Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 01:44:02 am
-
There was a good article in theatlantic.com about the extreme partisanship between the members of the two political parties. Apparently, the universities and media are part of the problem. A new "Perception Gap" study found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
Democrats who have a high-school degree suffer from a greater perception gap than those who don’t. Democrats who went to college harbor greater misunderstandings than those who didn’t. And those with a postgrad degree have a way more skewed view of Republicans than anybody else.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/
It is deeply worrying that Americans now have so little understanding of their political adversaries. It is downright disturbing that the very institutions that ought to help us become better informed may actually be deepening our mutual incomprehension.
-
If that’s accurate the fault lies with the education system. Not teaching critical thinking but simply reinforcing existing confirmation biases.
-
If that’s accurate the fault lies with the education system. Not teaching critical thinking but simply reinforcing existing confirmation biases.
That's what also Jordan Peterson is saying (although in another context).
-
That's what also Jordan Peterson is saying (although in another context).
Well there you go. It seems the evidence would indicate that he is correct.
-
I've listened to a few podcasts with Jonathan Haidt (professor of sociology who has been studying this for the last 15 years) on this, and he found, through role playing activities, that conservatives actually understand liberals pretty well actually. It is liberals that cant understand conservatives.
His theory is that since liberalism is so pervasive, especially in schooling, that someone who is conservative has been taught the philosophies of liberalisms even if they disagree with it. However, conservatism almost never is taught is school, so liberals have no basis for understanding conservatives.
He also found this is very much an Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon and does not really exist in other cultures, or not nearly as much. This is especially the case in the Asian cultures where yin and yang philosophies are very much part of the culture. Those cultures tends to try and take the good from each side (liberal vs. conservative) and realize that going too far in either direction is damaging.
-
To verify the findings Joe's stating, watch a few of Will Witt's interviews with college students and people on the street. There's one where Will asks a student what she thinks about socialism. She replies, to the effect that: "Well, I think it's okay. We're socializing right now, and it's okay." There's another where he asks students at one of California's prestigious universities "Who was the first president?" Many shake their heads and admit they don't know. Others think Abe Lincoln was the first president. Most of them, by the way, think Lincoln was a Democrat.
It's really scary. Time to shut down all the universities and start over.
-
I've listened to a few podcasts with Jonathan Haidt (professor of sociology who has been studying this for the last 15 years) on this, and he found, through role playing activities, that conservatives actually understand liberals pretty well actually. It is liberals that cant understand conservatives.
His theory is that since liberalism is so pervasive, especially in schooling, that someone who is conservative has been taught the philosophies of liberalisms even if they disagree with it. However, conservatism almost never is taught is school, so liberals have no basis for understanding conservatives.
He also found this is very much an Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon and does not really exist in other cultures, or not nearly as much. This is especially the case in the Asian cultures where yin and yang philosophies are very much part of the culture. Those cultures tends to try and take the good from each side (liberal vs. conservative) and realize that going too far in either direction is damaging.
Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done. In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so. That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity. I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology.
Interesting stuff, in any case. I don't know enough about it to discuss it in any more depth specifically with regard to Haidt, but the whole discussion about the biological basis for conservative (and liberal) leanings and how we can (and if we should) work contrary to our "programming" is something that obviously has very wide repurcussions.
-
Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done. In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so. That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity. I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology.
Interesting stuff, in any case. I don't know enough about it to discuss it in any more depth specifically with regard to Haidt, but the whole discussion about the biological basis for conservative (and liberal) leanings and how we can (and if we should) work contrary to our "programming" is something that obviously has very wide repurcussions.
Wow. So now conservatives and traditional thinking is immoral if we follow our DNA. That's quite a holier-than-thou conclusion. Unfortunately, I think that's a belief many liberals, socialists, Marxists, globalists, etc think and believe.
So if a person thinks that national rights should transcend international (ie Brexit), the territorial imperative of man makes that person immoral in his thinking. We must give up our patriotism, otherwise we're not moral beings. We're just knuckle dragging Neanderthals. That caring for people of your own tribe first is immoral?
That keeping money that you earned to be used to further your own family's welfare is immoral to giving it to others. Well, we'll just take it if you're not willing to just give it. What happened to charity? Can't conservatives be both? In any case, liberals are phonies. They're conservatives in liberal sheep skin, willing to take your money to be spread around for the common good, but don't raise their taxes. [/font]
-
Wow. So now conservatives and traditional thinking is immoral if we follow our DNA. That's quite a holier-than-thou conclusion. Unfortunately, I think that's a belief many liberals, socialists, Marxists, globalists, etc think and believe.
So if a person thinks that national rights should transcend international (ie Brexit), the territorial imperative of man makes that person immoral in his thinking. We must give up our patriotism, otherwise we're not moral beings. We're just knuckle dragging Neanderthals. That caring for people of your own tribe first is immoral?
That keeping money that you earned to be used to further your own family's welfare is immoral to giving it to others. Well, we'll just take it if you're not willing to just give it. What happened to charity? Can't conservatives be both? In any case, liberals are phonies. They're conservatives in liberal sheep skin, willing to take your money to be spread around for the common good, but don't raise their taxes. [/font]
So far as I an can tell, this is a misunderstanding of Haidt's modern theory, although this interpretation could be based on earlier work. Haidt, admittedly, started off as a progressive liberal who lost his mind when the 2nd Bush was elected. He could not understand why people would vote for such a man and started his research to answer this question. Perhaps his earlier work was based upon confirmation bias, which is where this is coming from? Now, however, he seems to imply both sides are crazy and identifies as a classical liberal.
However, as I understand his modern theory, there are three main political groups, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. Note that libertarians are a separate group from the other two. The group which one attributes to boils down the combination of traits of the five main personality traits along with a person's ability to be disgusted by new ideas.
Liberals are very empathetic for others, are hard to disgust, open to new ideas, have a low level of conscientiousness (meaning they lack order) and a low level neuroticism (higher risk taking). So when a liberal looks at gay marriage, they feel for them and are not disgusted by the idea of gay relationships. Since they are open, the idea of another lifestyle does not bother them, they don't care about loosing order by allowing this to happen and are willing to take the risks of allowing order to become compromised. This leads them to be for gay marriage.
Conservatives (and I know for liberals this going to be hard to believe) are also very empathetic for others. However, they are disgusted easier and less open to new ideas. They are also much more conscientious and more neurotic. So when a conservative looks at gay marriage, they feel for them deeply, but are ultimately disgusted by the idea of gay relationships and not open to the idea of other lifestyles. Being that they are very orderly, and since order is hard to obtain, are not will to take the risk of allowing order to decrease. To them, allowing order to decay by allowing gay marriage would not be good in the long run for anyone, especially gays. So, they try to help them by being not for gay marriage and by trying to add more order to their lives.
Libertarians are the odd ones. They have little empathy for others, and this is replaced by a high level of analytical thinking with the ability to not allow emotions to interfere. It is nearly impossible to disgust a libertarian and they are even more open to other lifestyles then liberals. They also have a high level of conscientiousness (order) and a low level of neuroticism (higher risk taking). Libertarians look at gay marriage and really feel nothing for gays, but look at it from a logical stand point. They come to the conclusion gay marriage is not going to effect them, they are not disgusted by the lifestyle and open to the variation in lifestyle. Although they are very orderly, they are also willing to take risks allowing order to be lost with others since it does not directly effect them. So libertarians are for gay marriage not because they care about others, but because they feel it would have no effect on them personally and are willing to accept the societal risks.
I find his work so interesting because of his research on libertarians. I am a libertarian and have never be able to understand why people allow emotions to effect their logical thinking. So hearing all of this helped answer this question. Also, for the longest time I always had issues with whether or not I was a conservative or a liberal. I agree with liberals on nearly all social issues, but with conservatives on nearly all fiscal and regulatory issues. Understanding a libertarian is a totally separate political identity was kind of reassuring and the personality differences certainly answers many questions I have had on why I agree with liberals sometimes and conservatives other times.
-
So far as I an can tell, this is a misunderstanding of Haidt's modern theory, although this interpretation could be based on earlier work. Haidt, admittedly, started off as a progressive liberal who lost his mind when the 2nd Bush was elected. He could not understand why people would vote for such a man and started his research to answer this question. Perhaps his earlier work was based upon confirmation bias, which is where this is coming from? Now, however, he seems to imply both sides are crazy and identifies as a classical liberal.
However, as I understand his modern theory, there are three main political groups, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. Note that libertarians are a separate group from the other two. The group which one attributes to boils down the combination of traits of the five main personality traits along with a person's ability to be disgusted by new ideas.
Liberals are very empathetic for others, are hard to disgust, open to new ideas, have a low level of conscientiousness (meaning they lack order) and a low level neuroticism (higher risk taking). So when a liberal looks at gay marriage, they feel for them and are not disgusted by the idea of gay relationships. Since they are open, the idea of another lifestyle does not bother them, they don't care about loosing order by allowing this to happen and are willing to take the risks of allowing order to become compromised. This leads them to be for gay marriage.
Conservatives (and I know for liberals this going to be hard to believe) are also very empathetic for others. However, they are disgusted easier and less open to new ideas. They are also much more conscientious and more neurotic. So when a conservative looks at gay marriage, they feel for them deeply, but are ultimately disgusted by the idea of gay relationships and not open to the idea of other lifestyles. Being that they are very orderly, and since order is hard to obtain, are not will to take the risk of allowing order to decrease. To them, allowing order to decay by allowing gay marriage would not be good in the long run for anyone, especially gays. So, they try to help them by being not for gay marriage and by trying to add more order to their lives.
Libertarians are the odd ones. They have little empathy for others, and this is replaced by a high level of analytical thinking with the ability to not allow emotions to interfere. It is nearly impossible to disgust a libertarian and they are even more open to other lifestyles then liberals. They also have a high level of conscientiousness (order) and a low level of neuroticism (higher risk taking). Libertarians look at gay marriage and really feel nothing for gays, but look at it from a logical stand point. They come to the conclusion gay marriage is not going to effect them, they are not disgusted by the lifestyle and open to the variation in lifestyle. Although they are very orderly, they are also willing to take risks allowing order to be lost with others since it does not directly effect them. So libertarians are for gay marriage not because they care about others, but because they feel it would have no effect on them personally and are willing to accept the societal risks.
I find his work so interesting because of his research on libertarians. I am a libertarian and have never be able to understand why people allow emotions to effect their logical thinking. So hearing all of this helped answer this question. Also, for the longest time I always had issues with whether or not I was a conservative or a liberal. I agree with liberals on nearly all social issues, but with conservatives on nearly all fiscal and regulatory issues. Understanding a libertarian is a totally separate political identity was kind of reassuring and the personality differences certainly answers many questions I have had on why I agree with liberals sometimes and conservatives other times.
Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality Each group just thinks differently. To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong. Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's. We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently.
-
Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality Each group just thinks differently. To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong. Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's. We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently.
I was talking about James' interpretation of Haidt's work in response to your comments. I hope you realize I was not criticizing your comments.
-
Oh dear.
I'm afraid I don't fit into any of the three handy classifications. I certainly share some values across the three, but absolutely do not recognize myself as fitting into any of the boxes like the proverbial foot into Cinderella's tiny glass slipper.
Guess I'll stick to the usual cheapo, market variety of canvas and dubious soles, reverting to trainers when I need to dress up. I still own an almost unused pair of white leather shoes, but lack of use has rendered them as hard and uncomfortable as the original glass ones must have been. Cindy certainly had more moral courage than I to wear such obviously uncomfortabe abominations just in order to go jiving at the palace hop! Women! At any age, I'd say, but fear of provoking another sexual nature v. nurture argument stops me in my tracks.
