Thought for the Day

In 2008 we were debating whether or not Banks were too big to fail, and I think for the next 8 years Businesses sat on their money in the stock market, in a pissing match with Obama as to who the American People belong to, big Business or Big Government. Now with Trump at the helm destroying every sensible REGULATION and tossing CEOs 1.6 trillion, there's no question Big Business RULES.
Luckily every other Country in the World faces the same dilemma, when do the WORKERS get to see the fruits of their labor?
When we sent the Marshall plan to Japan, we introduced milk into their diets and they all grew two inches. We told them the way to run businesses, and for a while there Japan was kicking our ass with Sony Trinitrons and Honda Accords. But American Businesses don't follow the rules we taught Japan, American Bosses made rules to make themselves rich. In Japan the lowest factory worker can "shut down the entire line" when he or she spots a mistake. In the USA the Bosses are bragging about their golf score in the office, while pissed off workers screw with the product. So why is the USA still the most vibrant Economy in the World? Nuclear Weapons?
When Republicans say "WE" can't afford Medicare for all, they mean freewheeling Big Businesses can't afford it.
https://preview.ibb.co/fHwA3z/oo.jpg

For sore eyes:
https://preview.ibb.co/mZt20e/1.jpg

I can't recall if the word Collusion has been part of our posts related to the Mueller enquiry, but an article in today's New York Times, confirms that 'collusion' has no precise definition in law and prompts the thought that for once the President may be right that there was no collusion with Russia, but that the more serious allegations remain.
I have found a selection of legal opinion which replaces the word Collusion with the more intense Conspiracy, thus increasing the weight on the President's shoulders, to add to the case that the New York State Attorney General has brought against the President, his family and their charitable foundation.
I don't know if in the latter case he will settle out of court rather than have his behaviour -and tax returns- made public, we shall see. Both on the BBC 2 Newsnight programme this evening, and yesterday on the Radio 4 lunchtime news discussion, defenders of the President sounded desperate and dismissive of the legal issues, not expressing despair at the repeated tweets and comments from the man himself that contradict previous statements and appear to harass the Special Prosecutor. Maybe we are reaching the point soon where he must decide if he is going to stop it all, if he can, and take his chances on the mid-terms.

The legal debate here-
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...llusion-215366

The New York case here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ral-violations

I'm getting TV ads about K-12 "internet schools" … instead of brick buildings and school buses, kids get to learn in their pajamas in front of the TV-Teacher. I'm guessing this is a Republican plot to save money at the expense of the poor. Marketing cheap education for the masses. Rich kids go to Prep School. Trump's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn't even believe in public school, the great American melting pot.

The Corbyn situation shows no sign of rest even in the 'Summer Hole' (as the Germans call) it, or the 'Silly season' in the UK.

The latest controversy concerns the visit Corbyn made to the Palestinians Martyrs Cemetery in Tunisia in 2014 when a wreath was laid on the graves of men assumed to have been part of the Black September unit that murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1971. Corbyn says he did not participate in the ceremony for Black September 'martyrs' but the victims of an Israeli air-strike on Tunis -at that time the HQ of the PLO- in 1985. It doesn't get any better when Corbyn is quoted thus:

“I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere because we have to end it. You cannot pursue peace by a cycle of violence; the only way you can pursue peace [is] by a cycle of dialogue.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-wreath-laying

One can easily dismiss the outrage of the world class hypocrite Benjamin Netanyahu, who every year celebrates the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel in 1946 causing 91 deaths and 46 injuries, whereas the Israeli historian Mordechai Golani takes a different view:
Seventy years after the pre-State of Israel Irgun underground militia blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing more than 90 people, historian Prof. Mordechai Golani called the attack "an act of terror that stained our history, leaving it scarred.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...rror-1.5414668

No, the real problem is that Corbyn has for most of his political career taken sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians choosing the latter because of their 'revolutionary' credentials, something that was important for the 1968 Marxists, Trotskyists and various other left-wing radicals who also defended or justified the actions of the IRA and the Provisional IRA, the Viet-Cong, and so on. From this perspective, Palestinians are victims of Zionist Imperialism or some concoction based on Zionism and American Imperialism choosing Israel as its runway in the Middle East, and so on.

What Corbyn does, however, is simply ignore the question that asks if the PLO was worthy of the claim that it represented the Palestinian people? And if he is so opposed to violence, why offer support to some of the most murderous groups in the Middle East who did not discriminate between Jew and Arab, Muslim and Christian, but killed anyone who got in their way?

Even if you allow for splits in the PLO caused by doctrinal differences between Arafat's Fateh movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and yet more splits -the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and smaller groups, the fact is that the various branches of the PLO were as committed to murdering Palestinians as they were Israelis.

