Skip to main content

arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

g-man posted:
flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

bman posted:
g-man posted:
flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

Does that question really warrant a reply?  I'll just start with automatic pay for people who are "unwilling" to work.    

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

Does that question really warrant a reply?  I'll just start with automatic pay for people who are "unwilling" to work.    

You mean welfare and unemployment insurance, which exist throughout the US and according to Republicans, includes millions who are unwilling to work?  Or her Green New Deal, which I agree is a stretch beyond that and pretty out there but doesn't really seem all that different from other social programs. 

Whatever your reply, I for one am happy to see some new ideas for addressing the social inequality in the US, unrealistic as some may be. The Gini coefficient places the US in 33rd place of 38 OECD countries, which is shameful, and of course Trump's tax cuts will make inequality worse.

As for "spewing crap", are you sure you want to go there, being such a loyal and fervent supporter of the Spewer-of-Crap-in-Chief, the person who spews an average of over 10 lies a day over his two years in office?

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

Last edited by winetarelli
winetarelli posted:

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

What I've found though, is that "Trump supporter" and "dumb" are quite succinct in their descriptions of each other.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

What I've found though, is that "Trump supporter" and "dumb" are quite succinct in their descriptions of each other.

While Trump supporters do not seem to hold a monopoly on “dumb”, “dumb” does seem to hold a monopoly on Trump supporters. 

arsenal4ever posted:

Again, 63 million voted for him in 2016. That's a lot of people to castigate. Doubt if that many would do it again, but still, except for both Coasts, he has a lot of supporters.

When there are two horrendously shitty candidates running against each other, the votes are going somewhere. I was hoping he would be less of a petulant jerkoff once in office, but it wasn’t meant to be.

arsenal4ever posted:

Again, 63 million voted for him in 2016. That's a lot of people to castigate. Doubt if that many would do it again, but still, except for both Coasts, he has a lot of supporters.

25% of the total electorate, 17.5% of the total population.

using a measure of IQ going by the average of 100 as the baseline and going +/- 10 pts on either side, gives you 50% of the population sitting around average.  Using the standard bell curve, means 25% are below.

i certainly wouldn't castigate anybody, but i will say that the  us electorate is rather uninformed about policies a nd instead treating the vote more like a sporting event.

arsenal4ever posted:

Agreed

We deserve better from both parties

Understatement! 🙃

An interesting election for sure. Clinton had the most votes ever for her in American history not named Obama. Trump had nearly 63M votes yet had nearly 73M votes against him. 

While Trump still has his cult, he clearly is losing many republican that voted for him only because he was the republican nominee. White college educated women are moving against Trump and we saw that in the midterms. Democrats received over 9M more votes in the 2018 midterms. That margin has never happened before.

All this said, if the Dems are taking the WH back, they must beat Trump in key states that will not support the far left, period. I look at every dem candidate and think how will their message play in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida? 

Not so sure Wineart2, recent Rasmussen poll has Trump at a 52% approval rating. It seemed to jump after the State of the Union address.  The Democrats are looking like they are going to implode with many Prez hopefuls endorsing the Green New Deal and each candidate seeming to push the others further left.   Identity politics seems to be turning on the Dems with the problems in Virginia.  If the Dem party went more centrist, then they would likely be able to take over the White House in 2020, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think we are looking at another crazy election year, with all bets off

The level of identity-grievance politics on the left is, indeed, troubling. (So is the White Christian identity-grievance politics of the right / Fox News.)  Illiberalism from the most vocal Left Twitter scribes has made some inroads into more mainstream left discussions; and public Librals, as a whole, need to do a much better job of defending liberal ideals when attacked by anyone, irrespective of “side”.  (Meanwhile, the right has fully embraced voter purges, conspiracy theories, subservience to Russia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, “alternative facts” and authoritarianism.)  The most vocal people on the left are suggesting giving a middle finger to Obama/Trump voters as well as #NeverTrump Republicans. Which is stooopid for a litany of reasons; one of which — even if you could win that way, which I don’t think you can, there is value in governing from between the 20 yard lines. (I could get into all the reasons this is the case, but I’m sure you fine folks can provide your own analysis.)

I have some policy disagreements with him, as I would with anyone, and I want a younger President, and I think he’s too old, but.  Right now. After Trump.  “Make America Normal Again” is the most important slogan, and Biden is probably the best person for that specific job. He could, immediately, start righting the ship — especially internationally — in a way probably no one else could. *That having been said*... Amy Klobacher, Beto, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Booker all have my eye and I want to hear them all out. Who knows, maybe someone else will come along, too. 

Last edited by winetarelli

Beto, for a guy who couldnt even beat Cruz, is not going to go far

Booker is an interesting case, he's like a walking fundraising machine on steroids.  I only worry that he gets swayed more by special interests once he gets to the national level and doesnt have the same "checklist" of issues when dealing at the local level.  I'd be interested in hearing his vision of things he wishes to achieve and see if it's something can be solved with money and influence.

