollar. They are almost twins and that would be obvious to you if you weren't so preoccupied with DT as the vector for your anxiety.

I can easily think of several ways the decisions by the US government affect me. As to what the UN does either to me or for me, I dunno..This is not really being preoccupied with Trump, it's more that I largely ignore the UN. I don't see them as twins all. all.

It's true that Trump gets more coverage (in the USA at least) than Guterres. I confess I had to look up who was currently Secretary General. So we maybe can agree on that. And I do get very tired of Trump. I made up my mind about him long ago. I have no strong viws, or weak views, about Guterres. Without doubt this is my failing but it's a fact.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-04, 16:31, said:

The US is the "giver" and the UN represents the "taker" so they are inextricably related. Both have global influence and both include bureaucracies that are institutions unto themselves. The UN has a presence that pervades the world in numerous arenas (WHO, WMO, UNESCO etc.) The US has the dollar. They are almost twins and that would be obvious to you if you weren't so preoccupied with DT as the vector for your anxiety.

Maybe you should look into Q-anon. I hear he has all the secrets.

[Al_U_Card]

 kenberg, on 2018-August-04, 17:33, said:

I can easily think of several ways the decisions by the US government affect me. As to what the UN does either to me or for me, I dunno..This is not really being preoccupied with Trump, it's more that I largely ignore the UN. I don't see them as twins all. all.

It's true that Trump gets more coverage (in the USA at least) than Guterres. I confess I had to look up who was currently Secretary General. So we maybe can agree on that. And I do get very tired of Trump. I made up my mind about him long ago. I have no strong viws, or weak views, about Guterres. Without doubt this is my failing but it's a fact.

Understandable. Since Dag H's "removal" the UN has ceased to be humanitarian and is mostly corrupt and in-bred. US news cycle is Trump all the time so a predisposition is hard to avoid. Will humanity survive them both? Likely but also likely to cause consternation.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 18:28, said:

Maybe you should look into Q-anon. I hear he has all the secrets.

You must be in the pay of deep-state operatives which would explain your constant harping. Being obsessed would also do it. Being right? Too far left, to be right ...

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-04, 19:04, said:

You must be in the pay of deep-state operatives which would explain your constant harping. Being obsessed would also do it. Being right? Too far left, to be right ...

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

[Cyberyeti]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

This kind of thing indicates the disconnect between the US and the rest of the world.

I would answer Y, Y, N but the targeting should be better (ie about the right amount of money but not necessarily to all the people it's going to atm), Y, and I'm considered a long way right of center here by many people. The US has a choice (unless Bernie Sanders happens) between far right and almost Nazi.

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-05, 03:51, said:

This kind of thing indicates the disconnect between the US and the rest of the world.

I would answer Y, Y, N but the targeting should be better (ie about the right amount of money but not necessarily to all the people it's going to atm), Y, and I'm considered a long way right of center here by many people. The US has a choice (unless Bernie Sanders happens) between far right and almost Nazi.

I meant to leave these questions quite general simply to point that for anyone with human empathy the differences between left and right are not nearly as great as imagined - it is not so much the goals but how to accomplish the goals that creates division, and that is fine and should produce a reasonable debate instead of constant discord and finger-pointing.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

No takers from Dennison supporters, so I'll take a whack for them.

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?

If they can afford private insurance, why not. The government shouldn't be spending money on people who can't afford private insurance. People who can't afford healthcare are takers.

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?

LOL, of course not. Only if you can afford tuition, and no affirmative action programs. If you can't afford to pay for your own education, you are a taker.

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?

Obviously more money should be spent. 2 reasons:

1. Dennison says we need to spend more
2. We're not the world's strongest military by a big enough margin.

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

Of course not. If you are having trouble economically, you should get a better, higher paying job. It's not the government's business to take care of takers.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

These are good starter questions, but the answers to good questions are rarely yes or no.

Health care for everyone: Do I believe that when someone is in the closing stages of life then we should spend a lot of money so that he dies in six months rather than in three months? No. I would not expect my family to do this, and if I don't expect my family to do this then why would I expect the government to do it? Now I do think the answer to how much should we be willing to put out varies some with whether the person is 19 or 79. I plan to live to be 100, or maybe forever, but if it doesn't turn out that way I feel I have no complaint. I had a mini-stroke about five years ago and I saw many doctors and had many tests, and I am glad of it. I still mow my own grass, shovel my own snow, lift weights and go for hikes. But I am not 40. So yes, healthcare for everyone at some level is a good idea.

Education: I favor it. That's different from favoring free college for everyone or even free college for everyone who wishes it. Young people, meaning 17 or even 13 or younger, should give some thought to how they wish their lives to go, including how they will become self-supporting. I favor helping the young become aware of both their options and their own responsibility to make something of themselves, and then I favor programs that help them achieve reasonable goals. Or even to try for unreasonable goals if they are up for the effort. I am not big on getting kids through college in a style that does not actually require them to learn anything.

Warfare: Well few people are going to advocate war but it's a tough world out there. Wisdom is needed. I expect part of this is having a well-prepared military.