Black September, for example, chose as its first victim not a Jew, but the Jordanian Prime Minister, Wasfi al-Tell who had been given the responsibility of throwing the PLO out of Jordan, a bloody campaign that began in September 1970 following an attempted assassination by the PFLP on King Hussein, and a campaign that ended the following year when the PLO removed to Lebanon, where it caused havoc in the domestic politics that were a partial cause of the civil war that broke out in 1975.

Wasfi al-Tell was shot dead in Cairo, around the same time his younger brother living in Amman was also a target though Fateh only succeeded in killing their housekeeper who was, needless to say, a Palestinian.

The PLO, notably in the capital Amman, had behaved with the kind of reckless criminality that has taken many politically motivated 'guerilla' groups away from their root cause - for example, the 'Real IRA' has been ranked the 9th richest 'terror group' (topped at the time by ISIS see the list here
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-30748913.html)

The PLO was responsible for protection rackets, daylight robbery, summary executions, and more rapes than anyone bothered to count. And when the PLO moved to Lebanon, it carried on where it left off in Jordan.

Corbyn may not have read Yezid Sayigh's comprehensive history Armed Struggle and the Search for State (1997), but to do so puts that 'armed struggle' into context, explaining why it became so central to the Palestinian search for justice after 1967, but also why they abandoned it in the 1970s as their primary strategy when it was clear that it did not work and caused them more problems than they were worth. Moreover, by adopting the most militant Palestinians as their favoured clients, Corbyn and the Labour left in his penumbra, and crucially, the Israeli government, ignored the Palestinians actually living under the illegal occupation in the West Bank and Gaza District until they emerged at the Madrid Conference in 1990 as the only sane voices the Palestinians had. Indeed, had the Israelis not chosen extremists -they supported the formation of HAMAS in the first Intifada as a counter-weight to Fateh- they could have reached an accommodation with Haidar Abdul-Shafi and Hanan Ashrawi that would have or could have produced a peace treaty not unlike the one that was eventually signed in 1993, the peace treaty that Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu were, and are committed to destroy.

But that is a 'what if' in history, whereas Corbyn chose his 'revolutionary' friends to maintain his public profile as a committed radical.
But there are times when you must ask yourself, do I need friends like this? And with so many Palestinians to choose from, why choose the ones so closely associated with murder and crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The latest controversy concerns the visit Corbyn made to the Palestinians Martyrs Cemetery in Tunisia in 2014 when a wreath was laid on the graves of men assumed to have been part of the Black September unit that murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1971.

---

Still, takes the heat off Boris, eh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Still, takes the heat off Boris, eh!

---

Not for long, he doesn't like it when he is not the centre of attention. He will be back with some more flippant nonsense in the Telegraph soon.

I agree with Stavros' post above, but I guess one element that has been striking for me is that I can't see anything coherent about what Corbyn does.

If he wants to meet with odious people because he doesn't believe in de-platforming people, he would have to not de-platform people. If he wants to meet with Holocaust deniers and people who say blood-curdlingly bigoted things about Jews because he thinks it advances the cause of peace, then he has to actually be consistent about it.

To my knowledge, he has not been willing to meet with ANY Israelis except for maybe the odd Israeli ex-pat who wants to de-stigmatize Holocaust denial. Where are his meetings with Israelis who oppose the occupation? Where are his necessary meetings with equivalently despicable Israelis that are necessary to achieve peace?

The fact is that he meets with these despicable people because they are on his same general "side" (even though he doesn't agree with their more extreme views) and he doesn't find anything disqualifying in the same way he does for so many others.

I know I've covered a lot of people on the left who have said anti-Semitic things but I'd be remiss not to mention Jenny Tonge, who was a Liberal Democrat but claims to bleed for the Palestinians. A few days ago she posted on facebook that she never gets an answer when she asks why Jewish people have been persecuted over and over again through history. The implication was that Jews are so obnoxious that a consistent history of victimization is proof not of how toxic anti-Semitism is, but that the Jews are guilty of something. She may or may not know it, but this is a baldly neo-Nazi trope. One could type into the twitter search bar "Jews 109 countries" and get a sense for how the argument works.

My question is why are there so many people on the left who are advocates for the Palestinians who fall into these patterns. I am not trying to de-legitimize this movement directly or indirectly. The merits of the Palestinians' argument are there regardless of what scoundrel offers support. I've been to a ton of rallies here in the U.S. and never come across someone saying something like that.

As for Boris' comments they are mean-spirited and not something a politician should ever say. I trust that people in Britain can oppose the commemoration of people who castrate and murder athletes, condemn Boris, and Netanyahu all at the same time without the bullshit and obfuscation.

When you look at Boris Johnson's comments there's nothing to deconstruct. There's no guile, there's no pretense, there's just ridicule and malice. It is the type of jibe a person on the right says because they think nobody will be concerned about it. One almost expects bigotry from many on the right, though it doesn't make it less reprehensible.