Another Biden fan here, for many reasons but largely those given by w + a above:  he would likely take back the Midwest swing states Trump barely won and hold the states Hillary won.  And his rhetoric would fire up the Dem base the way Trump's fires up his base.  Yes he is old and has some political baggage, but no older than Trump and holds a change purse of baggage compared to Trump's container load!  If he picked one of the moderate young'uns as VP:  Amy, Kamala or Corey, he could very well keep voters turned off by his age and style.

All of the above said, someone like Sherrod Brown could end up being a better choice - I know nothing of him now.  And Howard Schultz could blow the whole thing up and get Trump re-elected whoever is the Dem nominee.

arsenal4ever posted:

I hope Omar and Tlaib aren't the face of the new progressive Democratic party, as both appear to be anti-Semitic, and they've only been in office since January.

They apologized in what seemed like a sincere manner.  And yes, they are new.  

Remind me again how many time Steve King has apologized for the dozens of racist comments and tweets he's made over the course of his 22 year career?  

arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

If that's true, can we presume you are no longer a fan/supporter of Trump, who has made more racist dog-whistle comments than all other federal politicians combined? Have you had a political epiphany? 

And BTW, I and most others I think, value sincere remorse for mistakes.  Again, something Trump has never shown despite the thousands of provable lies and misrepresentations, never mind all those racist and hurtful comments.

bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Never been a fan/ supporter of any politician. Why do you jump to such a misguided conclusion?

My bad. I jumped to that conclusion based on some of your previous posts. Or maybe thought you were someone else. Either way, I apologize 

 

I'm tired of bman shooting his mouth off and then apologizing in a sincere manner.    Sorry bman, I couldn't resist.

thelostverse posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Never been a fan/ supporter of any politician. Why do you jump to such a misguided conclusion?

My bad. I jumped to that conclusion based on some of your previous posts. Or maybe thought you were someone else. Either way, I apologize 

 

I'm tired of bman shooting his mouth off and then apologizing in a sincere manner.    Sorry bman, I couldn't resist.

Sometimes I forget that i'm Canadian....... ;-) 

board-o posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

I hope Omar and Tlaib aren't the face of the new progressive Democratic party, as both appear to be anti-Semitic, and they've only been in office since January.

They apologized in what seemed like a sincere manner.

Sincere? There must be too many heavy metals in them Canadian water. Omar did NOT apologize. She made an excuse. No sane person thinks that was a sincere apology.

Marc, I though your passive/aggressive and other personal attacks against me ended when you unfriended and blocked me on Facebook for deleting your racist posts on my wall.  How about we keep it that way, OK?

California here I GO - 

"A growing number of Californians are contemplating moving from the state — and not due to wildfires or earthquakes but the sky-high cost of living, according to a survey released Wednesday.

The online survey, conducted last month by Edelman Intelligence, found sentiment of leaving the nation's most populous state highest among millennials.

Fifty-three percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago."

Please don't come to Arizona...I like it fine the way it is now

mimik posted:

So once you’ve said something racist, in your mind they are racist for ever ?

There was an interesting opinion piece in the Globe yesterday about why we tend to label people based on a single act committed sometimes decades ago.  Apparently we do it to mentally separate 'us' as normal people from "them' as deviants.  By labeling, we never have to strive to understand them as people, or try to make sense of the reasons they may have 'trangressed' in the first place. 

Last edited by vint
mimik posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

So once you’ve said something racist, in your mind they are racist for ever ?

An interesting question, in a sense like can a person evolve or are they static in their beliefs?  Social surroundings in early life certainly have an impact on one's cultural beliefs, which can be positive or negative.  I believe that one can grow and change one's views based upon continuing education and experience.  That someone once held racist views, does not necessarily mean that they will always have racist views or be a racist.

I also believe that we as a society, having been influenced by identity politics, tend to oversimplify events and see things in black and white, when there are shades of gray.  Too many issues or events are viewed from a prism of being racist or xenophobic without sufficient evidence.  It is much easier to claim racism than to try to understand the issue more and to discuss an issue with someone who has a different point of view. 

thistlintom posted:
mimik posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

So once you’ve said something racist, in your mind they are racist for ever ?

An interesting question, in a sense like can a person evolve or are they static in their beliefs?  Social surroundings in early life certainly have an impact on one's cultural beliefs, which can be positive or negative.  I believe that one can grow and change one's views based upon continuing education and experience.  That someone once held racist views, does not necessarily mean that they will always have racist views or be a racist.

I also believe that we as a society, having been influenced by identity politics, tend to oversimplify events and see things in black and white, when there are shades of gray.  Too many issues or events are viewed from a prism of being racist or xenophobic without sufficient evidence.  It is much easier to claim racism than to try to understand the issue more and to discuss an issue with someone who has a different point of view. 

contrary to popular belief, humans as a whole are born with implied bias.  It's what keeps you from walking into a lions den thinking they won't eat you.  Society then will subtly (forcibly) reinforce those implied biases throughout life.  Right or wrong, it's simply human nature to group, sort, organize, categorize things in a particular way and our standard schooling reinforces that.

