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.
BaronIveagh wrote: What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.
We have no Enemy. The Moon landing was an international dick measuring contest. If people could come up with a scenario where we can rub our success in someone's face, the US would have a great healthcare system.
A dick measuring contest in which the US was the only participant, even. Nobody bothered to inform the Soviets that there was supposed to be a race to the Moon. The Soviets did not even have a seriously developed moon program. But if the US would build the world's best healthcare, they could rub it into everyone's face no problem. It would finally lend some credence to those constant claims that the US is "the greatest country in the world".
What? Of course the USSR was trying to get to the moon, the publicly denied it but they had secret programs trying to do just that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's very short-sighted planning when you get down to the brass tacks of it.
I've been meaning to follow on on something Peregine said to me that's a result of the same mind set. I agree that people aren't where they'd need to be to fill the jobs that are going to happen, and I can again blame the Republicans. There was a major education initiative in the 90s to get people at least vaguely prepared for the major shift in jobs due to automation. It worked here, we lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and while the city isn't doing amazing, we've transitioned heavily to more white collar stuff like software or business services.
This city was a company town too, we had two companies everyone worked at twenty years ago. Literal household names, both of which have since eaten gak and are shells of their former selves hemorrhaging jobs, money and reputation with stupid decisions and a complete lack of foresight outside of their next stockholder meeting. But we've started an upswing lately after about 15 years of free fall slowing to a slower drain.
But, the rest of the country? Doesn't look like the education initiative went that far, while we were learning about calc and general useful stuff, the waver folks were under cutting public schools as best they could, then the charter schools were the rage, and now I'm waiting for republicans to just start bulldozing the things and seeing if anyone cares. For the sake of saving money and being able to inject as much religious indoctrination into schooling as they can. The democrats had ideas, workable ones, in the 90s, and we were progressing with them until Bush, who went for the privatization stupidity. Hint folks, private companies look better because they pay people to make them look better.
Ah hell I can go for hours, I was frustrated enough with my local democrats that I was thinking of running for a few things and looked into it. Yeah, know why everyone in positions is already loaded, I make twice what any elected official in my town does. It's not worth it, and that's infuriating. I'm pretty damned good at taking problems apart and figuring out who needs to do what, but I can't afford to take months off my job to campaign to get myself a pay cut at best. I'm not even particularly well paid for my field, even within the area. How is that not short sighted? Save yourselves a couple grand a year, make sure you get people who already have their own interests in front of yours... just frustrating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/28 15:20:38
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's very short-sighted planning when you get down to the brass tacks of it.
I've been meaning to follow on on something Peregine said to me that's a result of the same mind set. I agree that people aren't where they'd need to be to fill the jobs that are going to happen, and I can again blame the Republicans. There was a major education initiative in the 90s to get people at least vaguely prepared for the major shift in jobs due to automation. It worked here, we lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and while the city isn't doing amazing, we've transitioned heavily to more white collar stuff like software or business services.
This city was a company town too, we had two companies everyone worked at twenty years ago. Literal household names, both of which have since eaten gak and are shells of their former selves hemorrhaging jobs, money and reputation with stupid decisions and a complete lack of foresight outside of their next stockholder meeting. But we've started an upswing lately after about 15 years of free fall slowing to a slower drain.
But, the rest of the country? Doesn't look like the education initiative went that far, while we were learning about calc and general useful stuff, the waver folks were under cutting public schools as best they could, then the charter schools were the rage, and now I'm waiting for republicans to just start bulldozing the things and seeing if anyone cares. For the sake of saving money and being able to inject as much religious indoctrination into schooling as they can. The democrats had ideas, workable ones, in the 90s, and we were progressing with them until Bush, who went for the privatization stupidity. Hint folks, private companies look better because they pay people to make them look better.