Rob
-
Joe, I was referring to someone else's comment.
-
Both Eric and Bret Weinstein have much to say about this binary mess, relativism, anti-science and dogmatism etc.
-
Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality Each group just thinks differently. To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong. Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's. We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently.
So which gods' laws do you refer to as in the breaking?
Thete are as many of each as you can shake sticks at, and then some. You need a tighter definition of morality than that.
-
So which gods' laws do you refer to as in the breaking?
Thete are as many of each as you can shake sticks at, and then some. You need a tighter definition of morality than that.
Certainly, morality is not defined by a political policy you disagree with. You may not like people who voted for Brexit. But that doesn;t make them immoral any more than voting against it makes a person immoral. Many people call positions they don;t agree with as being immoral. They use the insult to sway votes by trying to make them feel guilty. "If you don't give teachers raises, you obviously want to hurt children." In any case, morality is not defined by man. Without God, man can justify any act regardless of how evil it really is, and has.
-
Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality
Not what I said. What I said was that *not examining* one's tribalism or nationalism *abrogates* or excuses what I believe to be our moral obligation to consider ourselves outside of our biology.
That goes for libertarians that refuse to move beyond the strictly rational, conservatives the refuse to consider their discomfort with the "other" and liberals that refuse to consider that lack of order causes some people great emotional pain.
-
Both Eric and Bret Weinstein have much to say about this binary mess, relativism, anti-science and dogmatism etc.
Thanks for the suggestion!
-
Not what I said. What I said was that *not examining* one's tribalism or nationalism *abrogates* or excuses what I believe to be our moral obligation to consider ourselves outside of our biology.
That goes for libertarians that refuse to move beyond the strictly rational, conservatives the refuse to consider their discomfort with the "other" and liberals that refuse to consider that lack of order causes some people great emotional pain.
Jim, none of those things are immoral unless they violate God's laws. It doesn't matter what group you're in. It's just policy divisions. Also, we all have tendencies to be in each group sort of like fitting into any of a horoscope's monthly description of your personality.
But the main point is that we tend to see only our position as being "moral". For example, a liberal would say it's immoral to condemn children's unborn children 70 years from now by not eliminating fossil fuels that's changing the climate for the worse. The "conservative" that opposes spending that money may say that he sees unemployed coal miners in West Virginia living today as not being able to feed their family so we should continue coal plants. Or, maybe the money should be spent on cancer research rather than renewable energy. WHo decides what is "more" moral? Trying to say one is moral to effect policy changes by guilt is a bad way of changing policy. In any case, God wants us to be good stewards of the environment., But he also wants us to take care of the people living now. Let's not call each other "evil" in order to get our point across when discussing policy.
-
Certainly, morality is not defined by a political policy you disagree with. You may not like people who voted for Brexit. But that doesn;t make them immoral any more than voting against it makes a person immoral. Many people call positions they don;t agree with as being immoral. They use the insult to sway votes by trying to make them feel guilty. "If you don't give teachers raises, you obviously want to hurt children." In any case, morality is not defined by man. Without God, man can justify any act regardless of how evil it really is, and has.
And yet, with God, who gets to interpret him/her?
A Christian preacher has claimed that gays should be executed because the Bible commands it.
https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/06/christian-preacher-says-gays-should-be-executed-because-the-bible-commands-it/
Or how's this:
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery
https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
God's morals, Alan?
-
And yet, with God, who gets to interpret him/her?
A Christian preacher has claimed that gays should be executed because the Bible commands it.
https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/06/christian-preacher-says-gays-should-be-executed-because-the-bible-commands-it/
Or how's this:
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery
https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
God's morals, Alan?
So you're presenting another argument why we should not call any particular policy as being moral or immoral. Thank you.
-
So you're presenting another argument why we should not call any particular policy as being moral or immoral. Thank you.
So if slavery was a "policy" condoned by God, how can one argue with God, right?
-
So if slavery was a "policy" condoned by God, how can one argue with God, right?
You're getting off on another subject that wasn't being discussed. We were talking about accusing people's political policy feelings as being immoral and using someone's personal belief of what's moral as the basis to decide which public policy is best. No one group, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, has a monopoly on morality. Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior.
-
Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior.
What other interpretation of what's moral is there other than man's.
-
What other interpretation of what's moral is there other than man's.
God's.
-
God's.
I think you will find there is a difference of opinion among men as to what that may be.
-
I think you will find there is a difference of opinion among men as to what that may be.
It's a good place to start.
-
It's a good place to start.
::)
-
You're getting off on another subject that wasn't being discussed. We were talking about accusing people's political policy feelings as being immoral and using someone's personal belief of what's moral as the basis to decide which public policy is best. No one group, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, has a monopoly on morality. Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior.
Exactly as you fudge the answer to which god and which brand of morality.
Do you imagine it's sensible to bring a god and morality into a conversation then not define either when challenged? It's just another red herring, an attempt to gloss over a mantra that has you by the short and curlies.
;-)
-
God's.
what about those of is who are atheists??
-
Exactly as you fudge the answer to which god and which brand of morality.
Do you imagine it's sensible to bring a god and morality into a conversation then not define either when challenged? It's just another red herring, an attempt to gloss over a mantra that has you by the short and curlies.
;-)
I didn't bring morality into the discussion. James did. He accused conservative thinkers of being immoral. Let him defend why that is so. I only said responding to his argument by saying we shouldn't use morality to judge most decisions about government policy. Especially since moral judgements are forever being violated by man since he can make up excuses why anything goes. Morality therefore must come from some place beyond man's ego. We have used the bible, God, the Ten Commandments, and whatever to give us a basis for moral behavior. WHile different religions have different theories about these things, and men always argue about what they really mean, I would think that many precepts such as not stealing or not killing are pretty much universal moral beliefs. However, when it comes to government policy, we should stay away from accusing any beliefs as being moral or immoral. These are just methods of trying to use shame to get your policy accepted.
-
Morality is what helps a society survive.
-
what about those of is who are atheists??
Much moral behavior has become ethical behavior accepted by everyone. These behaviors have been incorporated into civil and criminal law. Telling a judge he can't send you to jail for robbing a bank because you're an atheist and don;lt accept God's moral precept against stealing won't keep you out of jail. In any case, I never said you have to believe in anything to live a moral and decent life. Just don't tell me I'm immoral because I don't believe in renewables. That's a religion I don;t buy.
-
I didn't bring morality into the discussion. James did. He accused conservative thinkers of being immoral.
For the third time, no, I didn't.
-
Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.
What preposterous drivel. If one refuses to accept an evidentially unsupported belief in a supreme being (or indeed supreme beings), one is without morals?
An atheist might as well argue that what a theist believes is "God's" law derives from Man's law but is, bizarrely, attributed to a fictional being.
Jeremy
-
For the third time, no, I didn't.
I think some here are stuck on your use of "moral obligation," which is not really discussing morality, in your first post. Perhaps intellectual would have been better and more accurate.
So for the sack of argument, let us all imagine James meant to say, "... our intellectual obligation to think beyond our biology ..." This pretty much says the same thing and does not bring religion into the mix.
-
For the third time, no, I didn't.
Jim, here is your statement.
"Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done. In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so. That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity. I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology."
You stated first that conservatives tend to believe from their "biology". However, in order to be moral, you have to think beyond your biology. Hence, conservatives are not moral because they don;t think beyond their biology.
You're calling conservatives immoral. Frankly, that thinking goes on too much. Liberals accuse conservatives of being evil, refusing to even allowing them to speak. For most things, we should get out of the business of making government policy on moral arguments. That's the position I've been taking here.
-
I think some here are stuck on your use of "moral obligation," which is not really discussing morality, in your first post. Perhaps intellectual would have been better and more accurate.
So for the sack of argument, let us all imagine James meant to say, "... our intellectual obligation to think beyond our biology ..." This pretty much says the same thing and does not bring religion into the mix.
I disagree. See my last post. James meant exactly what he said. That conservatives are immoral because they cannot think beyond their biology.
-
What preposterous drivel. If one refuses to accept an evidentially unsupported belief in a supreme being (or indeed supreme beings), one is without morals?
An atheist might as well argue that what a theist believes is "God's" law derives from Man's law but is, bizarrely, attributed to a fictional being.
Jeremy
Jeremy, I never said that non-believers are bereft of morals. I said the opposite. Please see my earlier post #32.
However, without having some system of rules that transcend man's, we are left with man possibly destroying the moral system making excuses why it's just as moral. So we can then justify murder and all sorts of mayhem against our fellow man. Men can even abrogate and "misinterpret" God's laws, as ISIS did, so clever we are at justifying our immoral actions and desire for power.
-
I disagree. See my last post. James meant exactly what he said. That conservatives are immoral because they cannot think beyond their biology.
Again - for the fourth time - I said no such thing. I explained that my recollection of (part of) Haidt's theory is that certain aspects of our worldview are evolutionarily driven, and are "baked in" so to speak, and I used conservatism as a portion of that content because, as Joe said, that's what Haidt was examining originally. I then said that to leave it at that (i.e. to claim biological imperative and then throw our hands up and say, "oh well!" abrogates our moral responsibility to work beyond our biology - to take advantage of our unique position of being self aware and aware of others - to utilize the benefit our sentience.
Joe's suggestion that substituting "Intellectual" for "moral" might be a better choice is fine. I don't think it should be necessary, but if it eliminates a trigger word, fine by me.
Clear?
-
Too late, James! The slug's out of the gun!
:-)
-
Again - for the fourth time - I said no such thing....
Sorry, James, you said exactly that. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that's what you said.
...abrogates our moral responsibility to work beyond our biology...
There is no other way to interpret the above sentence other than to mean that if conservatives do not act beyond our biology, they are immoral.
I am pretty sure you didn't mean that conservatives are immoral, but it surely sounds like that.
Having said that, my 2 cents on the issue: sounds like the usual psychobabble drivel trying to retrofit end results (political) with personality traits.
-
Sorry, James, you said exactly that. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that's what you said.
There is no other way to interpret the above sentence other than to mean that if conservatives do not act beyond our biology, they are immoral.
I am pretty sure you didn't mean that conservatives are immoral, but it surely sounds like that.
Having said that, my 2 cents on the issue: sounds like the usual psychobabble drivel trying to retrofit end results (political) with personality traits.
Not necessarily so.
I can read that sentence to imply that the "moral responsibility" is our own, not of a second or third party.
As for worrying about the morality of any political party - be real! Morality of that kind was ever abandoned on election. The moral high ground is for electioneering, not for governing.
Rob
-
I used to watch Firing Line when William Buckley ran it, and while he was adamantly conservative, he clearly had considered ideas and opinions other than his own. It was not a "moral" problem for him.
He was a good writer also. Read his book Atlantic High.
-
Absolutely, Omer. He was a brilliant guy. I always loved it when somebody he was discussing something with would break in on him and he'd just keep on talking and ignore the interruption. Often his opponent was too stupid to get the message, but sometimes it worked.
-
Again - for the fourth time - I said no such thing. I explained that my recollection of (part of) Haidt's theory is that certain aspects of our worldview are evolutionarily driven, and are "baked in" so to speak, and I used conservatism as a portion of that content because, as Joe said, that's what Haidt was examining originally. I then said that to leave it at that (i.e. to claim biological imperative and then throw our hands up and say, "oh well!" abrogates our moral responsibility to work beyond our biology - to take advantage of our unique position of being self aware and aware of others - to utilize the benefit our sentience.
Joe's suggestion that substituting "Intellectual" for "moral" might be a better choice is fine. I don't think it should be necessary, but if it eliminates a trigger word, fine by me.
Clear?