I, do feel that a certain pro israel contingent is being entirely disingenuous in calling everybody else in the world "anti semitic" / racist exactly to your last point thislintom.  There is an irony in a group of people calling everyone else "anti semites" because it already implies that they feel their own race is superior and that everyone else is just hating on them. 

People may not change being racist, but experience, knowledge and communication can/should lead to better empathy. 

On another level, this forced Political correctness is certainly going overboard.  Forcing people without teaching someone why they should is just a recipe for disaster. 

flwino posted:

Can't believe that a paper in Alabama, suggested that the KKK March against the democrats & suggested that they bring noses to DC.   What in the H$%^ is this clown thinking

As someone who grew up in Alabama, I can attest he is simply voicing the racist backward opinion shared by many there (and elsewhere), who now feel enabled to say what they want out loud - when in the past (post-civil rights era anyway) they would not have dared.  

g-man posted:
thistlintom posted:
mimik posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

So once you’ve said something racist, in your mind they are racist for ever ?

An interesting question, in a sense like can a person evolve or are they static in their beliefs?  Social surroundings in early life certainly have an impact on one's cultural beliefs, which can be positive or negative.  I believe that one can grow and change one's views based upon continuing education and experience.  That someone once held racist views, does not necessarily mean that they will always have racist views or be a racist.

I also believe that we as a society, having been influenced by identity politics, tend to oversimplify events and see things in black and white, when there are shades of gray.  Too many issues or events are viewed from a prism of being racist or xenophobic without sufficient evidence.  It is much easier to claim racism than to try to understand the issue more and to discuss an issue with someone who has a different point of view. 

contrary to popular belief, humans as a whole are born with implied bias.  It's what keeps you from walking into a lions den thinking they won't eat you.  Society then will subtly (forcibly) reinforce those implied biases throughout life.  Right or wrong, it's simply human nature to group, sort, organize, categorize things in a particular way and our standard schooling reinforces that.

I, do feel that a certain pro israel contingent is being entirely disingenuous in calling everybody else in the world "anti semitic" / racist exactly to your last point thislintom.  There is an irony in a group of people calling everyone else "anti semites" because it already implies that they feel their own race is superior and that everyone else is just hating on them. 

People may not change being racist, but experience, knowledge and communication can/should lead to better empathy. 

On another level, this forced Political correctness is certainly going overboard.  Forcing people without teaching someone why they should is just a recipe for disaster. 

Don't want to get in a big debate about Israel and its backers - and many are unable to accept legitimate criticism of its government and policies - but unfortunately,  the root of much of the historical criticism of Israel is based on anti-semitism which provides a historical basis for its supporters to believe that all criticism is founded on anti-semitism - it provides a sort of "cover" if you will.  

g-man posted:
thistlintom posted:
mimik posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

So once you’ve said something racist, in your mind they are racist for ever ?

An interesting question, in a sense like can a person evolve or are they static in their beliefs?  Social surroundings in early life certainly have an impact on one's cultural beliefs, which can be positive or negative.  I believe that one can grow and change one's views based upon continuing education and experience.  That someone once held racist views, does not necessarily mean that they will always have racist views or be a racist.

I also believe that we as a society, having been influenced by identity politics, tend to oversimplify events and see things in black and white, when there are shades of gray.  Too many issues or events are viewed from a prism of being racist or xenophobic without sufficient evidence.  It is much easier to claim racism than to try to understand the issue more and to discuss an issue with someone who has a different point of view. 

contrary to popular belief, humans as a whole are born with implied bias.  It's what keeps you from walking into a lions den thinking they won't eat you.  Society then will subtly (forcibly) reinforce those implied biases throughout life.  Right or wrong, it's simply human nature to group, sort, organize, categorize things in a particular way and our standard schooling reinforces that.

I, do feel that a certain pro israel contingent is being entirely disingenuous in calling everybody else in the world "anti semitic" / racist exactly to your last point thislintom.  There is an irony in a group of people calling everyone else "anti semites" because it already implies that they feel their own race is superior and that everyone else is just hating on them. 

People may not change being racist, but experience, knowledge and communication can/should lead to better empathy. 

On another level, this forced Political correctness is certainly going overboard.  Forcing people without teaching someone why they should is just a recipe for disaster. 

I wouldn't say people are born with biases, but they are born with instincts that are products of evolution.  For example, a person may react to a perceived threat in a way that is an instinct towards preservation.  In a book by Jonathon Haidt called the Righteous Mind, he talks about morality and how people react to events and make judgements about the events.  An event might make a person make a decision about the morality involved in the event.  That person will look at things that will likely support his initial view on the issue, rather than look at all the facts and then adjust his decision.  This implied bias can result in people seeing something and coming up with different opinions of an event, such as the Covington kids confrontation.  What becomes important is that there is interaction between those with different views to discuss and come up with a more appropriate determinations of what happened.  Unfortunately, we as a society have become more tribal and there is not as much give and take between the different tribes, so there is not as much determination of the "truth" in society.  Haidt is concerned with academia in that the universities have become increasingly more liberal and do not have enough conservatives to provide a counter perspective to biases by liberals. (Haidt is actually leans left and is a classic liberal, so this is not a conservative venting).

