Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.

But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

It’s 0.36%.

And the poverty rate is ~16%, ranked 16th highest amongst the states.

Lower than you claimed percentage wise and off by a lot by ranking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
16th is a lot better than worst and 16% is considerably off from 1 in 5.

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

It’s 0.36%.

And the poverty rate is ~16%, ranked 16th highest amongst the states.

Lower than you claimed percentage wise and off by a lot by ranking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
16th is a lot better than worst and 16% is considerably off from 1 in 5.

Yeah I knew when someone mentioned the homeless bit was wrong and I realized it when the comments came flooding in.

I thought it was about 20% for the poverty rate rather then 16%, thanks for the correction!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.

Your pessimism is turning you into an alarmist. We stopped discussing gun control several pages ago when abortion became the new issue du jour (which generated a mod warning) and now we’re discussing the pros and cons of living in California. Chill out and enjoy the ride.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Your pessimism is turning you into an alarmist. We stopped discussing gun control several pages ago when abortion became the new issue du jour (which generated a mod warning) and now we’re discussing the pros and cons of living in California. Chill out and enjoy the ride.

Sorry, real life is keeping me from keeping up.

Is the housing market really as bad as they are making it seem in the news out in California? Or is it just mainly bad in the cities?

 Ustrello wrote:
Is the housing market really as bad as they are making it seem in the news out in California? Or is it just mainly bad in the cities?

Pretty much the city and the immediate surrounding suburbs.

'Tis why apartment/condo style living is going nutso there... not that it's THAT much cheaper.

You can still get decent land out in the boonies if you can work from home or don't mind the drive (meaning, you don't mind the 3-4am drive time).

d-usa wrote:Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.

But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?

Weren't there some articles about cities (or states?) renting busses to dump their homeless people into California? I think I read about something like that.

Mario wrote:

d-usa wrote:Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.

But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?

Weren't there some articles about cities (or states?) renting busses to dump their homeless people into California? I think I read about something like that.

Cities at times buy the homeless one way bus tickets, plausible deniability and they can't get back unless they get another bus ticket.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.

But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?

I was born and lived in NYC for 25 years, and let me tell you, I have to believe being homeless in California would be a huge upgrade over New York winters.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?

I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.

The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.

And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?

I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.

The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.

And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.

How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.

 thekingofkings wrote:
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.

The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.

Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.

So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.

The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.

Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.

So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.

I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?

I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.

The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.

And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.

How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.

Again, point to the period in history where humanity achieved this level of restraint and wisdom.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.

But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?

I was born and lived in NYC for 25 years, and let me tell you, I have to believe being homeless in California would be a huge upgrade over New York winters.

From my experience with the homeless in OKC, it seems like a fair number are transient. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a population that migrated to a place where the climate may be more friendly to the homeless.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.

The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.

Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.

So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.

I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.

It takes the efforts of more than 2 people to make insurance work. And again welcome to being part of a society where you have to pay for things you don't want or use (i.e. roads you don't use, fire fighters/police/utility workers that aren't in your county, national parks, etc).

And I assume your ignoring cases of rape because they don't fit in your magical bubble of "pregnancy is easy to avoid.:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.

The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.

Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.

So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.

I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.

It takes the efforts of more than 2 people to make insurance work. And again welcome to being part of a society where you have to pay for things you don't want or use (i.e. roads you don't use, fire fighters/police/utility workers that aren't in your county, national parks, etc).

And I assume your ignoring cases of rape because they don't fit in your magical bubble of "pregnancy is easy to avoid.:

Your deliberately misconstrueing and obfuscating and thats whay debating is almost meaningless, you know full well the point I am making, if the best you can do is the standard "well what about" ignoring that there are always special circumstances to everything then you are wasting my time and effort.

Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.

 Ustrello wrote:
Is the housing market really as bad as they are making it seem in the news out in California? Or is it just mainly bad in the cities?

