[Winstonm]

To me the most distressing and nauseating conclusion that comes out of the Russia-Trump investigation, the investigation of whether or not the Trump campaign worked in concert with Russian intelligence to win the election, is that regardless of whether or not any collusion is ever found or proved, no one - neither supporter nor hater of Trump - can deny that he is so lacking in moral character as to be capable of having done such a thing for no other reason other than self-aggrandizement.

And that, in itself, is a tragedy.

[rmnka447]

awm, on 2017-April-10, 09:25, said:

As long as we're talking about being scared of particular types of people, I'm most afraid of people who:

1. Are white. As a white person living in America, I am much more likely to be murdered by a white person than a black or brown person.
2. Own guns. Most murders in the US are with guns.
3. Believe crazy conspiracy-theory stuff. This seems to be a common factor in people who shoot up schools, movie theaters, etc. While most people are murdered by people they know, I have a pretty "safe" set of friends (I think, maybe everyone thinks this). Most mass-shootings are by "crazies" as far as I can tell.
4. Are anti-semitic or anti-technology/globalization. This is maybe more personal, as a (non-practicing) Jew working in tech.

The interesting thing is, when you put these together the profile looks an awful lot like a typical Trump supporter!

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

https://www.yahoo.co...-164721855.html

[y66]

From Trump Shifts Back to Health Care - President says his plan to change the tax code will have to wait by Louise Radnofsky, Peter Nicholas and Richard Rubin in the WSJ

Quote

WASHINGTON—After losing a fight to revamp the health-care system, President Donald Trump said last month he was prepared to put the setback behind him and move on to the next challenge, rewriting the tax code.

Three weeks later, he said he is determined to resurrect the health-care bill even if it means delaying the tax overhaul, telling The Wall Street Journal in an interview: “I want to get health care done…I think I will get it done.”

The tax overhaul, he said, would have to wait.

Mr. Trump’s revived push to fulfill a core campaign promise appears to be driven by three developments: First, a renewed confidence that he can still win enough votes to pass a bill; second, a belief that he needs the health-care savings to help pay for the tax bill and hit his economic growth promises; and third, a recognition that the tax-code overhaul isn’t near ready.

Quote

The abrupt shift caught some Capitol Hill Republicans off guard. They had been preparing to turn immediately to the tax legislation.

“We don’t get it. What a waste of time and political capital to return to the quagmire of health reform,” said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments, a North Carolina investment firm, in a client note Wednesday. Unlike taxes or infrastructure, he said the health bill is “clearly a no-win issue for the Republicans.”

The renewed focus on health care also raises the prospect of a second embarrassing defeat that would raise more questions about the new administration’s ability to shepherd complicated legislation through Congress.

But some allies said they were encouraged, not alarmed, by that pursuit now.

“Just because they didn’t achieve success at first on health-care legislation doesn’t mean it’s not going to get accomplished,” said Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager. “It’s going to get accomplished and they’re continuing to work on that. It’s a pledge he has made and will fulfill.”

In his interview with the Journal, Mr. Trump specifically mentioned a renewed confidence in the Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans he had just two weeks ago suggested targeting for defeat in next year’s midterm election.

“They want to do the right thing and they do like me and they do like their president,” he said.

Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a prominent House Republican and leader of the Freedom Caucus, said he had conversations with the president and his staff in which he set out a potential path to yes on a health-care deal for a number of conservative members and others.

He declined to discuss the specifics of that path, but praised the president’s past business history in making deals where no deals seemed to be in sight.

“He’s singularly focused on making sure he fulfills his campaign promises,” Mr. Meadows said.

While Mr. Trump has also suggested he is open to a deal with Democrats on health care, some White House officials believe the most direct route to passage of a bill involves persuading Republicans to go along. Democrats oppose the effort to repeal the law.