Certain groups can have strong biases, especially if they are not open to hearing other viewpoints and adjusting their opinions.  They may not even understand the strength of their biases because they only hear an echo chamber with discussions within their own "tribe".  I think this is one reason why you can have anti-semitic or racial biases in a group.  

 

bman posted:
billhike posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

I’ve long suspected Bruins fans of being against deep thought. 

You mean USC? 

thistlintom posted:
jcocktosten posted:
g-man posted:

Strangely enough my nike sneakers exploded too

Nike Quality Control - oxymoron

So if Zion blew out his knee due to the shoe blowout, is Nike liable?

Potentially.  Not my area of practice but if the shoe was not altered/messed with, it was defective and would not satisfy the implied warranty of merchantability that it be reasonably free from defect

bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

I had never heard of Smollet either. Anyone who thought a point was made when the initial reports came out is nuts. Anyone who thinks a point is made now is equally so. Hate crimes (and likewise sex crimes) are real. Hate crimes are on the rise, though there is some dispute over by how much, given that some of the increase in reported numbers is due to an increase in reporting and agencies whose reports are factored in. About 93% of police reports filed of violent crimes (including hate crimes and sex crimes) are made in good faith and all plausible police reports of violence should be taken seriously and investigated fully. The end. 

Last edited by winetarelli
winetarelli posted:

I had never heard of Smollet either. Anyone who thought a point was made when the initial reports came out is nuts. Anyone who thinks a point is made now is equally so. Hate crimes (and likewise sex crimes) are real. Hate crimes are on the rise, though there is some dispute over by how much, given that some of the increase in reported numbers is due to an increase in reporting and agencies whose reports are factored in. About 93% of police reports filed of violent crimes (including hate crimes and sex crimes) are made in good faith and all plausible police reports of violence should be taken seriously and investigated fully. The end. 

listening to the DA statement yesterday.  They nailed everything that happened with phone calls, Uber rides, cameras very well.   Also the jerk signed the $3,500 check with his own name!

thistlintom posted:

What concerns me is the way the MSM has jumped on stories without doing any research or further investigation and condemned those supposedly that did wrong, especially when instances occur that seem to support their biased views.  This has recently happened with the Covington kids and Jussie Smollett.  True journalism is suffering.

For quite a while, it seems as if it doesn't matter who gets it right or wrong, but who gets the story out first.  And then the apology is buried after the fact.

As far as the Covington kids go, do you have a link to what they (MSM) wrong?  After hearing and watching all of the videos, still looked like a bunch of racist, misogynistic spoiled punks to me

napacat posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

Smolett?  you mean the guy who faked an emergency because he couldn't get enough money for something?

Wait.. that sounds oddly familiar.

You know who else we didnt talk about?  Christopher Paul Hasson.

"Hasson also expressed admiration for Russia. "Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west's liberalism," he wrote in the draft email. Prosecutors say during the past two years he had regularly searched online for pro-Russian as well as neo-Nazi literature."

What happened napacat?  how come you didnt talk about him?  Selective vision?  Sad.

Last edited by g-man
patespo1 posted:
thistlintom posted:

What concerns me is the way the MSM has jumped on stories without doing any research or further investigation and condemned those supposedly that did wrong, especially when instances occur that seem to support their biased views.  This has recently happened with the Covington kids and Jussie Smollett.  True journalism is suffering.

For quite a while, it seems as if it doesn't matter who gets it right or wrong, but who gets the story out first.  And then the apology is buried after the fact.

As far as the Covington kids go, do you have a link to what they (MSM) wrong?  After hearing and watching all of the videos, still looked like a bunch of racist, misogynistic spoiled punks to me

yea, I'm curious to see if any new video came to light that showed these kids to be such glorious saints preaching the gospel and words of love and showing the entire world how we should have proper intelligent conversations with people we don't agree with.

Everything that has been shown has looked more like something out of Golding instead.

Last edited by g-man

The original news was that the students, including Nicholas Sandmann, confronted and accosted  Nathan Phillips by swarming him and threatening him in a physical manner and blocking him and refusing to allow him to retreat. 

Video showed that prior to the interaction with Phillips, the kids were taunted by a group of black preachers using homophobic slurs.  The kids sat down and did some school chants to try to avoid the situation.  Nathan Phillips went up to the group of kids banging on his drum and chanting.  They did not confront Phillips

There is a big disparity between what was initially reported by news (and along with that the condemnation and attacks on the kids, including death threats), and what actually happened.

thistlintom posted:

The original news was that the students, including Nicholas Sandmann, confronted and accosted  Nathan Phillips by swarming him and threatening him in a physical manner and blocking him and refusing to allow him to retreat. 

Video showed that prior to the interaction with Phillips, the kids were taunted by a group of black preachers using homophobic slurs.  The kids sat down and did some school chants to try to avoid the situation.  Nathan Phillips went up to the group of kids banging on his drum and chanting.  They did not confront Phillips

There is a big disparity between what was initially reported by news (and along with that the condemnation and attacks on the kids, including death threats), and what actually happened.