Yes to both questions.

 d-usa wrote:
Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.

to a point you are right, but there are differences in what society should and shouldn't have to pay for. There has to be a line drawn and I am pretty much not in favor of that kind of personal business being made into public business. IF we had a single payer health care system, that would change my argument, I am ok with funding planned parenthood provided they help the "plannnig" part as well.

 d-usa wrote:
Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.

Yeah, when the argument is based on that idea it doesn't really matter what kind of spin gets put on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.

And if you don't want to get in a car accident, don't drive. Have to get to work? Start walking. So we shouldn't pay for people's injuries in car accidents either.

Besides, if you really want to get into that it would be better to start with drug use or alcoholism on the 'I shouldn't pay for it' front.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.

Or just leave off gun control...

You're deliberately avoiding any attempt at debate in order to maintain your position. Please give me an example of things I have misconstrued or been obfuscating. Your only defense against the insurance comparison so far is not understanding how it actually works, other than that you've just either ignored

To reiterate, other people pay for your insurance, and you already pay for things you don't use, but only have a problem when it comes to birth control or abortion.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.

Or just leave off gun control...

Or don’t be stupid when talking gun control.

 Frazzled wrote:
I had heard something like that. Do you have more color?

I went looking for the original piece when I wrote that post, to make sure I had my details right and to include the name of the project management company that was burned. The problem is there's now been so many articles written on Trump burning other businesses I couldn't find that exact one again.

Another way Trump is weirdly kind of protected by the sheer scale of his crappiness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

The point for Republicans is they're going in to election in a few months with an underwater president and a list of legislative achievements that consists of;

1. A tax cut for that is mostly for the rich that is broadly hated.
2. That is all.

So instead they're looking to refocus the debate on every wedge issue they can. Abortion is being added alongside guns & immigration as the Republicans way of doing everything they can to get their base motivated. And it will work up to a point, and close the gap from what we've seen in the disastrous special elections. It probably won't work well enough to prevent a really strong Democratic result, but it will help Republicans reduce the enthusiasm gap.

But yeah, this is legislation purely engineered for a political end. And if you look at this thread, it's clearly worked. Look at the list of posters who just quietly stopped turning up while conversation was focused on Trump's never ending list of scams and screw ups. The only conservatives still posting here are anti-Trump. But when abortion is raised and suddenly they return in full force. It's how Republicans will bring them back to the ballot box, same as so many times before (including 2016). And then when nothing is done on abortion, they don't even notice. It's an amazing scam.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Cities at times buy the homeless one way bus tickets, plausible deniability and they can't get back unless they get another bus ticket.

IIRC a former police chief of New York was speaking at some police seminar here in Finland a lot of years ago, and he did speak about the homeless problem. The city bought them tickets for the ferry to New Jersey, there was no more homeless problem in New York and everyone who counts (ie not New Jersey) was happy for ever after. When asked what became of the homeless after they were dumped in New Jersey he basically shrugged and said, well, they're not our problem anymore are they. Problem solved!

Besides, hasn't Hawaii done this too? Once there's too many homeless (but non-violent and not criminal) people on the tourist beaches the authorities pay them air fare to go the hell away from Hawaii so there's more room for tourists who don't want to see homeless people on the beach.

 whembly wrote:
It's good politics to give informed, reasonable explanations. I'm not disputing that. But, in this case, all she had to say was the POTUS wanted to go a different direction with someone else.

Sure, hypothetically Trump could have given a different answer which would have been sufficient. But he didn't, he has given the answer he did. And we deal with reality, and so we talk about the reason Trump did give, which is an obvious lie, and we don't bother to talk about the 10,000 hypothetical reasons Trump might have given which wouldn't have been such obvious lies.

No, because all the Executive power is vested in the POTUS. ALL.OF.IT.

That is miles apart from my point, please read the argument I'm actually given. I am not for one second debating the extent of presidential powers.