Among other things: The administration hasn’t decided whether to seek a tax cut, who might get a tax cut and whether to pursue the border adjustment feature at the center of House Republicans’ plans. When they do make those choices, it is going to be difficult, especially given the likely need to find almost all the votes for the tax bill inside the GOP, some officials said.

What’s more, the two initiatives are interconnected, White House officials believe. Should a health-care overhaul pass, that would free up hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to help pay for tax reductions brought about by the tax-code rewrite, they said.

“That’s the biggest driver in that decision,” a White House official said Thursday.

Under congressional rules, though, money from one bill isn’t deployed to another. What the health-care bill does is repeal taxes created in the Affordable Care Act, paid for by cutting spending on Medicaid.

Because the last week of April will be spent funding the government, Republicans have a window to work on health care without significantly delaying their tax agenda, which couldn’t advance publicly anyway during that time, said Kenneth Kies, a GOP tax lobbyist.

“There’s a window here to pull the health care thing back together and get it done without impeding tax reform,” he said.

Still, the prospects for that victory, however much Mr. Trump wants it, are mixed.

Current and former Republican House members believe that their colleagues could yet be inclined to get a bill voted through the lower chamber, if for no other reason than to tell constituents that they had done so. Whether Senate Republicans then can resolve their own, separate but equally divisive fights on health care is no certain matter.

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2017-April-13, 23:16, said:

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

Saying that they're not "deplorables" is a pretty mild form of support. Even Hillary regretted saying it.

[jogs]

It is time your guys start watching Colin Cowherd.
Cowherd is left or left leaning on every major social issue.
But now Cowherd thinks the PC left is going too far.

Cowherd says that Pepsi has done no wrong. Only the PC left is against giving a cop a Pepsi.
Cowherd defends Eli Manning. It's the NFL which makes the big money on sports memorabilia.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-April-14, 10:15, said:

It is time your guys start watching Colin Cowherd.
Cowherd is left or left leaning on every major social issue.
But now Cowherd thinks the PC left is going too far.

Cowherd says that Pepsi has done no wrong. Only the PC left is against giving a cop a Pepsi.
Cowherd defends Eli Manning. It's the NFL which makes the big money on sports memorabilia.

Better yet, why not just listen to fact and make up your own mind?

[awm]

rmnka447, on 2017-April-13, 23:16, said:

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

https://www.yahoo.co...-164721855.html

While I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, he is still a politician. Politically, it is not a good strategy to insult a significant subset of voters, even if the insults are technically correct. The reason is that other voters who may be more on the fence can get offended that someone they know has been called "deplorable" or a racist or whatever, and therefore change their vote.

Of course, I am not a politician and am not campaigning for anything. So I pretty much call them as I see them (rightly or wrongly). In my opinion this poll says a lot about Republicans. They are not so much dedicated to a particular set of policies or positions; in addition to the given poll on bombing Syria, we can see the same behavior on infrastructure spending and even Romney/Obama-care. And Republican voters are convinced of many things that just aren't true (like the stock market went down under Obama, or he raised taxes, or he's a muslim, etc). The theme is that Republican voters don't judge politicians on their stated positions or even on what they do while in office -- they are choosing in a very tribal manner based on who the politician is. And what they want is a wealthy white christian male, preferably one who doesn't seem too sympathetic to non-whites, non-christians, or non-males. This is what they got with Donald Trump! And I don't think it's unfair to call this behavior out for what it is (racism, sexism, religious discrimination) although admittedly politicians hoping to win elections in "red" parts of the country might want to avoid saying it aloud.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-14, 12:22, said:

Better yet, why not just listen to fact and make up your own mind?

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-14, 13:49, said:

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

If you can't recognize opinion for what it is, and you don't have the basic curiosity to search out verification of facts, then you probably lack the mental flexibility nexessay to change your mind.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-14, 13:56, said:

If you can't recognize opinion for what it is, and you don't have the basic curiosity to search out verification of facts, then you probably lack the mental flexibility nexessay to change your mind.