I'm feeling better already. I'm no longer immoral. Instead I don't have the intellectual brain power to think beyond my body. I'm just some knuckle dragging Neanderthal responding to my biological drives with no cranial room to consider my fellow man. Oh, so refreshing.
-
I'm feeling better already. I'm no longer immoral. Instead I don't have the intellectual brain power to think beyond my body. I'm just some knuckle dragging Neanderthal responding to my biological drives with no cranial room to consider my fellow man. Oh, so refreshing.
::)
Huh. It seems that Haidt is exactly right. The conservatives are bundling together in a shared sense of moral offense, Joe the libertarian is trying to explain/refine the statements all rationally, and the liberal, me, has not a single freaking clue what you're on about and really just thinks you should get over it.
-
Sorry, James, you said exactly that. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that's what you said.
There is no other way to interpret the above sentence other than to mean that if conservatives do not act beyond our biology, they are immoral.
I am pretty sure you didn't mean that conservatives are immoral, but it surely sounds like that.
No, no, no. *Haidt* was searching for reasons why conservatives thought a certain way. One conclusion was evolutionary biology, and further, he conceded that there must, by definition, be some inherent value if we've evolved that way. Kinda circular, but whatever - this is a 2 sentence summary....
Anyway, my comment was that simply ascribing the disconnect to biology is a cop-out and that we have a "moral responsibility" to take advantage of the gift of self awareness that has been given to us. It's not immoral to be conservative (or liberal, or libertarian. Well, maybe it's *Amoral* to be libertarian ;) ) - it's not *immoral* to be anything in this context. It's *correct* (i.e a moral imperative) for us to question our biology and how it causes us to relate to our fellow humans, otherwise what's the point of sentience?
If you want to extend that to infer that I think choosing NOT to self-assess makes one immoral, I can live with that (I'd probably even agree with/admit to that), but it's got nothing do with being conservative or not.
-
No, no, no. *Haidt* was searching for reasons why conservatives thought a certain way. One conclusion was evolutionary biology, and further, he conceded that there must, by definition, be some inherent value if we've evolved that way. Kinda circular, but whatever - this is a 2 sentence summary....
Anyway, my comment was that simply ascribing the disconnect to biology is a cop-out and that we have a "moral responsibility" to take advantage of the gift of self awareness that has been given to us. It's not immoral to be conservative (or liberal, or libertarian. Well, maybe it's *Amoral* to be libertarian ;) ) - it's not *immoral* to be anything in this context. It's *correct* (i.e a moral imperative) for us to question our biology and how it causes us to relate to our fellow humans, otherwise what's the point of sentience?
If you want to extend that to infer that I think choosing NOT to self-assess makes one immoral, I can live with that (I'd probably even agree with/admit to that), but it's got nothing do with being conservative or not.
I'm not quite sure I follow your entire point. But I'll accept you didn;t mean conservatives were un-thinking or immoral just on their basis of their biology or conservatism. Now we can be friends again. :)
-
I'm not quite sure I follow your entire point. But I'll accept you didn;t mean conservatives were un-thinking or immoral just on their basis of their biology or conservatism. Now we can be friends again. :)
All good. Truly, I was not trying to negatively generalize about conservatives, nor do I believe that the fact that one is conservative means one is immoral or unthinking.
Have a good night, Alan :)
-
Well, the Democrat debates are going on in the background. I can't tell any difference between policies. They all sound pretty much the same.At the end of the debate, you won;t remember who said what. The key to winning the nomination and presidency is which one of these candidates looks like he or she can stand toe to toe with the Kim's and Xi's of the world, even the leaders of our allies in NATO and know they're not going to give away the store. Americans don't want a policy professor. They want a leader who can be tough in a tough world. They have to be able to do that or they won't beat Trump.
-
While Facebook, Google and Twitter are still perplexed about how to control hate messages on their platforms, the Ravelry knitting site (with 8 millon members) just banned posts supporting the Trump Administration.
Ravelry, a popular social network and online community for knitters and other needleworkers, has banned posts in support of President Donald Trump, saying his administration is “undeniably” supportive of white supremacy.
https://time.com/5613345/ravelry-knitting-trump-ban/
I think, they should stick to knitting.
-
Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.
Jeremy, I never said that non-believers are bereft of morals. I said the opposite. Please see my earlier post #32.
It is obvious that no other interpretation of the text I quoted is available; and it's a despicable and offensive stance.
Jeremy
-
It is obvious that no other interpretation of the text I quoted is available; and it's a despicable and offensive stance.
Jeremy
Jeremy. I never intended for my words to hurt you or anyone else. I thought I said that everyone can live morally, whether conservative, liberal, believer, agnostic or atheist. I should have chosen my words more carefully. For that I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies. Alan.
-
Well, the Democrat debates are going on in the background. I can't tell any difference between policies. They all sound pretty much the same.At the end of the debate, you won;t remember who said what. The key to winning the nomination and presidency is which one of these candidates looks like he or she can stand toe to toe with the Kim's and Xi's of the world, even the leaders of our allies in NATO and know they're not going to give away the store. Americans don't want a policy professor. They want a leader who can be tough in a tough world. They have to be able to do that or they won't beat Trump.
It's been rather interesting reading the follow ups, and it appears there is only two real choices for the Dems, Joe Biden and everyone else. I cant see either option working out for the Dems, but give a higher chance for Joe.
The two main issues the Dems have with Trump is the economy is booming (and 71% of Americans think so) and Trump, for all intents and purposes, is a centrist. Now most of his policies are center right, but quite a few are center left, and with all of them, he is on the popular side. If you don't believe me, just look at the polling. Running against both of these is going to be hard.
In the case of Joe Biden, most think he is electable since he too is a centrist. For anyone else, I may agree. However, if Biden wins, he is going to limp across the finish line damaged goods. The progressives are hitting him so hard that what happened to Hillary, namely the progressives abandoned her, is going to happen to Biden. Not to mention he is a walking talking gaffe machine. Sure, Trump says some pretty wacky stuff, but so does Joe. He has been playing it safe right now, limiting off the cuff press interactions, but eventually he is going to have to interact more. This is going to produce a ton of gaffes that the Rubs will take full advantage of. Not to mention, his stance on China the majority of the country disagrees with and he was part of an administration that over saw the most anemic recover in decades.
Insofar as everyone else, they have moved so far to the left they are un-relatable to the general electorate, just like Romney predicted after Trump won. Look at their policies. Open borders, yes I know he said decriminalizing illegal border crossings, but that is essentially the same thing and impossible to argue against. Outlawing all private health coverage while implementing a single payer system. I do have to hand it to Bernie though; he's the only one who is being somewhat honest about how taxes will go up for everyone, even saying "people in this country would be delighted to pay more in taxes ..." Everyone else has been mum on this. Late-term abortions, I may be pro-choice, but the majority of the country is against late-term abortions. Many have double downed on slavery repatriations, which is incredibly unpopular. These are all policies that the majority of the country are against, emphatically, especially in the swing-states who really decide the election.
Now before anyone brings up polling, all polls for president right now are meaningless. Most Americans really don't fully understand the policy positions of the Dems, and when those policies start hitting home, those polls are going to change. On top of that, all of the polls that show a 10 point gap between Trump and a hypothetical Dem are of the general public, not the general electorate. If you look at all of the polls and go beyond that main figure, the numbers only show an 2 point average difference for registered voters for the same question. On top of this, we all know it is the electoral college that matters, not a popular vote. None of the polls are quantifying this in the polling, and they more then likely will not since it would make the polling much more complex and costly. It is also too early to start state by state polling, so we don't really know how the swing states are feeling.
If you still disagree with me, look at the recent news ratings. Fox News has been consistently the top rated national news channel by a fair amount. Tucker Carlson has been consistently the top rated national news show by a fair amount. This should give you an idea of where the pendulum is current swinging.
-
As somebody pointed out this morning, the Democrat "debates" have resulted in a winner: Trump.
-
As somebody pointed out this morning, the Democrat "debates" have resulted in a winner: Trump.
Russ, the democratic field could be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the platform could be guaranteed eternal life and harmony for all mankind, and you'd still be a Trump guy, all the while complaining that Jesus wants to raise taxes to help the undeserving, Joseph overstayed his visa, and Mary was just trying to have an anchor baby. ;D
-
Well, James, you won't tell us where you live or how old you are, so as far as I know you may be an eight year old Cambodian. That would sort of fit with your post. It's not that I'm a "Trump guy," it's the absurdity of the "debate" and the people in the "debate." If this is the best the Dems can do, Trump's a shoo-in next year.
-
If you still disagree with me, look at the recent news ratings. Fox News has been consistently the top rated national news channel by a fair amount.
Not correct. Fox has been the top rated *cable* news network, but that's nothing new. Fox concentrates certain viewers, the likes of MSNBC and CNN and others split the "other side," and the cable news channels in general are dwarfed by the legacy broadcast news shows -(ABC's world news gets something like 7 million viewers, and that's just one major network) they just don't get the attention because they're not oriented toward being outrageous.
Also, Maddow runs relatively even with Hannity and Tucker, give or take.
-
Well, James, you won't tell us where you live or how old you are, so as far as I know you may be an eight year old Cambodian. That would sort of fit with your post.
Cambodia is apparently 97% Buddhist, so, no, it wouldn't. At all. How can you be so wrong about so much so often? It's truly a mystery :)
-
James, it seems you think everything's a mystery. There's nothing really mysterious about the decline into Hell in Venezuela, for instance. You just have to understand how Socialism works. Obviously, to you it's another mystery.
-
It's been rather interesting reading the follow ups, and it appears there is only two real choices for the Dems, Joe Biden and everyone else. I cant see either option working out for the Dems, but give a higher chance for Joe.
The two main issues the Dems have with Trump is the economy is booming (and 71% of Americans think so) and Trump, for all intents and purposes, is a centrist. Now most of his policies are center right, but quite a few are center left, and with all of them, he is on the popular side. If you don't believe me, just look at the polling. Running against both of these is going to be hard.
In the case of Joe Biden, most think he is electable since he too is a centrist. For anyone else, I may agree. However, if Biden wins, he is going to limp across the finish line damaged goods. The progressives are hitting him so hard that what happened to Hillary, namely the progressives abandoned her, is going to happen to Biden. Not to mention he is a walking talking gaffe machine. Sure, Trump says some pretty wacky stuff, but so does Joe. He has been playing it safe right now, limiting off the cuff press interactions, but eventually he is going to have to interact more. This is going to produce a ton of gaffes that the Rubs will take full advantage of. Not to mention, his stance on China the majority of the country disagrees with and he was part of an administration that over saw the most anemic recover in decades.
Insofar as everyone else, they have moved so far to the left they are un-relatable to the general electorate, just like Romney predicted after Trump won. Look at their policies. Open borders, yes I know he said decriminalizing illegal border crossings, but that is essentially the same thing and impossible to argue against. Outlawing all private health coverage while implementing a single payer system. I do have to hand it to Bernie though; he's the only one who is being somewhat honest about how taxes will go up for everyone, even saying "people in this country would be delighted to pay more in taxes ..." Everyone else has been mum on this. Late-term abortions, I may be pro-choice, but the majority of the country is against late-term abortions. Many have double downed on slavery repatriations, which is incredibly unpopular. These are all policies that the majority of the country are against, emphatically, especially in the swing-states who really decide the election.
Now before anyone brings up polling, all polls for president right now are meaningless. Most Americans really don't fully understand the policy positions of the Dems, and when those policies start hitting home, those polls are going to change. On top of that, all of the polls that show a 10 point gap between Trump and a hypothetical Dem are of the general public, not the general electorate. If you look at all of the polls and go beyond that main figure, the numbers only show an 2 point average difference for registered voters for the same question. On top of this, we all know it is the electoral college that matters, not a popular vote. None of the polls are quantifying this in the polling, and they more then likely will not since it would make the polling much more complex and costly. It is also too early to start state by state polling, so we don't really know how the swing states are feeling.