I am pointing out that when someone gives a weak reason, then refuses to give the most basic details expanding on that reason, it is obvious that person is lying about their reason. That's it. That's the point. That it is obvious Trump is lying about his reason for firing Comey, and it is so obvious that Trump's real motive is one he is concealing from the public.

As such a POTUS simply exercising the office's Article II power in hiring or firing political positions in Executive Branch by definition can't be obstruction of justice.

That's purebred nonsense. Just because something doesn't have to have a good reason doesn't mean that it can't be illegal when it's done for a bad reason. A private employer in an at will state can fire employees for no good reason, but if it's proven that a person was fired because they're black then that's an offense that will get the employer in a lot of trouble.

A much stronger case for obstruction, is for Trump to asking people in his orbit to lie for him under oath of an ongoing investigation... and, let's be honest, there's a high likelihood of that happening, as I'm willing to be that he did that with Mike Flynn... and why Flynn is cooperating and only got ding'ed on process crime.

They're not mutually exclusive, in fact they're complimentary. Proving each helps makes the case for the other even stronger.

Think of it this way, if Trump was accused of telling Flynn etc to lie for him, but at the same time Trump fired Comey while inquiring as to how to make sure the Russia investigation continued in full force under a new director, the accusations of the lies would look much weaker. Similarly, if Trump fired Comey but was also telling all his staff to co-operate fully with the investigation, then Trump's motivation for firing Comey wouldn't be as clear.

But as Trump fired Comey and is reported to have told staff to lie to investigators, well then we see a pattern of behaviour consistent with an intent to obstruct justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And... CNN is reporting Trump just threw Guiliani under the bus... That he didn't have all the facts on the case. Guiliani should quickly use this as an excuse to bail.

Definitely, the smart move for Giuliani now would be use Trump's statements as a way to get out. However, we're not looking at a smart Giuliani anymore, because a smart Giuliani wouldn't have taken the job, nor launched a media blitz with only a hazy understanding of Trump's defense and the legal ramifications for changing that defense on the fly.

This is not the Giuliani of 20 years ago. This Giuliani thinks he's doing great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.

Just as a point of detail, Giuliani joining now is only switching in to an official, paid position. He's been part of the Trump set up since part way through the primaries. Giuliani gave one of the craziest speeches at the convention, and man did he beat out some competition to claim that honour. And Giuliani himself was actually under investigation for his own part in the campaign, in the day's before Trump's Clinton/Weiner announcement, Giuliani was putting out statements indicating he knew the NY FBI office had more of Clinton's emails, leading to a leaking investigation. That's a big deal as its believed Giuliani was working with others to pressure Comey in to announcing a re-opening on the investigation just days before the election.

Some time after Comey was fired that investigation appears to have been quietly killed. Funny that.

So yeah, Giuliani has just taken an official role with Trump, but he's been in this deep for a long time now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
This is my shocked face:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/devin-nunes-electronic-communication/index.html

Nunes has done the most amazingly unsubtle job of abusing his power to protect Trump. And thing is, he's got Trey Gowdy right there, to show him how to be a partisan hack who abuses committee powers to serve his political team without making it too obvious. So Gowdy will actually read the documents they made such a big show of demanding (but still act with no regard to their content), and he will give his blather statements saying Mueller's investigation is important (while doing nothing to protect that investigation, and while signing off on the pure junk of the House committee finding).

But Nunes is too lazy to even put a figleaf over his intent to corrupt the committee.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.

Just as a point of detail, Giuliani joining now is only switching in to an official, paid position. He's been part of the Trump set up since part way through the primaries. Giuliani gave one of the craziest speeches at the convention, and man did he beat out some competition to claim that honour. And Giuliani himself was actually under investigation for his own part in the campaign, in the day's before Trump's Clinton/Weiner announcement, Giuliani was putting out statements indicating he knew the NY FBI office had more of Clinton's emails, leading to a leaking investigation. That's a big deal as its believed Giuliani was working with others to pressure Comey in to announcing a re-opening on the investigation just days before the election.