It is more surprising to see on the left, but also dangerous because the left must be a bulwark against the normalization of hatred and irrationality. To see people on the left rightly call out Israeli "what-aboutery" and then engage in what-aboutery when it is convenient is dismaying.

It can serve no humanistic principle to castrate and murder an individual who has done nothing wrong out of expedience for a cause or based on some notion of collective guilt. It is not bourgeois or privileged to sympathize with the athletes who were brutalized nor is it heroic (or even acceptable) to sympathize with their torturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree with Stavros' post above, but I guess one element that has been striking for me is that I can't see anything coherent about what Corbyn does.
If he wants to meet with odious people because he doesn't believe in de-platforming people, he would have to not de-platform people.

---

Again, the point of reference here is the 1960s when Corbyn developed his political position, with the depressing fact that he hasn't changed his views since then. I believe the famous JM Keynes goes somethng like 'I make up my mind based on the facts, and when the facts change, I change my mind', yet Corbyn and also McDonnell argue as if there had been no change to capitalism in the last 50 years, as if Labour had not lost four general elections in a row. They have no coherent view of the state, and like most Marxists, are unable to make sense of nationalism or offer a more appealing alternative. They have supported National Liberation movements because they see them as 'revolutionary' even socialist, but a national movements by definition cannot be socialist, something that always undermined their support for a 'United Ireland'.
Unless you believe the 'revolution' for a National cause will then lead to something different, much as the February Revolution led to the Bolshevik Revolution, or the Islamic Revolution in Iran -supported at the time by the Socialist Workers Party ('All The Way With The Ayatollahs' screamed their paper in February 1979)- before the Mullahs took over in another flop for the UK's perennial losers.

The attachment to revolutionary causes is derived from their admiration for Lenin and the belief the Russian Revolution was a triumph, not disregarding the astonishing level of violence it released, but accepting it as part of a sort of cathartic reaction to oppression. What did you expect? It was a revolution! The long list of causes to be supported ranged from the Viet Cong to Salvador Allende, from the Shining Path to the PLO, but it gets more complicated when you factor in the Red Brigades, the IRA/Provisional IRA and Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction because where we never really saw the victims of the faraway 'revolutionary struggles' the European 'guerilla' groups were right here. So they condemn all acts of violence, at the same time believing in the cause. 'Yes, I believe in a United Ireland, but don't approve of the means being used to get it'. And then, in the pub afterwards they tell you they want precisely the revolution they have just said they don't approve of, because there is no revolution without violence.

From here, you get to a position where you don't share a platform with 'racists and fascists' which would endorse their views, or in Corbyn's case, not even the Tories. If he was all but invisible on tv during the EU referendum it was because he would not share a platform with David Cameron, and the only occasion when I think he did appear in a tv debate was when Cameron wasn't there. So the only people he is going to share a platform with on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are committed to one side, which is rather like saying he doesn't believe in a peaceful solution, because a true peace can only be negotiated with both sides, just as two communities locked in such a small space must either find a way to co-habit or face one or two more decades confronting each other with no peace in sight. He enjoys the struggle, and has no plan for peace.

For the same reason, John Hume was treated with contempt by Corbyn and Livingstone in the 1980s, yet it was Hume more than any other party leader in Northern Ireland who worked tirelessly to create a dialogue between communities in Northern Ireland and between North and South which, when the time came, was one of the outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement, in reality a minor triumph for a man the left ridiculed as a waste of time.

Peter Hennessy made the point on BBC Radio 4 last Friday that for the first time in its history, the hard left that had always been a noisy fringe, have taken over the management of the party. Corbyn's primary aim, and he will step down when he thinks he has achieved it, perhaps after this year's conference, or next year, is to re-structure the Labour Party as a Leninist vehicle for his version of the Parliamentary Road to Socialism. This entails building a vibrant membership, which has been achieved now with over 500,000 members, but organized in such a way that instead of the members informing the leadership the aim is for the leadership to inform the members, for the 'delegates' in between to act as cadres explaining the policy platform of the party, in effect issuing them with a party line.

I don't think Corbyn cares too much about anti-semitism, the Middle East or the Americans (another blind spot the British left has never been able to understand), he is focused on building support around a core set of policies on health, housing, education, transport and the utilities that he believes the public are mostly concerned with. The policies are no more radical than those Harold Wilson proposed in 1964 and 1974 or Clement Attlee in 1945, but the party is different, the tone is different, and, crucially, the economic circumstances different and much more fragile than they were in the 1960s, and we have yet to feel the true force of Brexit.

There is a sense of desperation in British politics, rather than optimism, as the cloud of Brexit hangs over us like a sword waiting to fall. I have never before known such a lack of confidence in our political leadership. It is as if they are all useless. And that can't be good. Or maybe I am too much of a pessimist.