Ah hell I can go for hours, I was frustrated enough with my local democrats that I was thinking of running for a few things and looked into it. Yeah, know why everyone in positions is already loaded, I make twice what any elected official in my town does. It's not worth it, and that's infuriating. I'm pretty damned good at taking problems apart and figuring out who needs to do what, but I can't afford to take months off my job to campaign to get myself a pay cut at best. I'm not even particularly well paid for my field, even within the area. How is that not short sighted? Save yourselves a couple grand a year, make sure you get people who already have their own interests in front of yours... just frustrating.
Back in the day, we had programs for offering "technical school" as high school. These schools weren't technical in the sense that students were being prepared for high tech jobs. They were technical in that they downplayed the "college prep" stuff (so English and core humanities courses) in favor of what they deemed job skills, so more heavily reliant on wood, metal and automotive shop classes, home-ec, etc.
Sounds great, right? Well, the programs were shut down basically nationwide because it was found and determined that these programs were being implemented on racial and to a lesser extent, economic lines. If there were a way to equitably reinitiate these types of educational programming, I think many people would be on board with it. . . But I do think a lot would change with a "simple" mindset change. By this I mean that the people who hold certain jobs as "beneath" or "lesser" or designed "for" certain people needs to go away. I think we need to adopt a mindset that all legal work is worthy of at least some form of respect.
Sounds great, right? Well, the programs were shut down basically nationwide because it was found and determined that these programs were being implemented on racial and to a lesser extent, economic lines. If there were a way to equitably reinitiate these types of educational programming, I think many people would be on board with it. . . But I do think a lot would change with a "simple" mindset change. By this I mean that the people who hold certain jobs as "beneath" or "lesser" or designed "for" certain people needs to go away. I think we need to adopt a mindset that all legal work is worthy of at least some form of respect.
I can say that among my brethren in the 'public servant' field, there's a high level of not giving a gak. No one takes any pride in their work anymore, and the system is rigged not just to ignore hard work, but to actively discourage it. I once asked, when going over an employee review, how it was possible they did not meet all the requirements for the medium yearly raise. I was told that they didn't see him meet the requirements every day (no matter what I saw said employee do). 'But, boss, you're not here every day, and even when you are, you never leave your office to look at employees'. 'You see! I don't see anyone do it every day."
So, it's easy to see how even those who genuinely cared about the public when they started can get disillusioned quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW: anyone else notice that the Alt-Reich is pushing a new streaming service now that even Fox has, apparently, started to show them the door?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/28 18:15:45
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Kilkrazy wrote: The core psychology of conservatism is not to like rapid change and we live in an era of change which has only sped up over the past century.
At one point in time I would've said that it is a good thing to have a few good, truly conservative voices in positions of power. . . The ability to move forward should, IMO, be tempered somewhat by someone playing the stick in the mud. . . a sort of nay-sayer/devils advocate kind of role, to ensure that progress isn't just some good idea fairy and this theoretical country turns out about like Greece (wherein they spent far too much in pensions/govt spending, compared to what was being brought in, with a slow/dying economy).
Now. . . I'm honestly not even sure what a "true" conservative would look like. When we use the term in reference to US politics, the term is just as loaded and poisoned as the term "liberal" even though as anyone with an education knows, the US was founded as the most liberal nation on earth. . . Educated people know that there are types and degrees of liberals, etc. etc. I'm not even sure that there are true conservatives in the US, that would legitimately claim, or have outsiders demonstrate that they follow traditional/foundational conservative thought (ie, Burke). But I do know that whatever passes as "conservative" in the US is not good for the country (or anyone else for that matter) and will sadly only be beaten by the one thing they fear the most: education.
Yes. I would certainly agree that fast forwards all the time is not necessarily the best thing for society, that's why we need diversity to get a range of opinions on the table.
The problem perhaps is what "conservatives" in modern day America see as a problem.
One needs only look at some of the hair-brained ideas Democrats come up with that ultimately amount to 'throw money and regulation at it!' without much consideration for practical reality to see why having a conservative counter balance is important. Instead we have a... I guess "Republican" is its own term here because there is not a particular identifier for a political body with partisan politics as its central and only value.