If you still disagree with me, look at the recent news ratings. Fox News has been consistently the top rated national news channel by a fair amount. Tucker Carlson has been consistently the top rated national news show by a fair amount. This should give you an idea of where the pendulum is current swinging.
Joe, A lot can happen before the election. War, recession, etc. Also, the Democrat nominee will move to the center on issues for the general election. Americans won't remember what was said during the debates or care if they do. Also, as James mentioned, liberal cable news is split. And the main media arteries, the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CBS still control the airways with their liberal bias and anti-Trump rhetoric. Add Facebook, Twitter, Google, and all the other tech news outlets trending liberal; well you get my point. Fox is only one small outlet compared to the rest on the other side.
-
Not correct. Fox has been the top rated *cable* news network, but that's nothing new. Fox concentrates certain viewers, the likes of MSNBC and CNN and others split the "other side," and the cable news channels in general are dwarfed by the legacy broadcast news shows -(ABC's world news gets something like 7 million viewers, and that's just one major network) they just don't get the attention because they're not oriented toward being outrageous.
Also, Maddow runs relatively even with Hannity and Tucker, give or take.
Still, the rating do give you an idea of where the pendulum is right now, and it is not really on the left. I guess I should have also clarified cable news too.
I'm just looking at this from an analytical point of view. Biden is going to be beat up by the progressives; maybe not beaten but ultimately damaged. All other Dems running are in favor of multiple policies of which the majority of the country, poll after poll, reject. If anyone but Biden wins, Trump is reelected. If Biden wins, maybe he will be the next president. But right now my money would be on Trump since Biden has some serious problems, like the tendency to self-destruct with gaffes and being out of touch with the swing states when it comes to China.
-
Jeremy. I never intended for my words to hurt you or anyone else. I thought I said that everyone can live morally, whether conservative, liberal, believer, agnostic or atheist. I should have chosen my words more carefully. For that I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies. Alan.
Accepted.
Jeremy
-
Accepted.
Jeremy
Thank you.
-
Russ, the democratic field could be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the platform could be guaranteed eternal life and harmony for all mankind, and you'd still be a Trump guy, all the while complaining that Jesus wants to raise taxes to help the undeserving, Joseph overstayed his visa, and Mary was just trying to have an anchor baby. ;D
:D
Slight correction: Jesús (pronounced as "hay-SOOS"), Maria, and Jose. Or the Tres Amigos of the debate: BBC (Beto, Booker and Castro)?
-
It's obvious from the reporting and attacks in the press that they want someone much further left than Biden and a woman, preferably a minority, like Harris. They'll continue to gang up on Biden and Sanders the two white guys. Then they'll knock off Elizabeth Warren who walks like a duck.
-
It's obvious from the reporting and attacks in the press that they want someone much further left than Biden and a woman, preferably a minority, like Harris. They'll continue to gang up on Biden and Sanders the two white guys. Then they'll knock off Elizabeth Warren who walks like a duck.
So the back peddling has already begun; Harris claims she is not for single payer even though she raised her hand when the question was asked last night. She said she mis-heard even though the question was pretty explicit.
My personal favorite though was De Blasio quoting Che Guevara in Miami to a group of union workers, some of whom were certainly Cuban. He claims he did not know who he was quoting but, I think Marco Rubio had the best response: "De Blasio studied Latin American politics in college, was a very active supporter of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua & even honeymooned in Cuba in violation of U.S. law ... But he had NO IDEA he was quoting Che Guevara today ... It was all just an incredible coincidence."
-
So the back peddling has already begun; Harris claims she is not for single payer even though she raised her hand when the question was asked last night. She said she mis-heard even though the question was pretty explicit.
My personal favorite though was De Blasio quoting Che Guevara in Miami to a group of union workers, some of whom were certainly Cuban. He claims he did not know who he was quoting but, I think Marco Rubio had the best response: "De Blasio studied Latin American politics in college, was a very active supporter of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua & even honeymooned in Cuba in violation of U.S. law ... But he had NO IDEA he was quoting Che Guevara today ... It was all just an incredible coincidence."
If he was still alive, Che would fit right in as one of the candidates.
-
If he was still alive, Che would fit right in as one of the candidates.
What?
-
What?
Che would be the first candidate with a hipster beard, and second with no tie ;)
-
Che would be the first candidate with a hipster beard, and second with no tie ;)
Bet he'd sell more T-shirts, too.
Rob
-
... Elizabeth Warren who walks like a duck.
Would you be prepared to clarify that statement?
-
There's nothing really mysterious about the decline into Hell in Venezuela, for instance. You just have to understand how Socialism works.
Or, possibly, corruption.
-
Corruption and socialism are closely linked.
Corruption exists in many countries, but it thrives in the socialistic or communistic systems.
-
Would you be prepared to clarify that statement?
Sure, Warren walks like a duck. Well, anyway, there is something strange about her movements. Photographer's eye, you know.
-
Corruption and socialism are closely linked.
Corruption exists in many countries, but it thrives in the socialistic or communistic systems.
Well, in socialist and communist countries, you have to be in the party to benefit from corruption. In capitalist societies, it's more democratic and freer. Everyone can join in.
-
Well, in socialist and communist countries, you have to be in the party to benefit from corruption. In capitalist societies, it's more democratic and freer. Everyone can join in.
Or, as a Soviet joke goes, capitalism is the system of exploitation of man by man. In socialism, it’s the other way around. ;)
-
Corruption and socialism are closely linked.
Corruption exists in many countries, but it thrives in the socialistic or communistic systems.
Tell that to "The Usual Suspects" - Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, NZ.
You know, the ones that consistently score highest on the "least corrupt country" lists.
-
Sure, Warren walks like a duck. ...
That's strange. I thought that level of comment was proscribed in the Forum Rules.
-
Well, James, you won't tell us where you live or how old you are, so as far as I know you may be an eight year old Cambodian.
So could you. And it wouldn't make your argument stronger or weaker. As it is, we only have your words to judge you on.
-
Tell that to "The Usual Suspects" - Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, NZ.
You know, the ones that consistently score highest on the "least corrupt country" lists.
I was thinking more about Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and some of the ex-Soviet republics.
-
Tell that to "The Usual Suspects" - Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, NZ.
You know, the ones that consistently score highest on the "least corrupt country" lists.
Sure. But those countries don't have the benefit of having been colonies of the USA.
-
Would you be prepared to clarify that statement?
"... Elizabeth Warren who walks like a duck."...... Alan K.
Well, Peter, I believe it's like this:
You walk like an Egyptian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tuzHUuuk
whilst adding a soupçon of tail feather as in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcOcAfsrkE
Easy. Even a Republican could do, it if they really, really tried!
Rob
-
Then they'll knock off Elizabeth Warren who walks like a duck.
That's strange. I thought that level of comment was proscribed in the Forum Rules.
No, it's too infantile to be worthy of censure.
Jeremy
-
That's strange. I thought that level of comment was proscribed in the Forum Rules.
No, it's too infantile to be worthy of censure.
Jeremy
Apart from which, it provides moments of amusement for me as I think of musical analogies.
Rob
-
Speaking of something too infantile to be worthy of censure, did anyone on here watch the two-day Democrat clown show? These folks are making Karl Marx look like a hard right conservative.
-
Speaking of something too infantile to be worthy of censure, did anyone on here watch the two-day Democrat clown show? These folks are making Karl Marx look like a hard right conservative.
No, we were too busy watching Trump kiss Putin's ass at the G20 summit.
-
No, we were too busy watching Trump kiss Putin's ass at the G20 summit.
Hahahaha. They make such a cute couple. It’s very sweet.
-
Hahahaha. They make such a cute couple. It’s very sweet.
Even sweeter picture would be the two of them with Kim Jong-un. Very photogenic and a most charming trio.
Preferably bare chested riding horses.
-
Even sweeter picture would be the two of them with Kim Jong-un. Very photogenic and a most charming trio.
Preferably bare chested riding horses.
Add in bin Salman and you have a real love-fest.
-
That's strange. I thought that level of comment was proscribed in the Forum Rules.
You are right. Forum rules allow only insulting the current president of the US, not a candidate for the same.
-
No, we were too busy watching Trump kiss Putin's ass at the G20 summit.
Oops. I think your kind of comment is proscribed in the forum rules. Now you'll have to go stand in the corner with me. :)
-
You are right. Forum rules allow only insulting the current president of the US, not a candidate for the same.
Well it’s not like the current president of the US is at all reticent about dishing out gratuitous insults to all and sundry. You live by it you die by it.
-
Well it’s not like the current president of the US is at all reticent about dishing out gratuitous insults to all and sundry. You live by it you die by it.
Here we go again, the tired trope. You are missing the point of what I wrote. The point being that it is accepted as free speech to criticise public figures, including mocking, and if we can do it for Trump on this forum, we can do it for Warren just as well.
-
Here we go again, the tired trope. You are missing the point of what I wrote. The point being that it is accepted as free speech to criticise public figures, including mocking, and if we can do it for Trump on this forum, we can do it for Warren just as well.
And you are missing my point which is not that it fair to insult any public figure, because I don’t believe that, but it is with a public figure that trades in that type of insult on a regular basis.
Anyway can’t believe I’m getting into a debate between insulting Warren and Trump. They even look like siblings.
-
Here we go again, the tired trope. You are missing the point of what I wrote. The point being that it is accepted as free speech to criticise public figures, including mocking, and if we can do it for Trump on this forum, we can do it for Warren just as well.
Crocodile tears, Slobo. I hadn't noticed you holding back from criticising anyone?
-
Crocodile tears, Slobo. I hadn't noticed you holding back from criticising anyone?
Another one missing the point. Where was it that I was arguing against criticising, or mocking, public figures, including Trump?
-
Oops. I think your kind of comment is proscribed in the forum rules. :)
Only if one considers Putin a hemorrhoid ;)
-
I was thinking more about Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and some of the ex-Soviet republics.
All of which are dictatorships. Dictatorships are not necessarily socialist. Some are merely criminal enterprises.
-
Another one missing the point. Where was it that I was arguing against criticising, or mocking, public figures, including Trump?
Err you weren't. And nor did I claim otherwise.
However, on a more substantive issue, are you not appalled that your president should exchange pleasantries about their common problems with the press with a man who presides over a state where journalists are routinely beaten, imprisoned and even murdered? Or has political discourse in the USA really reached a point where nobody cares about these things any more?
-
... However, on a more substantive issue, are you not appalled...
No, I am not.
That is called politics. You have to work with people and states you do not like. If not, no one would talk to anyone. Is there a saint state anywhere in the world?
-
No, I am not.
That is called politics. You have to work with people and states you do not like. If not, no one would talk to anyone. Is there a saint state anywhere in the world?
Well, thanks for answering the question, anyway. I was going to write a longer response, but really there is no point - our basic values are too far apart.
-
... Dictatorships are not necessarily socialist...
No, but socialist are by default dictatorships.
-
Well, thanks for answering the question, anyway. I was going to write a longer response, but really there is no point - our basic values are too far apart.
Ah, yes, values...
As I wrote in another thread:
... politics is not some lofty activity of "caring for the common good," whatever that might be, as the really naive would like to believe, but politics is a brutal contact sport of promoting interests of your constituents.
Has Britain, for instance, not done anything shameful in its recent past?