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/stat...30514230865920

More impeachment material. I don't know how long ago we crossed a bright red line but I doubt people have gotten this desensitized to the corruption that this will not be discussed for a week or so in the media and then buried or forgotten for the time being. I'm sure there will be a handful of legal experts who will claim that because security clearance is not an entitlement or a guaranteed right that revoking it for self-serving reasons is not impeachable. Or maybe they'll say we cannot even inquire into the reasons it was revoked to begin with since the executive is in charge of the process.

There's something almost boring and mundane about the way in which he can do things that are corrupt and people can scratch their heads asking where it ranks on the list of things he's done.

Given that revenge is fundamental to the President's actions -and indeed, the decisions of most of his senior appointments- Obama Made it, We Destroy It- it is hardly surprising that he should act out of spite when insulting and abusing his fellow Americans for not adoring him, for not telling him he is the greatest and the most popular President in History. You can at least be relieved to know that while his taste in home furnishings is similar to those of Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, he has not yet ordered his 'enemies' into the Oval Office to blow their brains out, or have them tortured before being executed, as happened with Saddam's two sons-in-law when they were persuaded to return to Iraq after fleeing to Jordan.

Rather than impeachment, the Democrats ought to compile a list of reforms to the Presidency and the political system to make America governable again, by the people, for the people, not some semi-literate con-man who doesn't even remember where his father was born and thinks he can renege on international agreements anytime he feels like it.

Limit the powers of the Presidency in law, stop gerrymandering by the states and create an Independent Boundary Commission so that Congressional Districts will comprise a balanced representation of the people who live in them, so that all Americans can register and vote.

While it is encouraging to see a new generation of candidates being selected by the Democrats, do the cohort nominated so far illustrate how badly divided the USA is, when the Republicans appear to be nominating people who ten years ago would not have been considered fit for office? And where is the united voice the Democrats need to convince voters they have the vision to take the USA into the future rather than the past? If revenge is one of the components that has made the Presidency look like a low-grade tv soap opera, maybe the Democrats should go in a different direction, with a different tone of voice, and offer the people something positive instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Limit the powers of the Presidency in law, stop gerrymandering by the states and create an Independent Boundary Commission so that Congressional Districts will comprise a balanced representation of the people who live in them, so that all Americans can register and vote.

---

There are certain things Congress can do and some they probably can't without a Constitutional amendment. Among the things I imagine they can do is to add some enforcement ability to the Emoluments Clause. They can also pass anti-nepotism laws that apply to the President. They can try to pass laws that protect investigations into the executive branch by special counsel, though this is already hitting areas that might require a Constitutional amendment to address.

There was a case back in the 70s called Morrison v. Olson where the constitutionality of the special counsel provision was at issue. The special counsel provisions provided for an independent counsel to investigate the executive branch and the special counsel would be limited in tenure and could be fired by the Attorney General for cause. The Constitution gives the President the ability to fire "principal officers" of the executive branch and it was argued in the challenge that limiting the President's ability to fire the special counsel directly was unconstitutional. The Court ended up upholding the special counsel provision. The reasons the Court gave was that the special counsel is limited in tenure (and therefore not a "principal officer") and can be fired for "good cause" by the Attorney General. However, they probably would not uphold a law preventing the President form firing the head of the FBI or his Attorney General and installing a puppet to fire the special counsel. Until there's a constitutional amendment the remedy is impeachment.

I still agree with you that the idea of reform, where it is allowed, and to the extent that it can prevent self-dealing and nepotism is extremely important. Also the safeguards for the democratic processes are important.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/654/

My point above is that while you're right some problems with addressing the President's conduct prospectively is that he or she is given certain powers that are inherent and can't be removed by law and the remedy for most types of misconduct is almost exclusively impeachment, a political process. What good is a law without enforcement? And what good is a process that cannot be completely insulated from interference by the person being investigated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There are certain things Congress can do and some they probably can't without a Constitutional amendment. Among the things I imagine they can do is to add some enforcement ability to the Emoluments Clause. They can also pass anti-nepotism laws that apply to the President. They can try to pass laws that protect investigations into the executive branch by special counsel, though this is already hitting areas that might require a Constitutional amendment to address.

---

So far, so good, because these things appear to be 'doable'. However, you may have read that the nominee for the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, seems to think special counsels investigating the President is wrong, though I would have thought there must be a basic principle in the Constitution that the President can never be 'above the law' even when he is, in a manner of speaking, making legal decisions -for example, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Surely the whole point of the Presidential powers in the Constitution was designed to prevent a President acting as a dictator or King, even if they never thought to add emolument clauses because they never expected a President to be corrupt in that way.