This is largely true. I don’t think much of those kids for various reasons, including some caught on tape, but “prove they’re angels” is rediculous. They shouldn’t need to. They’re kids. And initial reports painted them in a far worse light than their verifiable actions deserve. The real problem, though, is our national obsession with minutiae and anecdote; rather than collection of large amounts of data and evidence relating to pressing issues of the day, and dispassionate and logical analysis of said evidence and data. 

g-man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

Smolett?  you mean the guy who faked an emergency because he couldn't get enough money for something?

Wait.. that sounds oddly familiar.

You know who else we didnt talk about?  Christopher Paul Hasson.

"Hasson also expressed admiration for Russia. "Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west's liberalism," he wrote in the draft email. Prosecutors say during the past two years he had regularly searched online for pro-Russian as well as neo-Nazi literature."

What happened napacat?  how come you didnt talk about him?  Selective vision?  Sad.

Gman,


Happy to talk about that nut job Hasson.  And the strongest possible action should be taken that the law allows.  Not a problem with a life sentence.  Same for the Alabama ISIS wife who wants to return...no way should she come back to the U.S.  

napacat posted:
g-man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

Smolett?  you mean the guy who faked an emergency because he couldn't get enough money for something?

Wait.. that sounds oddly familiar.

You know who else we didnt talk about?  Christopher Paul Hasson.

"Hasson also expressed admiration for Russia. "Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west's liberalism," he wrote in the draft email. Prosecutors say during the past two years he had regularly searched online for pro-Russian as well as neo-Nazi literature."

What happened napacat?  how come you didnt talk about him?  Selective vision?  Sad.

Gman,


Happy to talk about that nut job Hasson.  And the strongest possible action should be taken that the law allows.  Not a problem with a life sentence.  Same for the Alabama ISIS wife who wants to return...no way should she come back to the U.S.  

okay, there we caught up on current "news"?   see how boring that was?  it offered no insight/no depth of discussions nor any other stimulating thought except to note.

winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

Most Dr. Seuss books are about inclusion and tolerance or other liberal values. I’m thinking of The Lorax (environmentalism), The Butter Battle Book (world peace and non-demonization of other cultures, as well as being opposed to nuclear weapons), Green Eggs and Ham (experimentation), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (love and inclusion over consumerism), The Cat in the Hat (an ode to mischief).  And, of course, you point out that Horton Hears a Who is broadly understood and intended as anti-racist. (His wartime work is obviously an issue and I am very thankful he had a change of heart.  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

Of his canonical work, I do question whether whatever people think they see in some of his most beloved books is there; or even if it is (narrator: it isn’t), if it would ever be picked up by a 6 year old, especially in light of all the positive and overt messages of his books.

Some literature is genuinely racist. But anyone can find anything “problematic” if looking. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t terrible racism still in the country. Just today, for example, the U.S. Justice Department is declining to persue civil rights charges against the Tulsa cop who shot and killed an unarmed Black man with his hands up — and it is caught on video. Racism and xenophobia, generally, but specifically anti-Black racism is the greatest challenge/threat/problem in this country, imo. Well, that and this President and his enablers. (Hasn’t directly caused a catastrophe yet, but his assaults on decency, tolerance and inclusion, truth, the free press, coherent thought, civil rights, and hisobvious desire for dictatorial rule are... problematic.)  But spending energy dissecting these children’s books, at least most of which have overt messages of love, experimentation, and inclusion, to me says a lot more about the person writing the article than about Dr. Seuss. 

Last edited by winetarelli
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from how it is fully capable of being viewed at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed.  (And, certainly, when discussing things in history class it is vital to discuss public sentiment; and literature and paintings are likely to play a vital role in that.)

Last edited by winetarelli
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed. 

my greatest fear is having my young ones being approached on the subject from a stranger and not knowing how to respond or having an understanding when i'm not around to talk to them about it.  

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

Totally fair. And of course I loved hanging out with you, too!  That was a great night!

 

Last edited by winetarelli
seaquam posted:
winetarelli posted:

I didn’t fuck my cat.

 

 

Well... I guess that makes you a better man than I.

My “Not involved in human trafficking” t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Credit to Mike Ginn, whomever he is, for that one.)

Yes, this is an Internet thing.  Check Twitter if you dare. 2019: the stupidest year. 

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

napacat posted:
bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Last edited by bman
irwin posted:

The Mueller report will be hashed over and hashed over.  The Dems will complain and the Republicans will praise.  This is all sideshow.

The real issue is the destruction of our relationships with our allies, the tariff wars, the increasing federal deficit.  "It's the economy, stupid."

Right to the point and summary.   Our diplomacy sucks.  So many mad at us, and many countries do not even have ambassadors.  Not that many folks that belong to Mar-A-Lago

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post.  Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first.  It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake.  That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.

Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.  

Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce. 

Mueller was acting as a prosecutor and did not come up with evidence of collusion with the Russians.  Will the Democrats stop their "investigations" or will they continue on attacking the President on this issue after two years of investigations?  I think we have had enough of this and it should stop.  Get on with the business of the country.

thistlintom posted:

Mueller was acting as a prosecutor and did not come up with evidence of collusion with the Russians.  Will the Democrats stop their "investigations" or will they continue on attacking the President on this issue after two years of investigations?  I think we have had enough of this and it should stop.  Get on with the business of the country.