As for your example about journalists in Russia (unless you were referring to Saudi Arabia?), why everyone in the West thinks Putin is behind every single individual case? What is happening to journalists is deplorable of course, but there are many players that can be behind it, besides him. It is a nation of 150 million, with many different interests, from local to federal, and many different players, from local mafia, to local politicians, local "biznismeni" to all those at the federal level. Too many people that might be annoyed by a particular journalist's writings. Given the general lower level of democracy and rule of law, it is too easy to take the "justice" in their own hands. I lived there eight years, and met many of those players first hand. Trust me, some of them were quite capable of snapping your neck for much less annoyance, like cutting them off in traffic, or not moving out of their way fast enough, let alone an article affecting them.
-
No, but socialist are by default dictatorships.
Britain has had many socialist governments without becoming a dictatorship. Many would argue that some conservative governments have had that inclination more strongly.
From being a staunch conservative until the Brexit fiasco, which revealed both a stupidity and cynicism I had never expected, I find myself unable to write of them using a capital c. As for the rest, exactly the same. It seems there is no longer any point in political parties. The whole show should just be handed over to civil servants who will be no worse than the folks we have. But they may be more effective if we can keep the unions out of it.
The population just lost via an own goal.
-
Britain has had many socialist governments without becoming a dictatorship...
This is a new fad as of recently, to conflate socialism with certain parties, even when they have that word in their name, operating within a capitalist democracy.
-
No, but socialist are by default dictatorships.
Not true.
Again referencing "The Usual Suspects". Also, America frequently refers to Canada as "socialist", yet we are far from a dictatorship.
-
Err you weren't. And nor did I claim otherwise.
However, on a more substantive issue, are you not appalled that your president should exchange pleasantries about their common problems with the press with a man who presides over a state where journalists are routinely beaten, imprisoned and even murdered? Or has political discourse in the USA really reached a point where nobody cares about these things any more?
The context is that Trump had for over two years been accused by the American press of conspiring with Putin and Russia during the 2016 elections. Yet after a two year investigation by Mueller, nothing was found. Neither Trump, his family, or any other American for that matter was charged with conspiring with the Russians. It was all fake. While I think Putin is a bastard, I can see why Trump feels the American press has done him and America a great disservice. So his comments about the press said in front of his supposed conspirator is sweet justice to the press. It has nothing to do with how Putin runs his country. That's a separate issue.
-
Not true.
Again referencing "The Usual Suspects". Also, America frequently refers to Canada as "socialist", yet we are far from a dictatorship.
My understanding is that socialism is the government taking over the means of production, the business enterprises. On the other hand, while high taxes to distribute wealth smacks of "socialism", it isn't exactly. Of course when taxes become confiscatory, it's pretty hard to have the freedom to create businesses and enjoy the fruits of your labor. So you wind up the same way as in traditional socialist countries - poor and unfree.
-
Neither Trump, his family, or any other American for that matter was charged with conspiring with the Russians. It was all fake.
Are you familiar with the concept of conscious parallelism from antitrust law? It is another way to look at the behavior of his campaign vis a vis Russia. You might not agree that it is applicable, but it is something worth thinking about.
-
Are you familiar with the concept of conscious parallelism from antitrust law? It is another way to look at the behavior of his campaign vis a vis Russia. You might not agree that it is applicable, but it is something worth thinking about.
Explain the concept. I'm not familiar with it.
-
Explain the concept. I'm not familiar with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_parallelism
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_parallelism
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks Bart. But I don't want to read the article. I want faberryman to tell me what the term has to do with Putin and Russia and the presidential campaign. . How else would I know what point he's trying to make?
-
Thanks Bart. But I don't want to read the article. I want faberryman to tell me what the term has to do with Putin and Russia and the presidential campaign. . How else would I know what point he's trying to make?
You would read the article and think for yourself. I know it is a lot to ask.
-
You would read the article and think for yourself. I know it is a lot to ask.
I don't respond to people who insult me.
-
The context is that Trump had for over two years been accused by the American press of conspiring with Putin and Russia during the 2016 elections. Yet after a two year investigation by Mueller, nothing was found. Neither Trump, his family, or any other American for that matter was charged with conspiring with the Russians. It was all fake. While I think Putin is a bastard, I can see why Trump feels the American press has done him and America a great disservice. So his comments about the press said in front of his supposed conspirator is sweet justice to the press. It has nothing to do with how Putin runs his country. That's a separate issue.
The fact that you seek to excuse Trump's failure to defend the free press and staying silent on the repression in Putin's Russia speaks volumes. Maybe it's God's Law to kill journalists?
-
... Again referencing "The Usual Suspects". Also, America frequently refers to Canada as "socialist", yet we are far from a dictatorship.
Oh, for God's sake! The "usual suspects" are all capitalist democracies. Referring to some as "socialist" for rhetorical purposes does not make them so. There is this desperate attempt to make socialism more palatable to those who never experienced it, never learned what it is, and were hardly born before its demise, by falsely identifying it with certain capitalist democracies.
-
... Maybe it's God's Law to kill journalists?
The US President Frank Underwood killed a journalist.
-
I don't respond to people who insult me.
You just did.
-
Referring to some as "socialist" for rhetorical purposes does not make them so.
Blaming the messenger now?
It's not me who continually refers to "The Usual Suspects", including Canada, as "socialist". We're agreed: most such accusers have no idea what socialism is. That's why they attempt to conflate them with dictatorships.
Oh, wait. That was you.
-
Oh, for God's sake! The "usual suspects" are all capitalist democracies. Referring to some as "socialist" for rhetorical purposes does not make them so. There is this desperate attempt to make socialism more palatable to those who never experienced it, never learned what it is, and were hardly born before its demise, by falsely identifying it with certain capitalist democracies.
If I understand what you are suggesting, then it appears that you equate socialism with communism. Now, I know that there are some fellow-traveller aspects to this, but not quite the same thing.
We had the bumbling, pipe-puffing Harold Wilson with his Gannex coat, Slim Jim Callaghan, Bilblical Brown and SUV Tony Blair up as head honchos of Brit socialism (in order not to be accused of unnecessary cruelty, I shall not mention dear Michael Foot) and some of those had pretty red credentials, but their governments were still tossed out in due process. I don't think you toss out communism that easily.
But, Brexit could see the empowerment of a newer menace wearing the socialist skin.
;-(
-
You would read the article and think for yourself. I know it is a lot to ask.
This is unnecessarily condescending. It is ok to provide links, as there are those who might be interested in reading it. But just providing links, without making your own point in a debate between the members of this forum, or explaining briefly what the point of the link is, is condescending.
Having said that, I have read the linked article. It lost me the moment it said the following:
... for goods that should be selling for only a little more than the cost of production.
Obviously a person with learning difficulties, AOC, wrote that article. Who says that prices should be formed "a little more above the cost of production"!? I mean, seriously people!? Centuries of capitalism have not taught you that companies should be free to charge as much as they can get away with? Charging "a little more above the cost of production" is Soviet Petoletka (5-year plan) concept.
Also, from the article, it follows that if I lower the prices when the competitor does, I am colluding? Really!? I should keep my prices high and lose all the business to the competition? Seriously?
About parallelism concept in the article. Where are the parallel moves by the Trump campaign? If Puting hacked Dems server (a big IF), did Trump do a parallel action of hacking it as well?
-
If I understand what you are suggesting, then it appears that you equate socialism with communism...
Communism is just a late-stage socialism.
While some of your Brits could have been or are pure commies at heart, that doesn't make Britain anything else but a capitalist democracy. Even today's US has communist and socialist parties.
-
... most such accusers have no idea what socialism is...
Oh, wait. That was you.
Really? I do not know what socialism is? I, who was born in a socialist country, educated there, saw with my own eyes what socialism is in two other socialist countries before the fall of communism (Hungary and Romania), then lived eight years Russia right after the fall of communism? And I do not know what socialism is?
What is your experience with it?
-
Also, from the article, it follows that if I lower the prices when the competitor does, I am colluding? Really!?
Sometimes in similar situations, apparently. (https://www.ajc.com/business/settlements-air-fare-collusion-suit-puts-pressure-delta-united/J6bgHDJ4ymc995g1EDAxHI/)
-
Communism is just a late-stage socialism.
And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism. Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?
-
Sometimes in similar situations, apparently. (https://www.ajc.com/business/settlements-air-fare-collusion-suit-puts-pressure-delta-united/J6bgHDJ4ymc995g1EDAxHI/)
Actual colluding between two businesses is a little different than say, being accusing of colluding and then having a former FBI head with 19 lawyers and 41 agents spend nearly two years only to find no evidence of colluding, which essentially means it did not happen.
BTW, the airlines did not admit to wrong doing, only settled because it would cost less to fight it in court. No actual investigation was conducted.
American said on its settlement deal: “Despite our firm conviction in the appropriateness of our actions, costs to defend against antitrust litigation often run into the tens of millions of dollars,” American spokesman Matt Miller said in a written statement. “So while it is difficult to agree to a settlement when we believe we’re right on the law and the facts, settling this case is a prudent decision for American.”
Got to hand it to Uncle Sam to make a system such that it is nearly impossible to defend yourself against due to the cost, so most just throw their hands up with Uncle Sam claiming victory.
-
And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism. Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?
Oligarchies usually fall apart from free market forces, with very few exceptions becoming monopolies, so long as the government does not screw it up. Actually the only exception I can think of that has not been a result of government interference is DeBeers' control over gem grade diamonds, but those are optional luxury products, so not really something that is necessary.
Look at the car makers, eventually foreign manufacturers came to the USA market and broke that up.
Look at airlines. After the government let up on regulations, the amount of airlines went up.
-
And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism...
No, it isn't.
... Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?
Yes, it does matter, because socialism starts with a dictatorship, there is no "by the time..." part.
-
No, it isn't.
Yes, it does matter, because socialism starts with a dictatorship, there is no "by the time..." part.
An even greater problem is that once the socialism starts, it is almost impossible to change it. Very different from the 4 or 8 years maximum term of office.
-
Obviously a person with learning difficulties, AOC, wrote that article.
Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...
You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?
For those not as familiar with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as Slobodan appears to be:
https://youtu.be/a5FBWkbAjEI?t=18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT3-_e3iikA
It's interesting for us outsiders to understand, when a legit question is put forward by a member of the US Congres, why is it that some folks go into defense mode by 'downplaying' the seriousness of the people asking the question? What's to hide, or does it hurt to be called out (even if the issue isn't at the table of this discussion)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The US President Frank Underwood killed a journalist.
But UK Prime Minister Francis Urquhart did it first. So it doesn't count.
Jeremy
-
Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...
You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?
I think we know the answer to that, and it's not about politics. Or shall we say, it's about a mixture of politics and other factors.
-
And she's (AOC) not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...
That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.
-
That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.
;D ;D ;D
-
Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...
You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?
For those not as familiar with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as Slobodan appears to be:
https://youtu.be/a5FBWkbAjEI?t=18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT3-_e3iikA
It's interesting for us outsiders to understand, when a legit question is put forward by a member of the US Congres, why is it that some folks go into defense mode by 'downplaying' the seriousness of the people asking the question? What's to hide, or does it hurt to be called out (even if the issue isn't at the table of this discussion)?
Cheers,
Bart
Even her own party is afraid of her bring them down. I read a little while back that there is a rumor going around that the Dems in NY State, after the census, may draw her out of her district. The Dems did this to someone in 2010 they did not like, so it is not out of the question.
-
That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.
No, Les. It's a sign that she's not old enough. Were she 35 she'd surely be running.
-
No, Les. It's a sign that she's not old enough. Were she 35 she'd surely be running.
I forgot about the 35 years requirement. So she couldn't run even for a vice president. Good example of the Natural Selection.