Your superior knowledge of the law and America makes me wonder how the 'States rights' issue conflicts with my proposal to create an Independent Boundary Commission, because from this side of the pond, it is simply outrageous how some states can legally take away the right to vote that exists from registered voters, and prevent the registration of new ones. In aggregate terms this issue, from purging voter rolls to suppression, involves millions of Americans. There is nothing here about a hundred or a thousand spoiled ballot papers or alleged rigged voting, this is stark: millions denied the vote, and that is before you ask who they are to find they are mostly Black, Latino, and any other social group.

I understand that States protect their rights from the same fear of dictatorship that the Constitution attached to the Presidency, but voting is so fundamental to the operation of democracy that I don't see how or why it should differ across the country. Moreover, the evidence of gerrymandering is so blatant I don't see how it can be regarded as anything but corrupt, but if the Supreme Court declines to take action because it doesn't want to encroach on States rights, then in 2020 you could have in some places in the USA, fewer voters, not because they died or moved away, but because the ruling party is afraid they won't vote for them so stops them from voting, which is not so far from the dictatorship that the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

It is because the States themselves have corrupted the system that they should no longer be allowed to own it. And thus it is time to create a nationwide independent body, or watch your democracy fail the people it is supposed to protect. But will the Democrats even propose anything so bold, that would change the character- and the outcome- of elections to come?

The Red States are the Poor States, you scratch any problem deep enough and you'll probably find the real problem is insufficient funds. The Republicans can say whatever they want, right now they're in STEAL mode. When all the money is long gone, and the Democrats are back in charge, they pivot to OBSTRUCT mode. Gaming the system is as American as Cherry Pie.

Locks keep the honest people out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

The Red States are the Poor States, you scratch any problem deep enough and you'll probably find the real problem is insufficient funds.

---

I think this is a misleading generalization. For example, a survey did find that most of the poorest counties in the US are in Red States, but that rural areas tend to be poor anyway and Red States have more rural communities than Blue States-

Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...es-red-states/

On the other hand there is the argument:
Go somewhere with low tax burdens, light regulation, and limited government, young man. Grow up with your country in a red state.

That’s the conclusion of the annual “Rich States, Poor States” report from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, set to be released Tuesday.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...utlook-in-2018

But then,
In 2012, Kansas did what Donald Trump wants to do: it introduced huge tax cuts to try to boost growth. Today, the state is out of money – and residents are angry
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nomic-disaster

Maybe it is a question of competence in the management of other people's money, and who you think does it best? The Republicans with their trillion dollar defence addiction, or the Democrats and their welfare programmes....or maybe it ain't that stark.

Here is a thought, though I may have expressed it before: Democrats should focus their energies on reforming the electoral system, to get people in a representative democracy doing that most basic thing denied to them, in this case, in Texas: Voting.

Imagine, the two lowest turnouts for Mayoral elections:
Fort Worth, pop. 850-900,000, voter turnout: 6%
Dallas, pop 1.493 million, voter turnout: 6%

For young voters [in Forth Worth] the statistics are even more alarming: turnout among 18- to 34-year-olds in the city is currently running at 1.5%.

Are these figures accurate?
Now add in people being sent to prison for voting and you prompt a repeat: how many not voting? Going to prison if they do?
Yup, because the law is vague and this poor woman had no idea she had been removed from the register, and even though she cast a provisional vote that wasn't counted, she still faces the prospect of jail time.

This is not democracy, but discrimination. And who was it said the elections are rigged?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-years-prison

Visits to Africa by politicians in their official role:

President of the USA: 0
Theresa May: 1
Angela Merkel: 4
Emmanuel Macron: 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

…..Democrats should focus their energies on reforming the electoral system, to get people in a representative democracy doing that most basic thing denied to them...

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Democrats will be back in 2020, I think if Trump has two semis worth of charges against him, we could get Medicare for all, good Healthcare for the rich, and excellent healthcare for the Saudis that fly in on their Lear jets. That's as good as it gets. Johnson gave us Medicare and Civil Rights, but at a terrific political cost, the Republicans rode Obamacare from 2010-2016. Backlash against Obamacare was their only real platform. But it was enough to get back the House and Senate. Politics was never meant to be a 24/7 expedition, the Republicans did that and they need to be punished for it.

If everybody voted, Democrats would control everything, say the political gurus. Freedom is a double edged sword.
Trump and the Republicans are in charge of everything, they have a following of voters that forgive all sins, the economy is booming, and yet the sky is falling on them.

I'd advise the Dems to lay low, and try to win over the floundering Republican voters.

They sure don't make Republicans like John McCain anymore, it's all about money now, and it will only get worse.