Well said...

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
 

 according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post.  Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first.  It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake.  That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.

Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.  

Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce. 

Napa, you can't even read your own words?    You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction" and now you deny saying it? It's right there for God's sake!  Have some intellectual integrity please!

As for the document, if it was fake the only way to know would be an investigation by law enforcement.  The information was assembled by a credible source (a former intelligence official if I recall correctly) whatever Fox news says, and included allegations that any law enforcement agency would feel it necessary to investigate.

As for your last statement above, wrong again.  Several were convicted for lying to Congress and/or law enforcement, and it seems pretty clear that those lies pertained to Russian collusion.  Why would they have lied if they didn't?  

In any case, the Mueller investigation is anything but a farce.  Even if it had revealed nothing it was necessary given the events that led to its creation.  Again, try watching other news sources to get a balanced view of things.  I don't get Fox news here in Canada (I could, but won't pay for the, umm, "privilege") but I do check out their website and Breitbart's too, from time to time.  I suggest you do the same with BBC or CBC or The Economist or some other objective source.  

bomba503 posted:
thistlintom posted:
billhike posted:
Rayacerebros posted:

Whats de best wine in the the world?

Meiomi.

Yellow Tail makes the very best.

Apparently so as a few years ago the majority preferred drinking yellowtail reserve with yours truly over la tache with he who shall not be named

You drank la Tache with Voldemort?    Cool!  

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
 

 according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post.  Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first.  It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake.  That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.

Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.  

Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce. 

Napa, you can't even read your own words?    You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction" and now you deny saying it? It's right there for God's sake!  Have some intellectual integrity please!

As for the document, if it was fake the only way to know would be an investigation by law enforcement.  The information was assembled by a credible source (a former intelligence official if I recall correctly) whatever Fox news says, and included allegations that any law enforcement agency would feel it necessary to investigate.

As for your last statement above, wrong again.  Several were convicted for lying to Congress and/or law enforcement, and it seems pretty clear that those lies pertained to Russian collusion.  Why would they have lied if they didn't?  

In any case, the Mueller investigation is anything but a farce.  Even if it had revealed nothing it was necessary given the events that led to its creation.  Again, try watching other news sources to get a balanced view of things.  I don't get Fox news here in Canada (I could, but won't pay for the, umm, "privilege") but I do check out their website and Breitbart's too, from time to time.  I suggest you do the same with BBC or CBC or The Economist or some other objective source.  

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

I do watch Fox among other sources.  Would you recommend that I get the majority of news from a lying media that reports 90 - 95% negative stories on Trump.  How wrong were they on this.  They actually were not wrong...they knew there was no collusion...they were just promoting a lie.  BBC is fine the others are not journalists.   Never seen Breitbart once.


You Democrats (not you specifically) are an odd bunch.  Can't wait for the real facts to come out about this...and hopefully jail time for many.  Just look at what they tried to do to Justice Kavanaugh.  That will show they have zero morals.  Look at Smollett and Avenatti.  Great guys.  

napacat posted

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

napacat posted:
 

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

 

Again, your own words:  "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

And the fact that Mueller did not make a recommendation on obstruction does not mean that it didn't happen, just that they thought there was not enough evidence to get a conviction.  It's clear from the subsequent reporting that they agonized over the decision over months and months. Notable that it took Barr only a few hours to reach his conclusion.  Also notable that Trump appointed Barr, someone who was on record as agreeing with Trump that the investigation was unwarranted.

Bottom line is that the full report needs to be seen by the world so that context can be applied.  

Also important to see the results of investigations by the Southern District of NY and other prosecutors.  And whatever the results of these investigations, they don't change the fact that Trump is manifestly unfit to the President for dozens of reasons.  Here's just one, on which he scores 9 out of 9, Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

According to DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most (at least five) or all of the symptoms listed below (generally without commensurate qualities or accomplishments).

1 Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment by others.

2 Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

3 Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions.

4 Needing constant admiration from others.

5 Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

6 Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain.

7 Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs.

8 Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them.

9 Pompous and arrogant demeanor

irwin posted:
bman posted:

I learned something important on last week:  sheep can only wag their tails sideways while goats can wag their tails sideways and up and down.

Is this in both the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere?

They can only wag them clockwise in the south, and counter-clockwise in the north

bman posted:
napacat posted

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

napacat posted:
 

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

 

Again, your own words:  "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

And the fact that Mueller did not make a recommendation on obstruction does not mean that it didn't happen, just that they thought there was not enough evidence to get a conviction.  It's clear from the subsequent reporting that they agonized over the decision over months and months. Notable that it took Barr only a few hours to reach his conclusion.  Also notable that Trump appointed Barr, someone who was on record as agreeing with Trump that the investigation was unwarranted.

Bottom line is that the full report needs to be seen by the world so that context can be applied.  