Safety net: Yes and no. It does get abused. I have often summarized my view as "I favor helping people get to where they will need less help in the future". Of course I realize that for some people this is not possible, they will always be totally dependent. That happens. We all know tough cases. I was recently talking with a young man (in his 30s) who is partially supported by his parents, partly by social security disability. He used to take a lot of drugs but as near as I can tell he is not now physically or mentally unable to work, he just doesn't. Our conversation focused on a simpler matter. He was having trouble with his teeth, but he is afraid of going to a dentist. It is a great fear. I suggested various approaches, none of them acceptable to him. He needs dental work done, he is afraid of dentists, that's that, nothing can be done. This sort of frustration is hardly unique to his case. There is something to be said for eventually telling someone "We can only do so much, at some point you have to get off your butt". But as a general concept, sure I support a safety net.


I like the general idea of your questions and I agree that with a little open discussion people might find that the left/right divide is not as insurmountable as it is sometimes portrayed.

[hrothgar]

Quote

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

 kenberg, on 2018-August-05, 09:28, said:

These are good starter questions, but the answers to good questions are rarely yes or no.

Let me try answering this for the Trumpistas since they have gone quiet once again

1. MS13!
2. Benghazi!
3. Lock her up!
4. Donald Jr didn't know it was collusion

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-August-05, 09:28, said:

These are good starter questions, but the answers to good questions are rarely yes or no.

Health care for everyone: Do I believe that when someone is in the closing stages of life then we should spend a lot of money so that he dies in six months rather than in three months? No. I would not expect my family to do this, and if I don't expect my family to do this then why would I expect the government to do it? Now I do think the answer to how much should we be willing to put out varies some with whether the person is 19 or 79. I plan to live to be 100, or maybe forever, but if it doesn't turn out that way I feel I have no complaint. I had a mini-stroke about five years ago and I saw many doctors and had many tests, and I am glad of it. I still mow my own grass, shovel my own snow, lift weights and go for hikes. But I am not 40. So yes, healthcare for everyone at some level is a good idea.

Education: I favor it. That's different from favoring free college for everyone or even free college for everyone who wishes it. Young people, meaning 17 or even 13 or younger, should give some thought to how they wish their lives to go, including how they will become self-supporting. I favor helping the young become aware of both their options and their own responsibility to make something of themselves, and then I favor programs that help them achieve reasonable goals. Or even to try for unreasonable goals if they are up for the effort. I am not big on getting kids through college in a style that does not actually require them to learn anything.

Warfare: Well few people are going to advocate war but it's a tough world out there. Wisdom is needed. I expect part of this is having a well-prepared military.

Safety net: Yes and no. It does get abused. I have often summarized my view as "I favor helping people get to where they will need less help in the future". Of course I realize that for some people this is not possible, they will always be totally dependent. That happens. We all know tough cases. I was recently talking with a young man (in his 30s) who is partially supported by his parents, partly by social security disability. He used to take a lot of drugs but as near as I can tell he is not now physically or mentally unable to work, he just doesn't. Our conversation focused on a simpler matter. He was having trouble with his teeth, but he is afraid of going to a dentist. It is a great fear. I suggested various approaches, none of them acceptable to him. He needs dental work done, he is afraid of dentists, that's that, nothing can be done. This sort of frustration is hardly unique to his case. There is something to be said for eventually telling someone "We can only do so much, at some point you have to get off your butt". But as a general concept, sure I support a safety net.


I like the general idea of your questions and I agree that with a little open discussion people might find that the left/right divide is not as insurmountable as it is sometimes portrayed.

I appreciate your comments but at the same time feel you fell a bit into the trap of confusing implementation with goals, and when the dialogue is confused in that manner the setting is ripe for whataboutisms instead of genuine movement toward to goals.

I'll answer my own questions - seems the fair thing to do.

1) Yes, healthcare for all is a good idea. To think otherwise is a form of arrogance, a matter of thinking oneself in some way superior to those whose lives are different.
2). We should educate everyone up through whatever level is needed for that person to accomplish goals - that is not the same as free education all the way through but a better way to say it might be affordable education for all.
3) We need a military. Wars like Iraq need to be avoided - but that is not always possible.
4).Social benefits are one of the great reasons to form a society - we should take care of our own.

A final thought. The difference between me and a street person or drug addict is the difference between a close shave and 5 o'clock shadow, more a matter of opportunity and luck than genetics or fortitude. We are not at odds with one another so much as with our beliefs.

[Winstonm]

FWIW, I am pretty certain that Dennison, in his tweet this morning, gave away that Junior is guilty of a felony, to wit, conspiracy to violate campaign law regarding acceptance of foreign aid.

The essence of conspiracy is two or more people who agree to commit a crime (offer of dirt from Russia/"I love it" accceptance) and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement (traveling to NYC for a meeting concerning those same aims).

Canpaign finance law prohibits soliciting or acceptance of foreign help in the way of "anything of value".

NOTE: A conspiracy does not have to complete to be a crime - simply agreeing to it and one step in its furtherance is all it takes.

[Al_U_Card]

Kind of like being allowed a pet, but it has to be a dog,(they are readily available and believed to be the best kind of pet) and a rabid one at that (we have to be fair in our treatment).

The right left joke was a jibe at the polarized nature of conflictual argumentation in general, as you seem to be fairly liberal in your statements but rather fascist in your approach (fascist in the pure, state knows best kind of way).
Having seen several types of social engineering, it might be best to ensure opportunity but not enforce compliance. Allowing people to take advantage of situations as best suits them (You don't want to pay taxes? Then you must pay full price for any "service" received.) Another job boom for bureaucrats and accountants, no doubt...lol