Yes. I would certainly agree that fast forwards all the time is not necessarily the best thing for society, that's why we need diversity to get a range of opinions on the table.
Agreed. It worries me a bit that "progress" seems to have become an end rather than a means, with seemingly nobody questioning where we're progressing to, or if it's actually where we want to end up. It would be nice to have some middle ground between "rewind time to 1950's" and "bright eyed space cadet".
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
BaronIveagh wrote: What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.
We have no Enemy. The Moon landing was an international dick measuring contest. If people could come up with a scenario where we can rub our success in someone's face, the US would have a great healthcare system.
A dick measuring contest in which the US was the only participant, even. Nobody bothered to inform the Soviets that there was supposed to be a race to the Moon. The Soviets did not even have a seriously developed moon program. But if the US would build the world's best healthcare, they could rub it into everyone's face no problem. It would finally lend some credence to those constant claims that the US is "the greatest country in the world".
What? Of course the USSR was trying to get to the moon, the publicly denied it but they had secret programs trying to do just that.
The Soviets were trying, but they they did not try very hard. Initially, after Kennedy set a moon landing as a goal for the US in 1961, Soviet scientists had no interest at all, because of the low scientific value of such a mission, but they eventually did set up a small program several years later, on orders of the government. However it received little funds compared to their other programs. It was not a main priority for the Soviets. When the guy who was the driving force behind the program died in 1966, it resulted in delays in the program causing them to miss their planned 1968 moon landing, and the idea was shelved almost completely. Funds dried up even more after the American moon landing in 1969, but they continued development on a low level until it was eventually cancelled in 1974, despite the efforts of the involved scientists trying to convince their superiors that a manned moon landing had scientific value. As to why the Soviets did not care so much about the space race as the Americans did, from the Soviet point of view they had already won. They had been the first to get into space after all. With that, the space race had ended for the Soviet government and Soviet scientists focused more on projects with high scientific value such as a manned space station to conduct experiments and unmanned missions to Mars and Venus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/28 21:10:30
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.
jouso wrote:one of them being hybrid systems don't really work
I don't know exactly what you mean with a hybrid system but if it's something like we have here in Germany then it can work.
We have regulated health insurance companies so they can't just push you out for "preexisting conditions" (which is the USA seem to start with "you are alive") and do other bs to save money. You are more or less forced to have health insurance and it's not bound to your employers (but they also pay half of the total into it the system on your behalf if you have a job). We also have/allow additional insurances that you can buy on top of that (and your percentage is capped so at some point you don't pay more even if you ear a lot of money, I think). The system also allows for private (and profit driven) insurance companies that often offer more features than what the regular insurance companies offer and are viable for people who earn more money as those are a bit more expensive. But in general the big feature is that all those companies are much heavier regulated then insurance companies in the USA whose main job doesn't seem to be as a health insurance company but as a loophole finder to deny as many payments as possible.
Mario wrote: You are more or less forced to have health insurance and it's not bound to your employers (but they also pay half of the total into it the system on your behalf if you have a job). We also have/allow additional insurances that you can buy on top of that (and your percentage is capped so at some point you don't pay more even if you ear a lot of money, I think).
I may be mis-remembering, or was misinformed, but as I understood the German model/system, the state set a minimum level of employer payment, and that many of the "better" to work for companies compete on employees via opting to pay a higher percentage of the insurance cost? I do remember talking to a local friend when I lived there, and he was saying that his company paid like, 80% of his insurance, rather than the 50/50 required by law.
IMHO, that sort of a system could also help in the US (should we ever adopt the Bismark model, or any other form of public healthcare system)
Mario wrote: You are more or less forced to have health insurance and it's not bound to your employers (but they also pay half of the total into it the system on your behalf if you have a job). We also have/allow additional insurances that you can buy on top of that (and your percentage is capped so at some point you don't pay more even if you ear a lot of money, I think).