-
Unless the people of New York are smart enough to send her back to behind the bar, she'll run one of these days.
-
Unless the people of New York are smart enough to send her back to behind the bar, she'll run one of these days.
I was born in The Bronx, part of her district. Then, I lived in Queens for many years where we kept re-electing Congressman Weiner until he went to jail for being a pervert. We also had NY Gov Spitzer who had to resign because of his affair with a Washington DC hooker. So much for your question. Now I live in New Jersey where I escaped into retirement, land of the corrupt Senator Menendez, ex-Gov.Christie who created a traffic jam to the Washington Bridge during rush hour for political reasons, and another former NJ governor who would cruise the men's rooms with State Policemen protecting him on the Jersey Turnpike's rest areas looking for action, and a bunch of other losers. I can't get away from these people. PS =all Democrats.
-
Really? I do not know what socialism is? I, who was born in a socialist country, educated there, saw with my own eyes what socialism is in two other socialist countries before the fall of communism (Hungary and Romania), then lived eight years Russia right after the fall of communism? And I do not know what socialism is?
What is your experience with it?
No need to get all defensive. You conflated dictatorships with socialism. Living in a “socialist” country, I contradicted that idea.
-
I was born in The Bronx, part of her district. Then, I lived in Queens for many years where we kept re-electing Congressman Weiner until he went to jail for being a pervert. We also had NY Gov Spitzer who had to resign because of his affair with a Washington DC hooker. So much for your question. Now I live in New Jersey where I escaped into retirement, land of the corrupt Senator Menendez, ex-Gov.Christie who created a traffic jam to the Washington Bridge during rush hour for political reasons, and another former NJ governor who would cruise the men's rooms with State Policemen protecting him on the Jersey Turnpike's rest areas looking for action, and a bunch of other losers. I can't get away from these people. PS =all Democrats.
Sorry, all Democrats except Christie. Corruption in NJ and NY is not limited to any one party.
-
I think we know the answer to that...
Please enlighten us.
-
Trump steps into North Korea, shakes hands and says nice things about Kim. Will a Republican sitting president get any credit for trying to make peace with North Korea? What would they say if a Democrat did this?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kim-jong-un-meet-dmz-n1025041
-
Trump has been saying nice things about Kim for some time now. Hopefully, that approach will bear some fruit one day.
-
Trump has been saying nice things about Kim for some time now. Hopefully, that approach will bear some fruit one day.
Donald has praised most despots in one way or another. My guess is because he’s too lazy to contemplate what they’re truly about. Reminds me of Neville Chamberlin.
-
Donald has praised most despots in one way or another. My guess is because he’s too lazy to contemplate what they’re truly about. Reminds me of Neville Chamberlin.
You would benefit from rather more knowledge of Chamberlain, then.
Jeremy
-
You would benefit from rather more knowledge of Chamberlain, then.
Jeremy
Fair enough, though Churchill seemed to understand Hitler’s character more clearly.
-
Trump steps into North Korea, shakes hands and says nice things about Kim. Will a Republican sitting president get any credit for trying to make peace with North Korea? What would they say if a Democrat did this?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kim-jong-un-meet-dmz-n1025041
If Obama had done that, would you have praised him equally or accused him of being weak with "the enemy".
An arrangement had been reached with Iran re nuclear armaments and Iran had agreed to foreign on-hand inspection of their facilities and there had been such inspections and they were abiding by that agreement and all Obama ever caught from you about that was flak. And Iran had never tested missiles, had they?
Look, I get it that this is mostly tribal partisan nonsense, but please stop trying to pass any of it off as Trumpian foreign policy wisdom, it doesn't wash.
-
...this is mostly tribal partisan nonsense...
+1
-
If Obama had done that, would you have praised him equally or accused him of being weak with "the enemy".
An arrangement had been reached with Iran re nuclear armaments and Iran had agreed to foreign on-hand inspection of their facilities and there had been such inspections and they were abiding by that agreement and all Obama ever caught from you about that was flak. And Iran had never tested missiles, had they?
Look, I get it that this is mostly tribal partisan nonsense, but please stop trying to pass any of it off as Trumpian foreign policy wisdom, it doesn't wash.
Exactly my point. Everything is considered tribal political nonsense when the other side does it. Even when it has some value. It's just that the liberal press will never give Trump credit for anything they're so biased.
-
Our friend Alan Klein wrote an awesome piece for the CNN ;)
"What progressives should know about Trump voters"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/opinions/what-progressives-should-know-about-trump-voters-hanson/index.html
It is not a terribly long article, but I'll try to quote at least the beginning of the ten points:
1. Voters appreciate that the economy is currently experiencing near record-low peacetime unemployment, record-low minority unemployment, and virtual 3% annualized GDP growth...
2. Trump does not exist in a vacuum. Many supporters turned off by some of his antics are still far more appalled by an emerging radical neo-socialist Democratic agenda...
3. Trump can be uncouth and crass. But he has shown an empathy for the hollowed-out interior, lacking from prior Republican and Democratic candidates...
4. Trump may come across as callous to some, but to others at least genuine. He does not modulate his accent to fit regional crowds, as did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden...
5. Even when Trump has hit an impasse, his supporters mostly continue to believe that he at least keeps trying to meet his promises ...
6. Voters are angry over the sustained effort to remove or delegitimize a sitting president...
7. Progressives seemingly do not appreciate historical contexts. By past presidential standards, Trump's behavior while in the White House has not been characterized by the personal indiscretions of a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. His language has been blunt, but then so was Harry Truman's. He can be gross, but perhaps not so much as was Lyndon Johnson...
8... Trump alone sensed that and appealed to constituencies that heretofore had been libeled by presidents and presidential candidates as "crazies," "clingers," "deplorables" and "irredeemables." Fairly or not, half the country feels that elites, a deep state, or just "they" (call them whatever you will) are both condemnatory and yet ignorant of so-called fly-over country. Trump is seen as their payback...
9. For a thrice-married former raconteur, the Trump first family appears remarkably stable, and loyal...
10. Trump is a masterful impromptu speaker. Increasingly he can be self-deprecatory, and his performances are improving...
-
Our friend Alan Klein wrote an awesome piece for the CNN ;)
"What progressives should know about Trump voters"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/opinions/what-progressives-should-know-about-trump-voters-hanson/index.html
It is not a terribly long article, but I'll try to quote at least the beginning of the ten points:
I have to ask, Slobodan: were these points picked out for ironic value?
:-)
-
That was my impression, too.
-
I have to ask, Slobodan: were these points picked out for ironic value?
:-)
Care to elaborate?
-
Somehow, this attachment seems appropriate for this thread ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Somehow, this attachment seems appropriate for this thread ...
Cheers,
Bart
+1
-
Si, eso es Donald:
https://twitter.com/deAdder/status/1143931384265883650
-
Somehow, this attachment seems appropriate for this thread ...
Cheers,
Bart
Okay, Bart. Now please explain how you think these reprobates have benefited from Trump's policies and actions. Oh, and they're going to have another five and a half years to benefit -- whatever you think those benefits are.
-
Si, eso es Donald:
https://twitter.com/deAdder/status/1143931384265883650
Someone clearly suffers from a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
-
Someone clearly suffers from a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
Si te refieres a mí, entonces sí, y orgulloso de estar. 8)
-
Si te refieres a mí, entonces sí, y orgulloso de estar. 8)
¡Joder! How did that happen? I have set the language indicator to ESP but it has seldom overridden anything else - and I only do it so I can operate the keyboard.
As confusing as was Alabama!
;-(
-
Si te refieres a mí, entonces sí, y orgulloso de estar. 8)
Dear Beto,
I was referring to the cartoonist, but if you volunteer as well... ;)
-
Dear Beto,
I was referring to the cartoonist, but if you volunteer as well... ;)
Proud to be!
A motto to go by, “When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks.” :D
-
C.R.E.E.P. THAT'S FUNNY.
-
... A motto to go by, “When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks.” :D
Well, within my tribe and your tribe, everybody does think the same, it seems ;)
-
C.R.E.E.P. THAT'S FUNNY.
And the subtle joke with the feline can be interpreted in multiple ways. Funny AND clever ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
And the subtle joke with the feline can be interpreted in multiple ways. Funny AND clever ...
Cheers,
Bart
SMERSH????
Bond. James Bond.
-
SMERSH????
Bond. James Bond.
Ernst Stavro Blofeld's cat, that's one possibility.
Democrats may think about someone grabbing a pussy ...
Which demonstrates that it's all a matter of perspective.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Somehow, this attachment seems appropriate for this thread ...
One despairs. The intellectual level of opposition to Trump indicated by that cartoon - and by the implication that it carries any analytical weight, or indeed humour - indicates why he will be re-elected.
Jeremy
-
One despairs. The intellectual level of opposition to Trump indicated by that cartoon - and by the implication that it carries any analytical weight, or indeed humour - indicates why he will be re-elected.
Intellectual opposition is wasted on his electorate. He will be re-elected!
Cheers,
Bart
-
One despairs. The intellectual level of opposition to Trump indicated by that cartoon - and by the implication that it carries any analytical weight, or indeed humour - indicates why he will be re-elected.
Jeremy
You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?
-
You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?
I assumed he didn't.
-
One despairs. The intellectual level of opposition to Trump indicated by that cartoon - and by the implication that it carries any analytical weight, or indeed humour - indicates why he will be re-elected.
Give it a rest, it's a cartoon.
-
You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?
I, for one, do not get a Nixon reference. I have no idea who the character on the extreme right might be. Being a pirate of some kind, could it represent big business?
Do put me out of such unbearable suspense!
Rob
-
I, for one, do not get a Nixon reference. I have no idea who the character on the extreme right might be. Being a pirate of some kind, could it represent big business?
Do put me out of such unbearable suspense!
Rob
The acronym for Nixon re-election committee was C.R.E.E.P. The character at the right is Fearless Leader from the 1960's satirical animated Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, a tongue in cheek reference to the USSR.
-
You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?
Please enlighten us. Your hopes for a Watergate 2.0 have been hopelessly dashed, if that's the reference you had in mind.
-
Somehow, this attachment seems appropriate for this thread ...
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart, You were going to explain how you think the reprobates in your cartoon have benefited from Trump's policies and actions. Or was that just a throwaway line? So far, you haven't come through with any sort of explanation.
-
Please enlighten us. Your hopes for a Watergate 2.0 have been hopelessly dashed, if that's the reference you had in mind.
My "hopes" have nothing do with the cartoon - I was just asking whether our non-US friends knew that there's a cultural reference beyond just calling those particular characters "creeps" since they seemed to take the cartoon in question only on it's literal face.
-
Hi Bart, You were going to explain how you think the reprobates in your cartoon have benefited from Trump's policies and actions.
Was I?
Is it that hard that you need an explanation?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Was I?
Is it that hard that you need an explanation?
Cheers,
Bart
According to everything I've read and seen, Trump has made life harder for these guys. You're going to have to explain why you think they've benefited. Maybe you can bring out some of your charts.
-
Apparently, the stock market thinks Trump did a good job overseas.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/30/dow-futures-surge-220-points-at-the-open-after-trump-and-xi-agree-to-not-impose-more-tariffs.html
-
According to everything I've read and seen, Trump has made life harder for these guys. You're going to have to explain why you think they've benefited.
Apparently some explanation is still required, amazing.
Let's take North Korea as an example. The role of Trump is overestimated, early 2018, this was just Kim's two-track strategy (using Trump was just part of that strategy, he was useful). This was just Kim's two-track strategy going by the book that was prepared in 2017.
Until the nuclear missiles were ready, diplomacy was not an option for Kim. Now that they are ready, he is committing himself to economic growth. And so diplomacy ...