Tonight's Lament....
I still have a couple Newspapers from when Kennedy was shot. One is the Washington Star, a newspaper delivered in the afternoon by paperboys. Long time ago, Kimosabe.
If Mueller can prove Putin had Trump over a barrel, and Trump actually gave up State Secrets, or covered for him in Syria, did favors, anything, ...that newspaper I would save.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Tonight's Lament....
I still have a couple Newspapers from when Kennedy was shot. One is the Washington Star, a newspaper delivered in the afternoon by paperboys. Long time ago, Kimosabe.
If Mueller can prove Putin had Trump over a barrel, and Trump actually gave up State Secrets, or covered for him in Syria, did favors, anything, ...that newspaper I would save.

---

You are assuming that the report of the Special Counsel will see the light of day. This is what an article in Vox stated in July:

Mueller is only required by law to deliver a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation. And Rosensteinhas no obligation to send the report to Congress or tell the public about it. Which means much of what Mueller uncovers may remain a secret.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/19/...a-final-report

In the last 11 hours (ie, overnight in the UK), the President's lawyer Rudolph Giuliani has not only endorsed the view that the report may remain secret but argued the President could cite 'Executive Privilege' as the reason. But, this being Giuliani, he also said the President is preparing a rebuttal report which is already 58 pages long.

It also comes days after Giuliani told the Daily Beast that Trump's legal team is almost finished with a “voluminous” report aimed at discrediting Mueller.
“The first half of it is 58 pages, and second half isn't done yet. … It needs an executive summary if it goes over a hundred,” Giuliani told the Beast.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...eleasing-final

But surely that cannot be published either as it would reveal to the public what it is in the Mueller report the President doesn't want you to see! Makes you wonder how much Giuliani is charging his client and whether or not he is going to advise him to keep his own report secret.

The details that the President wants out of the public view relate to his financial history, with regard to the flow of money from Russia to the US, and the tax paid on that income-or not paid, as the case might be. If we know one thing, it is that the President has an obsession with his money that may be more important than anything in his life other than his phenomenal belief in himself as the greatest and most popular President in history. The closer anyone gets to the truth about his money, the further away those irritating things called 'the people' will be from learning the truth about their glorious President. And you can be sure Mitch McConnell will defend the President in his attempt to turn the whole of the Mueller investigation into a non-event. The primary aim right now is to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as the new Justice on the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You are assuming that the report of the Special Counsel will see the light of day....

---

It seems nobody is really sure what the rules are, we're plowing some new legal ground here. If you listen to Rudy on any particular day, you here different stories, one is that Rosenstein or whoever could just take the report from Mueller and lock it in a safe. Or just end the Investigation. In which case that night at 9PM the entire Mueller team would be on Rachel Maddow's show spilling their guts, which would be even worse for Trump in the Court of Public Opinion. Trump is large and in charge, holds all the cards, but as every President has found in the past, that is a made-up reality they write for job descriptions. Hitler said it best, in a Democracy, FDR fights with one hand tied behind his back. It made no sense to Hitler, and it makes no sense to Trump.

We really don't know what's going on, which gives every voter a chance to use his or her imagination to fill in the blanks. If Mueller truly found out that Putin had compromised Trump, all these failsafes would probably occur that very day, limiting what Trump was told, in case he passes a thumb drive to Putin when they're alone for two hours at Helsinki. Maybe all of Trump's daily briefings are fake news. Who knows?

He who laughs last laughs best, after Mueller comes St Peter, but first we have to find out what Kavanaugh thinks about all this. Oy!

You would think Trump would be cracking up by now, acting squirrely or giving himself away in falsehoods. I wonder how many people outside his family he's told the truth to? Is Mike Pence even curious? There are tons of open questions and possible outcomes. And then there's the problem of the 50 million people who voted for Trump. They knew he was an asshole when they voted for him.
https://image.ibb.co/i3XQHz/00.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Trump is large and in charge, holds all the cards, but as every President has found in the past, that is a made-up reality they write for job descriptions. Hitler said it best, in a Democracy, FDR fights with one hand tied behind his back. It made no sense to Hitler, and it makes no sense to Trump.

---

I don't know why Hitler has to get into every discussion we have on politics, and his comment is nonsense anyway. It is up to a President to create a working relationship with Congress so they can produce the legislation that Americans want and need, it does not have to be a confrontational relationship at all. In other words, two hands shaking others not one hand tied behind the back.

As for the President, he does not hold all the cards, as he is not an Autocrat or a dictator. Congress can make demands, and change the rules if it can to ensure no President can hide behind 'Executive Privilege' if that means breaking the law and getting away with it, for the simple reason that nobody is above the law in the USA.

What you need is an opposition that works, rather than barks. Or whines, in the case of Dianne Feinstein who on today's evidence has as much impact as a paper bag falling to the floor. Pathetic really.