I may be mis-remembering, or was misinformed, but as I understood the German model/system, the state set a minimum level of employer payment, and that many of the "better" to work for companies compete on employees via opting to pay a higher percentage of the insurance cost? I do remember talking to a local friend when I lived there, and he was saying that his company paid like, 80% of his insurance, rather than the 50/50 required by law.
IMHO, that sort of a system could also help in the US (should we ever adopt the Bismark model, or any other form of public healthcare system)
It was pretty much the original plan with the ACA and heavily influenced by the German and Swiss systems, but, of course, it needed to be diluted for practical and political reasons. The result was a pretty weird and clunky healthcare reform that wasn't followed by a "step two" due to political backlash. Reforming complex systems can be very harduous in a democracy, especially one with so many check and balance.
Mario wrote: But in general the big feature is that all those companies are much heavier regulated then insurance companies in the USA whose main job doesn't seem to be as a health insurance company but as a loophole finder to deny as many payments as possible.
Correct. They are for-profit companies with the primary goal of making money. Insuring people is simply a means to that end, and accordingly paying out as little as possible is strongly encouraged. A key feature to understand is that this is not sinister corporations manipulating the system but how the system is supposed to work, by design. While Americans will often insist this is wrong and should be changed most of us do not take action to see that done and accordingly it is reasonable to conclude that the American people on the whole deem such practice acceptable regardless of what we may say.
Kilkrazy wrote: The core psychology of conservatism is not to like rapid change and we live in an era of change which has only sped up over the past century.
At one point in time I would've said that it is a good thing to have a few good, truly conservative voices in positions of power. . . The ability to move forward should, IMO, be tempered somewhat by someone playing the stick in the mud. . . a sort of nay-sayer/devils advocate kind of role, to ensure that progress isn't just some good idea fairy and this theoretical country turns out about like Greece (wherein they spent far too much in pensions/govt spending, compared to what was being brought in, with a slow/dying economy).
Now. . . I'm honestly not even sure what a "true" conservative would look like. When we use the term in reference to US politics, the term is just as loaded and poisoned as the term "liberal" even though as anyone with an education knows, the US was founded as the most liberal nation on earth. . . Educated people know that there are types and degrees of liberals, etc. etc. I'm not even sure that there are true conservatives in the US, that would legitimately claim, or have outsiders demonstrate that they follow traditional/foundational conservative thought (ie, Burke). But I do know that whatever passes as "conservative" in the US is not good for the country (or anyone else for that matter) and will sadly only be beaten by the one thing they fear the most: education.
Yes. I would certainly agree that fast forwards all the time is not necessarily the best thing for society, that's why we need diversity to get a range of opinions on the table.
The problem perhaps is what "conservatives" in modern day America see as a problem.
Modern conservatives in the US can basically be distilled as a healthy skepticism towards the government.
As a philosophy, conservatism *is* about caution as kk alludes to... but its much more than that. We tend to be leery of big sweeping promises to change complex systems. We tend to think that society has evolved in a certain way based on innumerable unknowable examples of trial and error. We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
What conservative philosophy does not demand is the unthinking perpetuation of big government programs because “that’s what’s always been done."
While conservative philosophy provides a cautionary note when faced with upsetting long held positions, it is not an unthinking philosophy that compels devotion to the status quo simply because "that's the way it is and has always been". While we are well served by recognizing the dangers and potential costs of change, it does not mean we should be cowed into supporting things we know to be wrong.
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
whembly wrote: We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
And yet you accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, as long as you call them "founding fathers". In fact, not only do you accept it, you make it a core principle of what it means to be conservative.