Some time after Comey was fired that investigation appears to have been quietly killed. Funny that.

So yeah, Giuliani has just taken an official role with Trump, but he's been in this deep for a long time now.

Speaking of Rudy:
"So did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the President?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"I have no knowledge of that, but I would think if it was necessary, yes," Giuliani replied. "He made payments for the President or he's conducted business for the President, which means he had legal fees, monies laid out and expenditures."

Yeah, that statement's not gonna go over too well. Sure, he's not really admitting anything, but, damn, did he leave a hole big enough to drive a mining truck through.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Or just leave off gun control...

Or don’t be stupid when talking gun control.

Yeah, like either of those is gonna happen.

Have we spent any time at all talking about how the Republican party that a couple of years ago tried to label Obama as an elitist because he ordered fancy mustard, but is now trying to argue that paying $130k to a mistress is just the kind of thing that happens? I mean, can anyone think of a single thing the Republicans said or did from 2008-16 that hasn't been shown as complete hypocrisy by their actions during the Trump era? Just one thing where the claims of the GOP when out of power under Obama match their actions in power under Trump. A single thing... I can't think of one.

 whembly wrote:
So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?

No, we are saying there is a difference between manipulations of the truth, and bald-faced lies. It is accepted that people will present the best possible truth they can, and will even make some stuff up where nothing to the alternative can be proven. That isn't just true of press secretaries or politicians, it's true of everyone. But it's also very different to someone who will just make up total bs that's in complete opposition to reality. The former has limits, there's only so far that facts can be stretched, and if caught a person will back down on the claim. The latter has no such limit, especially when a person is so shameless they don't even back down when they're caught in the lie.

Sanders is the second kind of liar, as is her boss, they don't twist the truth, but instead make up complete and total fantasy bs, and when it's shown this is total fantasy, they don't back down, because they have no shame. Doing this is wildly different to the normal operation of manipulation.

And you know this difference. If you went to buy a car you'd know the difference between being told the car has an amazing mileage, and being told the car is so efficient the petrol in it now is all you will ever need for the 10,000 year life of the car. You know, because you're a grown adult capable of functioning in the world. And yet, because this is just politics and there's no direct harm to you for believing preposterous nonsense, you pretend that just for this one instance you don't know the distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, they succeeded in having so much gak out there that nobody is really talking about Scott Pruitt probably illegally skimming from his Oklahoma campaign funds, Pence's White House doctor resigning over issues with the former Trump physician, the VA running out of money, etc etc etc.

Katy Tur was in Australia last week doing the media circuit here. On one panel show I saw she gave the example of Trump's countless scandals as being like a stain on a shirt. Just one stain on an otherwise clean and that stain is all anyone sees. But Trump is like a shirt that's got so many stains, with more added everyday that you don't notice any single stain, and maybe you don't even notice how bad a stain is because all you have to compare it to is all the other stains surrounding it.

I mean, last week we learned that the doctor's bill of health we got from Trump's doctor during the campaign wasn't written by the doctor, but was actually dictated to him by Trump. And afterwards Trump's goons came and took all of Trump's medical records from the doctor's office. And it was barely a story at all.

Can anyone imagine how big a story that would be if any other president did it? Even if Nixon had done it, it would have been such a brazen, dishonest act that it would have shocked. But for Trump it barely makes a dent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The US is, and has always been, exceptionally great and mind-bendingly stupid at the same time (more so than the average huamn society, I mean). Isn't it kind of funny that we can be so much of both at the same time? At least I find that a man with one leg of an Olympic athelete and one leg of a polio victim manages to not only compete, but excel, hilarious on a certain philosophical level.

An interesting stat I heard on the radio this morning - the five biggest companies in the US are Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon. They're all new tech, future focused companies. Take the same list for any other country on earth and you will see old, established manufacturing, resource extraction, conglomerates etc. At the same timeyour president just sold people on his candidacy because he's a super businessman when all he does is used inherited, borrowed and maybe laundered money to buy a series of minimally profitable golf courses.