Citing Hitler is usually goes with a losing argument, but I am a loser, so I can say Hitler made the USA a Superpower and England a Tourist Destination. No Offence, Mate. The Democrat's Face is Pelosi, Schumer, maybe Clinton and Biden. All Yesterday's Papers. They should run Mark Warner and get back on the Obama trail, this time with a better economy. Trump is going down, Pence is a wimp, but Conservative Media calls the shots, it is fantastically great that they've hitched their wagon to a Traitor. Could a Shemale Fap Site with zero women back an ugly Woman President? Maybe Lysistrata will run. If Women started their own Party, they'd win everything.

Should the President of the USA have the right to not only tell a private company how to run its business, but threaten it if it does not do as he says? And in the case of Apple, is the President right to claim that if Apple moves all of its production to the it will pay 'zero tax'? Does that apply to all private companies, or is it in the gift of the President to make those decisions?

Well, at least it proves yet again that this President does not believe in markets, or maybe just doesn't understand how they work, and that government knows best. Hang on, why not take over Apple and make it a Federally owned company? Then the President can make all the decisions, because he is making American great again -right?

https://www.ft.com/content/e9caf2c2-...3-ccd7de085ffe

In the comments to the FT article I linked above is another link, to an interview with Tim Cook which gives an important and different perspective on Apple in China from what is often thought to be the basis of the relationship: cheap labour. This is what Cook says:

"The number one reason why we like to be in China is the people. China has extraordinary skills. And the part that's the most unknown is there's almost 2 million application developers in China that write apps for the iOS App Store. These are some of the most innovative mobile apps in the world, and the entrepreneurs that run them are some of the most inspiring and entrepreneurial in the world. Those are sold not only here but exported around the world."
Highly skilled software developers developing apps for the App Store are one reason Apple likes to be in China. But the depth of highly skilled labor in the manufacturing space is why Apple makes its iPhones there:

"China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they're a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously it's the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people."
https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/...you-think.html

Another prompt to policy makers in the USA: education is your future. Your future prosperity depends on the education you provide for your people, of all ages.

I don't know who this weirdo is or how he got into the White House, but I think he is in urgent need of help. And no, I am not referring to the President...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUqv8LTkw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't know who this weirdo is or how he got into the White House

---

Because he's a useful idiot - "See, how can I be a racist when this famous black guy loves me?". Trump never tires of hearing people praise him, but you can virtually see him thinking - "How long am I going to have to sit here feigning interest in this drivel?"

There is a nexus between Trump's rhetoric and the shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh that is very strong. There have always been conspiracy theorists and neo-nazis who have occupied small corners of the internet and fantasized about harming minorities but on some level they're aware of their own crankiness and I believe even embarrassed by how disgusting they are.

The conspiracy theorist usually knows at some deep level that they're ridiculous. It's why Alex Jones claimed to merely be an entertainer in court. It's why part of the David Irving trial involved proving that he deliberately distorted the record. They really harbor doubts about their own bullshit that they rarely admit to.

When you have a President spreading conspiracy theories about Jews trafficking people in Central America and a rich Jew magically influencing events, some of that doubt is bound to vanish. If you asked me whether the deadliest anti-semitic attack would have occurred without Donald Trump and the Republicans rhetoric, I am surprised that I think the answer is no. And I say this in spite of the fact that hateful attacks are occasionally pereptrated against every community even without a racist president.

The man who committed this attack held the same worldview as Trump, with this ridiculous and artificial distinction between globalist and nationalist and the toxic Soros rhetoric. He only believed Trump wasn't extreme enough. But I think it was important for him to see someone whose worldview was somewhat proximate...it made him hopeful that all of the garbage he believed could have a grain of truth.

This comes on the heels of a white supremacist attack on two African-Americans in a Kroger and an attempted terrorist attack against influential Democrats. The danger is to validate the delusions of sick people. There is something to be said about a man in power who has made it clear that if you're a racist, he is not your enemy and will not oppose you except in the vaguest and most general terms.

Meanwhile in the right-wing media echo chamber, it's all the fault of the mainstream media and Trump is the real victim. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...b-scare-940825

It's significant that whenever a Muslim kills or tries to kill others it's readily described as an act of terrorism, but whenever a right-wing extremist does the same he's just a deranged individual. There's a real reluctance to call political terrorism for what it is. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/28/18032...yn-kelly-fired

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It's significant that whenever a Muslim kills or tries to kill others it's readily described as an act of terrorism, but whenever a right-wing extremist does the same he's just a deranged individual. There's a real reluctance to call political terrorism for what it is. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/28/18032...yn-kelly-fired

---

The media has to figure out what it seeks to gain by using the term. If it is just a term to describe whether someone is part of an organized effort to use violence to further a political message, then white supremacists qualify. If it's enough to say someone is part of Al Qaeda because they are "radicalized" by reading online material and getting logistical support then it is enough to say this person received the same from neo-nazis and is a domestic terrorist. Any responsible law enforcement agency would use every legal means to monitor the groups in which this man moved.