Also important to see the results of investigations by the Southern District of NY and other prosecutors.  And whatever the results of these investigations, they don't change the fact that Trump is manifestly unfit to the President for dozens of reasons.  Here's just one, on which he scores 9 out of 9, Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

According to DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most (at least five) or all of the symptoms listed below (generally without commensurate qualities or accomplishments).

1 Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment by others.

2 Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

3 Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions.

4 Needing constant admiration from others.

5 Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

6 Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain.

7 Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs.

8 Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them.

9 Pompous and arrogant demeanor

What are the characteristics of people with TDS?

thistlintom posted:
bman posted:
 

According to DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most (at least five) or all of the symptoms listed below (generally without commensurate qualities or accomplishments).

1 Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment by others.

2 Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

3 Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions.

4 Needing constant admiration from others.

5 Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

6 Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain.

7 Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs.

8 Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them.

9 Pompous and arrogant demeanor

What are the characteristics of people with TDS?

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or "DSM", refereed to above, they are listed above. 

Not a list compiled by democrats or Trump-haters, it's the American Psychiatric Association's principal authority for psychiatric diagnosis. 

Aside from number 8, perhaps, Trump seems to be a case study!

 

 

Oh, Trump certainly has his issues, no doubt about that.  But the way some people have acted since he got elected, shows that they have issues too. There is a lot of mourning from many since the report has come out, obviously deeply disappointed that he did not collude with Russia when they should be glad that something like this did not happen.

thistlintom posted:

Oh, Trump certainly has his issues, no doubt about that.  But the way some people have acted since he got elected, shows that they have issues too. There is a lot of mourning from many since the report has come out, obviously deeply disappointed that he did not collude with Russia when they should be glad that something like this did not happen.

I for one am glad that neither he nor his campaign were found to collude with Russia.  But that doesn't mean that Trump's not utterly unfit to be President, and not just because of his obvious mental health issues, though those would appear to be the cause of his unfitness. 

Nor do I think the 4 page summary presented by his new AG (on record as considering the investigation bogus, in his 19 page unsolicited memo on the matter) should be the last word.  Those parts of the report which can legally be made public, which I am guessing will be almost all of it, should be made public.  It is not a matter of Trump-hating, it is simply too important a question to leave to a 4 page memo obviously prepared in haste.  It's too bad that there isn't a clearly impartial body to oversee that - the cost of a politically appointed public service

bman posted:
napacat posted

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

napacat posted:
 

How can you be so dense?  I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.  Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction.  Pretty clear.  

 

Again, your own words:  "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction"

And the fact that Mueller did not make a recommendation on obstruction does not mean that it didn't happen, just that they thought there was not enough evidence to get a conviction.  It's clear from the subsequent reporting that they agonized over the decision over months and months. Notable that it took Barr only a few hours to reach his conclusion.  Also notable that Trump appointed Barr, someone who was on record as agreeing with Trump that the investigation was unwarranted.

Bottom line is that the full report needs to be seen by the world so that context can be applied.  

Also important to see the results of investigations by the Southern District of NY and other prosecutors.  And whatever the results of these investigations, they don't change the fact that Trump is manifestly unfit to the President for dozens of reasons.  Here's just one, on which he scores 9 out of 9, Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

According to DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most (at least five) or all of the symptoms listed below (generally without commensurate qualities or accomplishments).

1 Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment by others.

2 Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

3 Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions.

4 Needing constant admiration from others.

5 Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

6 Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain.

7 Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs.

8 Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them.

9 Pompous and arrogant demeanor

He, the President, is certainly a unique individual...indeed maybe a narcissist.  But so what...that is what is needed at this time of insanity on the left.  Keep reaching for collusion, obstruction and what’s in the report.  It’s a total set up.  Let’s wait and learn how this all started.

Want transperancy...hope Trump makes public all of the information relating to FISA warrants and the like.  We have some interesting times ahead.

Where’s W&A and Purple....they are not taking the Mueller report too well?

mneeley490 posted:

"WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to unanimously pass a non-binding measure expressing that Congress wants Robert Mueller’s report outlining the results of his Russia investigation be made public."

Let the CYA begin.

Oh Christ...get real.  Do any of you people listen to actual facts and law or just nonsense.

bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

Oh, Trump certainly has his issues, no doubt about that.  But the way some people have acted since he got elected, shows that they have issues too. There is a lot of mourning from many since the report has come out, obviously deeply disappointed that he did not collude with Russia when they should be glad that something like this did not happen.

I for one am glad that neither he nor his campaign were found to collude with Russia.  But that doesn't mean that Trump's not utterly unfit to be President, and not just because of his obvious mental health issues, though those would appear to be the cause of his unfitness. 

Nor do I think the 4 page summary presented by his new AG (on record as considering the investigation bogus, in his 19 page unsolicited memo on the matter) should be the last word.  Those parts of the report which can legally be made public, which I am guessing will be almost all of it, should be made public.  It is not a matter of Trump-hating, it is simply too important a question to leave to a 4 page memo obviously prepared in haste.  It's too bad that there isn't a clearly impartial body to oversee that - the cost of a politically appointed public service

I’ll agree with most of this...they should make public exactly what the laws allow them to.

napacat posted:
bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

Oh, Trump certainly has his issues, no doubt about that.  But the way some people have acted since he got elected, shows that they have issues too. There is a lot of mourning from many since the report has come out, obviously deeply disappointed that he did not collude with Russia when they should be glad that something like this did not happen.