I apologize for putting a basic metaphysical question to you. Obviously that is not your area of focus.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-14, 14:31, said:

I apologize for putting a basic metaphysical question to you. Obviously that is not your area of focus.

No, it's just that I have played that mind game before and I now find it banal rather than interesting.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2017-April-12, 10:10, said:

In the 1950s we had … claims that fluoridation of water was a government plot.

It was a government plot! Its nefarious purpose was to reduce the incidence of dental caries in the population. Not sure, but I think it's working.

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-April-14, 13:49, said:

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

The question is an old one.


What us Truth

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-April-14, 13:49, said:

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

This is indeed difficult. It requires a certain skill - some call it "intelligence".

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-April-15, 03:16, said:

This is indeed difficult. It requires a certain skill - some call it "intelligence".

You speak of it as if from a distance. Are you still looking for it?

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-13, 19:35, said:

To me the most distressing and nauseating conclusion that comes out of the Russia-Trump investigation, the investigation of whether or not the Trump campaign worked in concert with Russian intelligence to win the election, is that regardless of whether or not any collusion is ever found or proved, no one - neither supporter nor hater of Trump - can deny that he is so lacking in moral character as to be capable of having done such a thing for no other reason other than self-aggrandizement. And that, in itself, is a tragedy.

The US interferes in foreign elections. The US has successfully funded rebellion against many democracies.

• If Trump tried to establish a constructive dialogue with Russia it wasn't treason. He was simply making a belated but commendable bid for world-peace.
• Countries should not spy on each other. But if Russia hacked emails, showing that the democratic process was being undermined, it was doing the US electorate a favour.

Why is it so important for us to foster paranoia and bolster blatant 1984-type propaganda?

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-April-15, 09:00, said:

The US interferes in foreign elections. The US has successfully funded rebellion against many democracies.

• If Trump tried to establish a constructive dialogue with Russia it wasn't treason. He was simply making a belated but commendable bid for world-peace.
• Countries should not spy on each other. But if Russia hacked emails, showing that the democratic process was being undermined, it was doing the US electorate a favour.

Why is it so important for us to foster paranoia and prop up blatant 1984-type propaganda?

Your spin trail leaves a stink in the air. Putting self-interest above good of country is kleptocratic behavior and it is a tragedy the US elected Donald Trump.

Edit: There is nothing Orwellian or conspiratorial about pointing out that it is a tragedy that the U.S. elected president a totally incompetent, self-serving blowhard.

[jogs]

awm, on 2017-April-14, 13:48, said:

And Republican voters are convinced of many things that just aren't true (like the stock market went down under Obama, or he raised taxes, or he's a muslim, etc).

The left loves to mischaracterize the positions of the opposition.
The Obama administration claims all benefited during his 8 years. The truth is easy money from the FED helps the wealthy. The middle 60% was barely standing in place. The Hollywood left prospered obscenely well.
Maybe Obama wasn't a Muslim. He seems to have studied from a Muslim textbook. Obama proclaimed the Christians the villains of the Crusades.

[jogs]

Obama and the democrats play checkers.

Putin and Xi Jinping plays chess.
Maybe Xi Jinping plays chinese chess.

Notice a river dividing the board.

Trump play simultaneous chess. If there is a stalemate on one board, Trump moves on to the next board.

Obama kept appeasing the mini bullies. Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. And Hitler always asked for more. Bullies only understand strength and power. Trump will be like Winston Churchill.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-15, 09:45, said:

Edit: There is nothing Orwellian or conspiratorial about pointing out that it is a tragedy that the U.S. elected president a totally incompetent, self-serving blowhard.

As if it made a difference.... the Russian influence of Mogilevich and all of the "Intelligence" agencies using Trump Towers as a staging ground. The truth would reveal their complicity in crimes that go beyond the pale. Whitey Bulger for president! Just another compliant crook....why not?