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
Except when it involves having a bigger military, or obsessing over what bathrooms people use, or whatever the latest conservative desire for government intervention happens to be. People who are consistently conservative by your definition are an irrelevant minority in US politics, if they exist at all. And at that point it's kind of silly to use them as the definition, instead of the larger group of self-identified conservatives whose beliefs do not fall in line with your definition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 07:08:19
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peope doesnt like a big goverment just like they dont like violence. They dont like it when they are the ones doing it, or it affects them directly. But people loves institutionalized and "morally justified" violence/goverment intervention against what they consider negative.
One example, all the anti violence but pro capital punishment, anti big goverment unless it is our goverment, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 09:05:33
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Big government exists because you cannot trust a patchwork of small governments to get things right.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: Modern conservatives in the US can basically be distilled as a healthy skepticism towards the government.
...
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
This all seems like it is based on the unspoken assumption that "the government" and "the people" are two entirely separate bodies, irreconcilably at odds; a sort of Cartesian Dualism applied to philosophy of governance. But in a democratic system, the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". The government is supposedly the means by which the people exercise their collective will, not some malevolent outside force that dictates to the people. Your definition implies that American conservatives don't actually believe in the concept of democratic government at all.
It's like that old saying that conservatives think the government is evil and incompetent, and they want to be able to run the government so they can prove themselves right...
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
whembly wrote: Modern conservatives in the US can basically be distilled as a healthy skepticism towards the government.
...
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
This all seems like it is based on the unspoken assumption that "the government" and "the people" are two entirely separate bodies, irreconcilably at odds; a sort of Cartesian Dualism applied to philosophy of governance. But in a democratic system, the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". The government is supposedly the means by which the people exercise their collective will, not some malevolent outside force that dictates to the people. Your definition implies that American conservatives don't actually believe in the concept of democratic government at all.
Except of course, its not.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Modern conservatives in the US can basically be distilled as a healthy skepticism towards the government.
...
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
This all seems like it is based on the unspoken assumption that "the government" and "the people" are two entirely separate bodies, irreconcilably at odds; a sort of Cartesian Dualism applied to philosophy of governance. But in a democratic system, the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". The government is supposedly the means by which the people exercise their collective will, not some malevolent outside force that dictates to the people. Your definition implies that American conservatives don't actually believe in the concept of democratic government at all.
It's like that old saying that conservatives think the government is evil and incompetent, and they want to be able to run the government so they can prove themselves right...
But they are entirely separate bodies when you don't ignore human nature. Just because you voted/elected for your politician, doesn't mean said politician will perform as you expect.
That's why there are turn over at every election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
whembly wrote: We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
And yet you accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, as long as you call them "founding fathers". In fact, not only do you accept it, you make it a core principle of what it means to be conservative.
They're experts on the Constitutional Republic that we have... and understanding their intent goes a long way.
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
Except when it involves having a bigger military
True.
, or obsessing over what bathrooms people use,
Major overreaction... yes.
or whatever the latest conservative desire for government intervention happens to be.
Conservatives does want an engaged governance, we don't want anarchy.
People who are consistently conservative by your definition are an irrelevant minority in US politics, if they exist at all. And at that point it's kind of silly to use them as the definition, instead of the larger group of self-identified conservatives whose beliefs do not fall in line with your definition.
Irrelevant minority? O.o Sure, there isn't really a "Conservative" wing in the political party (closet is probably the Freedom Caucus)... but, to say that we don't have any "pull" is literally burying your head in the sands....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 14:42:21
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded.
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded. Sponsored Content An Incredible $200 Intro Bonus Just For Using This Card Sponsored By NextAdvisor
“That might be a punishable offense, for all those morons out there,” Giuliani said, referring to members of the media who have reported on the tapes.
Cohen reportedly has more than 150 recorded conversations. Giuliani said Sunday that Trump is discussed at any length in about a dozen of them.
Cohen has reportedly claimed that Trump knew in advance about the 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer, despite the president's repeated claims that he did not know about the get together at Trump Tower.
Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who was present at the meeting, testified before Congress that his father was not aware of the meeting in advance.