I for one am glad that neither he nor his campaign were found to collude with Russia.  But that doesn't mean that Trump's not utterly unfit to be President, and not just because of his obvious mental health issues, though those would appear to be the cause of his unfitness. 

Nor do I think the 4 page summary presented by his new AG (on record as considering the investigation bogus, in his 19 page unsolicited memo on the matter) should be the last word.  Those parts of the report which can legally be made public, which I am guessing will be almost all of it, should be made public.  It is not a matter of Trump-hating, it is simply too important a question to leave to a 4 page memo obviously prepared in haste.  It's too bad that there isn't a clearly impartial body to oversee that - the cost of a politically appointed public service

I’ll agree with most of this...they should make public exactly what the laws allow them to.

Hallelujah!  We agree on something!  

Even if us tax payers made 10mm $ on the mueller investigation, i personally would still want to see the extent of russian interference.  

We should use such investigation to learn how foreign powers are trying to undermine our country and how we can protect current and future americans from falling victim.  It is money better well spent than say, protecting against a fabricated emergency.

Sides, Trump says he's exonerated, he's got nothing to hide, let the public understand all the ways that Russia isn't an ally.

g-man posted:

Even if us tax payers made 10mm $ on the mueller investigation, i personally would still want to see the extent of russian interference.  

We should use such investigation to learn how foreign powers are trying to undermine our country and how we can protect current and future americans from falling victim.  It is money better well spent than say, protecting against a fabricated emergency.

Sides, Trump says he's exonerated, he's got nothing to hide, let the public understand all the ways that Russia isn't an ally.

Noting a lot of the interference began under the Obama admin  (as confessed to by Brennan) and they did absolutely nothing about it.

napacat posted:
g-man posted:

Even if us tax payers made 10mm $ on the mueller investigation, i personally would still want to see the extent of russian interference.  

We should use such investigation to learn how foreign powers are trying to undermine our country and how we can protect current and future americans from falling victim.  It is money better well spent than say, protecting against a fabricated emergency.

Sides, Trump says he's exonerated, he's got nothing to hide, let the public understand all the ways that Russia isn't an ally.

Noting a lot of the interference began under the Obama admin  (as confessed to by Brennan) and they did absolutely nothing about it.

why does it matter if it's Obama or trump?  The only people that ever lose in this situation is the American public.  This probably happened under Eisenhower, or Reagan, who gives a shit?  Not sure why some "americans" are soo obsessed with a someone who's not even president anymore.  Trump is the current president, we caught something happening and he's done nothing but say that Russia is an ally and that Putin is a good friend.

Plain and simple, if he and mitch have nothing to worry about because supposedly nothing happened, then release the Mueller report for the american public to understand the depth of Russian interference.  I'd expect congress then to fund appropriate security measures to ensure the American voice is not drowned out nor manipulated by a foreign enemy.

napacat posted:
mneeley490 posted:

"WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to unanimously pass a non-binding measure expressing that Congress wants Robert Mueller’s report outlining the results of his Russia investigation be made public."

Let the CYA begin.

Oh Christ...get real.  Do any of you people listen to actual facts and law or just nonsense.

Dude, this was a straight copy & paste from the NBC news website.

I, myself, identify as a moderate Republican. I've been called a RINO by those on the lunatic fringe Right, which is just as bad as the lunatic fringe Left. The truth is, they are the true RINO's, as they've strayed miles outside the boundaries true fiscal conservationism. Speaking of "Random and Off Topic", let me share something with you that I wrote today on a news website, about Ronald Reagan:

"I miss Ronnie. His speech immediately after the Challenger disaster was the finest I've ever heard given. He took a heartbroken America, and stitched us back together. Being a dem or a GOP wasn't important in that moment. We were Americans first. And he gave us the resolve to stand up again, and move on."

That is something the talking yam and his blind followers could never even fathom.

Last edited by mneeley490
mneeley490 posted:
napacat posted:
mneeley490 posted:

"WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to unanimously pass a non-binding measure expressing that Congress wants Robert Mueller’s report outlining the results of his Russia investigation be made public."

Let the CYA begin.

Oh Christ...get real.  Do any of you people listen to actual facts and law or just nonsense.

Dude, this was a straight copy & paste from the NBC news website.

Bet he thinks NBC is fake news.....

bman posted:
mneeley490 posted:
napacat posted:
mneeley490 posted:

"WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday blocked an effort by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to unanimously pass a non-binding measure expressing that Congress wants Robert Mueller’s report outlining the results of his Russia investigation be made public."

Let the CYA begin.

Oh Christ...get real.  Do any of you people listen to actual facts and law or just nonsense.

Dude, this was a straight copy & paste from the NBC news website.

Bet he thinks NBC is fake news.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think you are missing the full context of the report. The block by McConnell was for a full unredacted immediate release of the report.  That cannot be done for legal reasons, so the report