Trump was eager to get attention (and/or distraction from other issues), so he was used by Kim for creating a platform in the international arena for Kim. The only person who has really gained anything, is Kim.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently, the stock market thinks Trump did a good job overseas.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/30/dow-futures-surge-220-points-at-the-open-after-trump-and-xi-agree-to-not-impose-more-tariffs.html
The market jumped up in the morning and then it ended just with less than half of the early morning gains. Quite standard pattern for the last few months, any news will move the market. Apple and Google, among others, are still 10% off their recent heights. Most likely a cut in the interest rate will do more to stimulate the market than the vague China-USA trade talk speculations.
-
According to everything I've read and seen, Trump has made life harder for these guys. You're going to have to explain why you think they've benefited. Maybe you can bring out some of your charts.
Bart may have something better, but how ‘bout this:
Isn’t Saudi Arabia getting an arms deal that includes setting up a high tech weapons factory there?
An oligarch friend of Putin has had US sanctions lifted against three of his companies.
As for North Korea, perhaps Bolton’s absence at the DMZ tête-à-tête is a clue, as is Ivanka’s presence. Perhaps a more moderate stand toward N.K. nuclear disarmament?
This may sound strange, but I think Donald is maneuvering for a Nobel in his dealings with N.K.
-
Apparently some explanation is still required, amazing.
Let's take North Korea as an example. The role of Trump is overestimated, early 2018, this was just Kim's two-track strategy (using Trump was just part of that strategy, he was useful). This was just Kim's two-track strategy going by the book that was prepared in 2017.
Until the nuclear missiles were ready, diplomacy was not an option for Kim. Now that they are ready, he is committing himself to economic growth. And so diplomacy ...
Trump was eager to get attention (and/or distraction from other issues), so he was used by Kim for creating a platform in the international arena for Kim. The only person who has really gained anything, is Kim.
Cheers,
Bart
A couple of years ago we were almost at war with NK. Since then, we're smiling at each other. NK has stopped nuclear explosions and long range missile testing. They've released American "hostages". But we still have sanctions on. However, we're talking again. That's a lot better than previous presidents have done. No, it's not resolved, maybe won't be. But you got to give credit where it's due. Otherwise it just appears you just hate the president and that's it. Regular people know what's going on. When they see both leaders step over the DMZ, you have to get a good feeling and hope. What's your plan to resolve the issues?
-
I can't get away from these people. PS =all Democrats.
You can move out to San Diego and be represented by Duncan Hunter, Jr., a Republican who has misused campaign funds, cheated on his wife multiple times and then threw her under the bus claiming that it was all here fault. There are an equal number of scurrilous Republicans!!!
-
Bart may have something better, but how ‘bout this:
Isn’t Saudi Arabia getting an arms deal that includes setting up a high tech weapons factory there?
An oligarch friend of Putin has had US sanctions lifted against three of his companies.
As for North Korea, perhaps Bolton’s absence at the DMZ tête-à-tête is a clue, as is Ivanka’s presence. Perhaps a more moderate stand toward N.K. nuclear disarmament?
This may sound strange, but I think Donald is maneuvering for a Nobel in his dealings with N.K.
If a deal is worked out in NK, don;t you think he would deserve one?
-
You can move out to San Diego and be represented by Duncan Hunter, Jr., a Republican who has misused campaign funds, cheated on his wife multiple times and then threw her under the bus claiming that it was all here fault. There are an equal number of scurrilous Republicans!!!
I agree. Equal opportunity fraudsters. Of course, since I live(d) in Democrat controlled NY and NJ, Democrats are in a better position to be corrupt. So I see them stealing more often. Which always raises in my mind - why would anyone want to turn over their health care and other major decision to these losers in Washington? Give them less power, not more. Stop turning your lives over to them.
-
Apparently, the stock market thinks Trump did a good job overseas.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/30/dow-futures-surge-220-points-at-the-open-after-trump-and-xi-agree-to-not-impose-more-tariffs.html
this is just as good a predictor as housing prices were in 2005.
-
The market jumped up in the morning and then it ended just with less than half of the early morning gains. Quite standard pattern for the last few months, any news will move the market. Apple and Google, among others, are still 10% off their recent heights. Most likely a cut in the interest rate will do more to stimulate the market than the vague China-USA trade talk speculations.
Prices have gone up primarily as a result of stock buybacks than anything else. The stocks that I've looked at don't have particularly strong sales growth and PE ratios are not inspiring me to go out and invest these days. Most of the reliable economic indicators are pointing to slow growth in 2020 with a 40% chance of a recession of some magnitude. Most of the US corporate earnings are driven by the financial services sector and we have seen how that can bollix things up with alarming quickness.
-
this is just as good a predictor as housing prices were in 2005.
I actually agree. We're printing too much. Spending too much. Debt is too high. Bad signs. Of course, if the Democrats win in 2020, they'll wipe out all 1 1/2 trillion in student loan debts, spend two trillion on infrastructure, give everyone free health care, etc. They're going to save us.
-
I actually agree. We're printing too much. Spending too much. Debt is too high. Bad signs. Of course, if the Democrats win in 2020, they'll wipe out all 1 1/2 trillion in student loan debts, spend two trillion on infrastructure, give everyone free health care, etc. They're going to save us.
the infrastructure spending would be a good thing as it would create jobs and fix a bunch of problems related to transportation etc. I was amazed by the roads in Alberta this past week. I did not see a single pothole or rough pavement. the other two things won't happen as advertised.
-
the infrastructure spending would be a good thing as it would create jobs and fix a bunch of problems related to transportation etc. I was amazed by the roads in Alberta this past week. I did not see a single pothole or rough pavement. the other two things won't happen as advertised.
Spending in infrastructure might help if we had the money. But we don't. We'd have toi print it or borrow it adding to our debt. Plus, every dollar spent by a government takes it out of private capital which is the real seed money for growing the economy. So while we add to infrastructure, the economy suffers elsewhere. I also recall there was 800 billion spent on infrastructure after the 2008 crisis on "shovel ready" jobs. Where did that money go? Just another boondoggle and waste of resources.
-
the infrastructure spending would be a good thing as it would create jobs and fix a bunch of problems related to transportation etc. I was amazed by the roads in Alberta this past week. I did not see a single pothole or rough pavement. the other two things won't happen as advertised.
Great way of putting it, I must say.
Hope you did not drive through PA getting to Canada, you may need a new axil.
-
Spending in infrastructure might help if we had the money. But we don't. We'd have toi print it or borrow it adding to our debt. Plus, every dollar spent by a government takes it out of private capital which is the real seed money for growing the economy. So while we add to infrastructure, the economy suffers elsewhere. I also recall there was 800 billion spent on infrastructure after the 2008 crisis on "shovel ready" jobs. Where did that money go? Just another boondoggle and waste of resources.
I remember being told this money would only be spent on infrastructure projects that would add to the economy only. In Philly, a few million was given to help build a concrete "boardwalk" along the Schuylkill river for foot and bike traffic only. This thing is not used for any commerce what so ever. Sure, it's nice, but does absolutely nothing for the economy. Obama squandered the money and (along with the whole Healthcare.gov debacle) lowered the overall reputation of the government doing anything.
It's said, but Obama pretty much accomplished the opposite of what he was trying to with his blunders.
-
Great way of putting it, I must say.
Hope you did not drive through PA getting to Canada, you may need a new axil.
LOL, I have enough problems just driving on the roads here in Maryland which are abysmal!! We flew to Montreal to visit friends and then on to Calgary. It was interesting that Enterprise gave me a Ford Fusion Hybrid to drive for five days. We didn't even go through a half tank of gas on the trip with all the driving we did.
-
CNN poll shows major changes for the Democrat nominees. Four are running great with the rest being insignificant - apparently only their mothers are voting for the rest. Sort of what happened to the Republicans in 2016 nomination. Harris moved to second place passing Sanders. Warren in a close 3rd place to Harris. Very interesting. The press wants Harris. It's been obvious for months. They may get their wish. She's a sitting senator, black, a woman, attractive, good speaker, and not as left as most of the others.
"The poll, conducted after the two-night debate, finds 22% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents backing Biden for the party's presidential nomination, 17% Harris, 15% Warren and 14% Sen. Bernie Sanders. No one else in the 23-person field tested hits 5%."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/politics/2020-democratic-candidates-poll/index.html
-
Apparently some explanation is still required, amazing.
Let's take North Korea as an example. The role of Trump is overestimated, early 2018, this was just Kim's two-track strategy (using Trump was just part of that strategy, he was useful). This was just Kim's two-track strategy going by the book that was prepared in 2017.
Until the nuclear missiles were ready, diplomacy was not an option for Kim. Now that they are ready, he is committing himself to economic growth. And so diplomacy ...
Trump was eager to get attention (and/or distraction from other issues), so he was used by Kim for creating a platform in the international arena for Kim. The only person who has really gained anything, is Kim.
Cheers,
Bart
No crap! And you know this... how? Did you have a chat with Kim? Fact is, neither you, I, or anybody else knows what's going to happen with North Korea. I'm pretty sure it'll be something none of us expect, and something bad. At least Trump has made it more difficult for Kim to do what he's going to do.
And the rest of those cretins? Trump has helped them how?
-
A couple of years ago we were almost at war with NK. Since then, we're smiling at each other. NK has stopped nuclear explosions and long range missile testing. They've released American "hostages". But we still have sanctions on. However, we're talking again. That's a lot better than previous presidents have done. No, it's not resolved, maybe won't be. But you got to give credit where it's due. Otherwise it just appears you just hate the president and that's it. Regular people know what's going on. When they see both leaders step over the DMZ, you have to get a good feeling and hope. What's your plan to resolve the issues?
It is good that Trump is talking with Kim. But NK is a nuclear power, and I suspect that will not change. Meanwhile, in Iran, I imagine them looking at the NK meeting and saying, “Hmm look what you get if you go ahead and build the nukes! We should never have agreed to that deal, all we got is sanctions.”
-
It is good that Trump is talking with Kim. But NK is a nuclear power, and I suspect that will not change. Meanwhile, in Iran, I imagine them looking at the NK meeting and saying, “Hmm look what you get if you go ahead and build the nukes! We should never have agreed to that deal, all we got is sanctions.”
Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate. So it wasn;t a treaty that Iran could expect to hold. They took a chance. Although they've begin violating again, the sanctions still hold, at least by America. Also, sanctions hurt Iran more than NK. NK is so isolated with little international trade. Iran has huge oil reserves that are lying idle and other trade and sales not being done that hurt more than in NK. I don;t think they're going to build nukes in any case. Then they'll lose the support of the other signatories as well.
PS. Trump has already suggested to Iran, as he has to NK, that if they give up any nuclear bombs forever, he would gladly remove the sanctions and start doing regular business with them. The ball is in their court.
-
According to everything I've read and seen, Trump has made life harder for these guys. You're going to have to explain why you think they've benefited. Maybe you can bring out some of your charts.
Most of this is above my pay grade Russ and I don’t really know enough to have an opinion on relations with Kim and clan nor with Putin, time will tell I suppose.
But I don’t get the thing with MBS and the murder of a United States Citizen and by that I mean Kashogi. There seems little doubt the man was murdered and there seems little doubt MBS played a hand in it. I realize Kashogi was a Saudi citizen but he was also a naturalized US citizen. Surely there should have been some consequences to this? Turkey seems far more interested in the affair that the US. Why is that? Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug and has done what appears to be a slightly dodgy arms deal with MBS despite him casually killing one of your citizens.
I realize politics is a dirty game but this leaves a very bad taste. It seems disrespectful to the USA from my standpoint.