Oh okay so colluding with a foreign power to help you win an election is not bad. Got it thank you Giulianai
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday he would allow the federal government to shut down if Democrats do not fund his border wall and back immigration law changes, betting that maintaining a hard line will work in Republicans’ favor in November congressional elections.
However, a disruption in federal government operations could backfire on Trump if voters blame Republicans, who control Congress, for the interruption in services.
“I would be willing to ‘shut down’ government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!” Trump said on Twitter.
Sponsored ADVERTISING
Americans are divided along party lines on immigration, and 81 percent of Republicans approved Trump’s handling of the issue, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this month.
The Republican president has threatened a shutdown several times since taking office in 2017 in a bid to get immigration priorities in congressional spending bills, especially funding for a wall along the southern U.S. border. Trump has asked for $25 billion to build the wall.
“I don’t think it would be helpful, so let’s try to avoid it,” Republican Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Congress must agree on a spending measure to fund the government by a Sept. 30 deadline.
Although Republicans control both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, disagreements between moderates and conservatives in the party have impeded a speedy legislative fix.
Standoffs over spending levels and immigration led to a three-day government shutdown, mostly over a weekend, in January and an hours-long shutdown in February.
The House in June rejected an immigration bill favored by conservative Republicans.
The Republican president has made tougher immigration laws a centerpiece of his administration, from the first ill-fated travel ban on people from predominantly Muslim nations to the current battle raging over the separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.
A federal judge on Friday urged the U.S. government to focus on finding deported immigrant parents whose children remain in the United States.
Of course. Can't have that giant useless wall huh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 15:31:45
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
In what way? For what purpose? What specifically do you want changed?
This might come as a shock to you, but legitimate goal of public policy [i]ought [/i]to ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care. But, we need to have brass tacks conversation as to what it means by that.
I'm an odd duck from the rest of my conservative brethren in that I believe it's possible to achieve some sort of universal coverage while spending and taxing far less than we do in other aspect of governance. But, we need to have that hard conversation regarding ramifications of diverting resources from 'x' to funding this, as we simply cannot "tack on" the cost of such program on top of everything else we tax/spend on...
As specific change for Medicaid is to go more of a "block grant" per state, rather than having Congress dictate how it should be spent. The 50 states knows where best to utilize the fundings better than the yahoos in Congress. (ie, NH may want increased resources to fight the Opioid Crisis and MO may want those resources go towards mental health, etc...).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
No it isn't. I know you want it to be, because "reactionary" carries much harsher connotations than "conservative", but reality doesn't conform to your opinions. 45 years is more than half a lifetime. By any reasonable definition, you're not conserving anything by arguing for a change to something that's been the law for longer than a majority of your population has been alive.
Merriam-Webster defines "reactionary" as:
Definition of reactionary
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
where "reaction" is defined as
Definition of reaction
1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting
b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
whereas the Oxford Dictionaries defines it as
adjective
Opposing political or social progress or reform.
.
This certainly applies to opposition to Roe v. Wade. In other words, whembly once again doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Quelle surprise.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded.
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded.
Sponsored Content
An Incredible $200 Intro Bonus Just For Using This Card
Sponsored By NextAdvisor
“That might be a punishable offense, for all those morons out there,” Giuliani said, referring to members of the media who have reported on the tapes.
Cohen reportedly has more than 150 recorded conversations. Giuliani said Sunday that Trump is discussed at any length in about a dozen of them.
Cohen has reportedly claimed that Trump knew in advance about the 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer, despite the president's repeated claims that he did not know about the get together at Trump Tower.
Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who was present at the meeting, testified before Congress that his father was not aware of the meeting in advance.
Oh okay so colluding with a foreign power to help you win an election is not bad. Got it thank you trump
If you have a problem with getting dirt on an election opponents from foreigners.... why is it OK for Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC to hire a former foreign spy to get dirt on her opponents from Kremlin officials?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 15:38:48
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