The US is all at once the biggest success story on the planet and geared for so much more success, and it's also completely dysfunctional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/05/trump-team-hired-spy-firm-dirty-ops-iran-nuclear-deal?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_reddit_is_fun

Oh boy I wonder where the whataboutism machine will take us with this one,

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.

There's no defense possible here, so Trump and his team will just go quiet on this one, FOX News and the rest of the state propaganda will go black on it, and a week from now we'll have had three more scandals and this will be completely forgotten about.

And about 40% of American adults will carry on supporting Trump and his collection of goons, because one side of US politics is utterly broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.

Remember during the Obama years, when conservatives couldn't stop talking about how each of the 50 states was like a lab, where experiments could be run and the success stories could be enacted in other states or federally? It was often brought up by conservatives who were so bullish about Kansas' tax cuts, and were so eagerly awaiting California's high regs and high taxes to make the whole place fall over.

Funny how all of a sudden not one of those conservatives talks about paying attention to the effectiveness of state policies any more. The lessons of Kansas dismal failure and California's continued success are just ignored, and instead conservatives just pushed ahead with their own 'cut taxes and get around to cutting spending later' strategy.

And now a handful of conservatives are expressing surprise that despite the tax cut investment hasn't changed, while the rest just aren't mentioning it at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
And still the highest poverty rate of the nation with one in five being being poor and a quarter of the nations homeless.

Trash argument. First up that figure needs to differentiate between actual destitution, and people who are employed but can't afford their own place, California has a lot of both kinds. The former due in large part to California's weather drawing homeless people there from harsher climates, while the latter is due mostly to California's economic success, high paying, desirable jobs are drawing people to California, to such an extent that housing construction can't keep up (and also there's some pretty chronic NIMBY planning issues).

If you look at less cherry picked measures of economic prosperity, like median income, California is 9th in the US, ahead of it are states dominated by wealthy cities, like NY & Virginia, and also Alaska.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Speaking of Rudy:
"So did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the President?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"I have no knowledge of that, but I would think if it was necessary, yes," Giuliani replied. "He made payments for the President or he's conducted business for the President, which means he had legal fees, monies laid out and expenditures."

Yeah, that statement's not gonna go over too well. Sure, he's not really admitting anything, but, damn, did he leave a hole big enough to drive a mining truck through.

It's pure speculation, but there's talk that comment is part of new cover these guys are being forced to invent. Thing is, Mueller now almost certainly has records of the money that went from Trump to Cohen, and there's a figure floating around being something north of $700k. Explaining that transfer from Trump to Cohen as being payoffs for mistresses is maybe the least harmful explanation people will believe, while the truth is something very different.

Because, remember the Steele document, Michael Cohen played a huge role in that. He was accused of being integral to the mechanics of the plan, particularly his meeting with Russian officials in Prague (Cohen gave which he gave a strong but evidence free denial of the meeting, and reporting in McClatchy has since reported Mueller has evidence the meeting did happen). And here's a very interesting timeline for you;
July 7-8: Carter Page goes to Moscow, and despite his denials it is revealed he met with high ranking Russian officials.
July 9-17: Michael Cohen goes on 'vacation' to Italy, which is part of the Eurozone and would allow travel to Prague without a passport stamp.
July 18-21: The 2016 Republican National Convention, where Trump's team make their big push to get the GOP to change their stance on Russian action in the Ukraine.

Thing is, the Steele dossier also stated that Trump's team, not Russia, was responsible for paying most of the Romanian hackers. So is that what all that money was for? And was Cohen's role and his meeting in Prague not just about confirming co-ordination ops, but actually getting the money to that one hacking group?

We don't know and what we have is speculation, but it's entirely believable. And even just being believable says something very damning.