Trump tweets says this
“The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly,” he tweeted. “Fake News Must End!”
But should say this
“The Fox News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly,” he tweeted. “Fox News Must End!”

Nbc just projected that the Democrats have taken the house. Nate Silver's model still has them only at an 88% chance of winning but it's been oscillating all over the place. The Republicans ran some of the most despicable people for Congress I've ever seen and were pretty vocal about trying to discourage segments of our population from voting.

In the short-term winning the House means subpoena power for the House investigation and that the Republicans will not be able to take health care away from people for at least two more years. More to come...

I'm wary of early calls after the 2000 election, but it looks like the outcome will be as expected. I feel more relieved than elated. It's disappointing that there hasn't been a more decisive rejection of Trump.

Why are there such long queues at US elections? In Australia I've never had to wait more than a few minutes to vote.

I see NYT is predicting an 8% popular vote margin to the Democrats. In a normal democracy that would be a landslide victory and a decisive rejection of Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm wary of early calls after the 2000 election, but it looks like the outcome will be as expected. I feel more relieved than elated. It's disappointing that there hasn't been a more decisive rejection of Trump.

Why are there such long queues at US elections? In Australia I've never had to wait more than a few minutes to vote.

---

My polling place was in an urban area and I didn't have a long wait but some polling places reported extremely long waits. Republicans have an incentive to make the process tougher as we know. Trump even tweeted that law enforcement would be watching for illegal voters which was a transparent attempt at intimidation.

It is disappointing that it's not a bigger blue wave like we expected but honestly I'm happy with the win in the House.

I'm curious if anyone knows about the repeal of the felon disenfranchisement law in Florida. It sounds like it's not only a just thing but also something that could have a big impact in future elections.

As for the 8% margin, I saw a chart earlier in the night that compared it to other large swing years. In a country that's pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, that is a statement. But still, as you indicate, one would expect more given what we're dealing with here.

She's baa-a-a-ack!!

https://image.ibb.co/ebrBiV/00.jpg

A few heartaches, but Americans who haven't lost their mind now have enough to define the next two years and maybe, maybe set up a real defining moment in 2020. I can dream, can't I?

It's a damn shame about the Senate, I admit I was hoping for a miracle.


Will Trump start firing people tomorrow? DE-FENCE! DE-FENCE!
this next two years is gonna be thick, man. I worked on my Movie Library this week so as not to jinx the election, it was relaxing.....

It's looking like Trump in the next two years is going to be even more unhinged than he was in the last two.
- With an increased Senate majority and fewer moderate Republicans in Congress he has less need to worry about keeping them on side.
- He seems to have convinced himself that his mid-term strategy of ramping up anti-immigrant rhetoric worked.
- His normal response to feeling threatened is to go on the attack and double down on playing to his support base.

It's true that some past presidents have come back from even worse mid-term setbacks to win a second term (eg Clinton, Obama), but it seems less likely Trump can repeat that.
- In those cases the president came into office after a recession and was helped by an improving economy. With unemployment now at 3.7%, there is more chance that the economy will get worse over the next two years rather than improve.
- The Trump/Republican strategy relies on appealing to a fairly narrow support base, notably older and less-educated whites. Even with electoral manipulation this does not look like a winning long-term strategy. Doubling down on appealing to this base is likely to alienate further the people who moved away from the Republicans in the mid-terms, particularly suburbanites.

Of course many things can happen in two years, and it is possible that developments could play into Trump's hands by stoking peoples' fears. Democrats will also need to play it smart by focusing on the most important things and not continually responding to Trump's baiting.

Why does the President of the United States never miss an opportunity to insult and abuse Americans, particuarly veterans with years of service to their country?

Because he is a despicable Traitor.
In 2016 the US was attacked by the Russian Federation which targeted the American running for the Presidency as the Democrat Party's nominee -Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Republican candidate and his team discovered the Russians were attacking the USA they had a legal and a moral obligation to defend the USA from external attack but publicly joined the attack on the USA even begging the Russians to help them attack America. He is a Traitor and is going to gaol.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...40462848098304
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/sta...418437/photo/1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5c57c9684d9e

And when California is ravaged by forest fires, people dead, their homes destroyed why is the natural reaction of one Head of State -the President of the USA- zero empathy, abuse, and threats to cut Federal funding in the State concerned, when the natural reaction of the Head of State in the UK was to consider the victims and first responders?

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/11/p...ets/index.html

Prince Philip and I offer our deepest sympathies to the people of California, who continue to suffer from the devastating fires across the state.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the victims, and to all those who have lost their homes and livelihoods. I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the US emergency services and the volunteers that have provided support.

- Elizabeth R