The rest of the cartoon I realized had references I just didn’t get. I had no idea what the weird pirate guy was supposed to be.
I think Trump is going to win a second term. I think the Democrats are going to score an own goal as they attack each other for the party nomination. If the Republicans can hold their nerve and not attack the sitting president I think he will take it again.
-
Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate.
Yeah - and I think Obama actually had his fingers crossed when he agreed to it, so more fool those Iranians for believing in the US. Jeeseus - what are we, 11 years old?
-
You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?
Yes, I understood it. I'm old enough to remember Nixon.
Intellectual opposition is wasted on his electorate. He will be re-elected!
That kind of staggering, smug arrogance is the reason the US has Trump and we have Brexit. Reasonable disagreement has become impossible: if you don't accept my views, you are not merely wrong, you are too stupid to be worth bothering with.
I assumed he didn't.
Did you really? On what grounds? Do, pray, set out your reasons.
Give it a rest, it's a cartoon.
It is. And it's infantile. And, sadly, it's representative. We have them here too: Brookes in The Times is an egregious example (and had something vaguely similar about Johnson and Iranians in the last few weeks).
Jeremy
-
The acronym for Nixon re-election committee was C.R.E.E.P. The character at the right is Fearless Leader from the 1960's satirical animated Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, a tongue in cheek reference to the USSR.
Thanks for the ray of sunshine!
Never in a mlliion years could I have figured that out! Clearly a good way of spotting spies: they can't have the old pop cultural connections.
Thanks!
-
Most of this is above my pay grade Russ and I don’t really know enough to have an opinion on relations with Kim and clan nor with Putin, time will tell I suppose.
But I don’t get the thing with MBS and the murder of a United States Citizen and by that I mean Kashogi. There seems little doubt the man was murdered and there seems little doubt MBS played a hand in it. I realize Kashogi was a Saudi citizen but he was also a naturalized US citizen. Surely there should have been some consequences to this? Turkey seems far more interested in the affair that the US. Why is that? Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug and has done what appears to be a slightly dodgy arms deal with MBS despite him casually killing one of your citizens.
I realize politics is a dirty game but this leaves a very bad taste. It seems disrespectful to the USA from my standpoint.
The rest of the cartoon I realized had references I just didn’t get. I had no idea what the weird pirate guy was supposed to be.
I think Trump is going to win a second term. I think the Democrats are going to score an own goal as they attack each other for the party nomination. If the Republicans can hold their nerve and not attack the sitting president I think he will take it again.
I agreed MBS is a thug, but he's our thug unfortunately. So is Erdoğan, even a member of NATO which makes him one of your thug's too. Unfortunately we have to deal with bastards all the time. It's the way the world works. Xi who we do the most trade with in the world runs a country out of 1984. Kim killed our own citizens, never mind one who was a Saudi. Castro is just like these guys. Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia. You can't win. Anyway, it's all politics to attack Trump.
-
I agreed MBS is a thug, but he's our thug unfortunately. So is Erdoğan, even a member of NATO which makes him one of your thug's too. Unfortunately we have to deal with bastards all the time. It's the way the world works. Xi who we do the most trade with in the world runs a country out of 1984. Kim killed our own citizens, never mind one who was a Saudi. Castro is just like these guys. Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia. You can't win. Anyway, it's all politics to attack Trump.
I am a long way from NATO so Erdogan is not my thug. We have plenty of home grown thugs and are willing to trade if you would like but in the interests of openness I have to tell you best you don’t.
-
I am a long way from NATO so Erdogan is not my thug. We have plenty of home grown thugs and are willing to trade if you would like but in the interests of openness I have to tell you best you don’t.
Those gun makers get everywhere.
-
No crap! And you know this... how? Did you have a chat with Kim? Fact is, neither you, I, or anybody else knows what's going to happen with North Korea.
Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);
Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.
These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."
And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...
The article has many more observations (about China, and Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.
Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."
Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.
And the rest of those cretins? Trump has helped them how?
In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.
The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That kind of staggering, smug arrogance is the reason the US has Trump and we have Brexit.
Jeremy, perhaps you misread what I intended to say. It was an observation, namely, that reason is a relatively unimportant factor when gut feelings are at play. As long as that is not understood by the Democrats, Trump will win again.
When, after more than 10,000 lies by their idol, people still believe his promises, the attempt to persuade with facts has failed and will fail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);
Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.
These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."
And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...
The article has many more observations (about China, and Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.
Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."
Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.
In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.
The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.
Cheers,
Bart
We made deals with the Soviet Union regarding regulation of nukes and missiles even though their human rights regimen was certainly not stellar. When you're a little country like your Netherlands, you can afford to stay out of the fray and stay "pure". But when you're the USA who everyone wants to save the world, you have to make deals with criminals. Didn't Obama make a deal with Iran which is considered a terrorist nation? You're being inconsistent Bart because you don;t like Trump. It's distorting your thinking and consistency.
-
Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate. So it wasn;t a treaty that Iran could expect to hold. They took a chance. Although they've begin violating again, the sanctions still hold, at least by America. Also, sanctions hurt Iran more than NK. NK is so isolated with little international trade. Iran has huge oil reserves that are lying idle and other trade and sales not being done that hurt more than in NK. I don;t think they're going to build nukes in any case. Then they'll lose the support of the other signatories as well.
PS. Trump has already suggested to Iran, as he has to NK, that if they give up any nuclear bombs forever, he would gladly remove the sanctions and start doing regular business with them. The ball is in their court.
And yet, it was Trump, not Kim, who called for their meeting.
Most of what you say here is conjecture. The facts are: before the US pulled out of the deal, Iran was abiding by it, now it is not. And NK is a nuclear power, with there is no evidence that is going to change.
I have to believe there is a strong faction in Iran saying, “We’ll get better treatment once we have developed nuclear weapons.” I’m not saying that faction will prevail, I can’t possibly know that, but I imagine they will complicate any negotiation with the US.
-
I can now sleep well, knowing that our armchair anti-crimes against humanity fighters are so active.
-
... Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug...
We have a long tradition of deep-bowing to these thugs we do business and have aligning geopolitical interests with:
-
And yet, it was Trump, not Kim, who called for their meeting.
Most of what you say here is conjecture. The facts are: before the US pulled out of the deal, Iran was abiding by it, now it is not. And NK is a nuclear power, with there is no evidence that is going to change.
I have to believe there is a strong faction in Iran saying, “We’ll get better treatment once we have developed nuclear weapons.” I’m not saying that faction will prevail, I can’t possibly know that, but I imagine they will complicate any negotiation with the US.
Trump is playing Good Cop, Bad Cop. First he bangs you on the head threatening you with "utter destruction, fire and fury". Then when he stops and your head starts feeling better, he makes you an offer even the Don can't refuse.
Of course, Iran is going to wait (as China is regarding tariffs) until the 2012 presidential election hoping Trump loses. The Democrat nominees have already showed their hand stupidly undermining the President by saying they'll go back to the Iran deal and tariffs are bad. But they and China and NK might be very disappointed anyway even if the Democrats win. After the election, the democrats would change their mind and keep Trump's policies when they realize changing them will only hurt America more.
-
... When you're a little country like your Netherlands, you can afford to stay out of the fray and stay "pure"...
Like chickening out of Srebrenica they were supposed to protect.
-
... Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia...
Brilliant, Alan!
-
Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);
Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.
These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."
And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...
The article has many more observations (about China, and Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.
Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."
Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.
In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.
The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.
Cheers,
Bart
I’m going to respond and then leave this behind. Life’s too short for this kind of thing.
Frankly I’m not too impressed by what comes from university professors. They tend to take positions and stick with them in spite of changing conditions. Your professor may be right, but I think you have to be on the ground to understand really what’s going on. It would be interesting to know what your professor thinks about the effectiveness of Trump’s economic constraints on NK. If that’s “falling for it,” then I’d be in favor of Trump “falling for it” more often.
Bottom line: these “negotiations” will limp along with no end in sight. Kim’s not going to give up his weapons, which make him appear a lot bigger than he is. I hope NK never, never, never moves toward a nuclear attack on the U.S. or any of its interests. I’d hate to see that many people in the north and in China die in the nuclear obliteration of North Korea. I developed a lot of respect for the Korean people during my year there. I’d hate to see them back in a war.
Oh yes, “legitimizing” the other cretins in that cartoon really is a nasty thing for Trump to do. Golly. He’s made them look really big. (What crap.)
Bottom line, Bart, Trump’s been putting the economic squeeze on these “leaders.” It’s having an effect. It beats war, and in the end, may bring about the desired result. Iran in particular has an increasingly serious problem. Most of its people aren’t with the leadership. Obama had an opportunity, when Iranians in effect revolted, to push back against the leadership, perhaps even bring on new leadership. But he wussed out and didn’t have the guts to try. It was a tragedy, and a mistake for which we continue to pay.
-
Like chickening out of Srebrenica they were supposed to protect.
I didn't know the Dutch were found criminally guilty by the Hague in letting 300 people get killed. It's not so easy to make the right call when you're actually involved. Much easier pointing fingers at America while you sit on your butt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/dutch-soldiers-let-300-muslims-die-in-bosnian-war-court-rules (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/dutch-soldiers-let-300-muslims-die-in-bosnian-war-court-rules)
-
Bottom line, Bart, Trump’s been putting the economic squeeze on these “leaders.” It’s having an effect.
Only it isn't - at least not in the way that Trump (claims that he) wants. Before the US reneged on the Iran deal there was an opportunity to engage them about their activities elsewhere (supposing, for the sake of discussion, that one views their support of Hezbullah, offensive against ISIS etc. to be illegitimate). Now there is no such opportunity. They are busy building a bomb and the hardliners are well in control. The man in the street is economically hurt, but like American farmers, they are just viewed by their leaders as collateral damage.
-
Only it isn't - at least not in the way that Trump (claims that he) wants. Before the US reneged on the Iran deal there was an opportunity to engage them about their activities elsewhere (supposing, for the sake of discussion, that one views their support of Hezbullah, offensive against ISIS etc. to be illegitimate). Now there is no such opportunity. They are busy building a bomb and the hardliners are well in control. The man in the street is economically hurt, but like American farmers, they are just viewed by their leaders as collateral damage.
China agrees to move to an "equal playing field". So Trump's tariffs are moving the ball to the goal line. Of course, I don;t trust the Chinese. But we'll see. In any case, before Trump, no one hit China on any of their intellectual property theft and other predatory actions. If Trump can get them to change, even a little, your country and the whole world would benefit as well as America. You should be hoping he succeeds.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/02/li-keqiang-china-will-become-an-even-playing-field-for-foreign-firms.html
-
Like chickening out of Srebrenica they were supposed to protect.
Fake news, Slobodan. You should be ashamed of yourself, playing games over the backs of thousands of people killed. Disgusting.
The Dutch contingency was abandoned/refused (even after 4 repeated requests for close) air support by the French and American command of the joint UN troops, and when the enclave was virtually already overrun by Serb Troops with tanks (the Dutch were only allowed to be lightly armed, by treaty), American fighter pilots couldn't find the target area (too little too late). That was a signal to the Serb troops not to expect resistance (which was futile given the troop numbers), and they, not the Dutch, committed genocide on more than 8373 men and boys, and more are still being found each year.
Disgusting that one would even contemplate making fun of that situation, the worst genocide in Europe since WWII.
-
Fake news, Slobodan. You should be ashamed of yourself, playing games over the backs of thousands of people killed. Disgusting.
The Dutch contingency was abandoned/refused (even after 4 repeated requests for close) air support by the French and American command of the joint UN troops, and when the enclave was virtually already overrun by Serb Troops with tanks (the Dutch were only allowed to be lightly armored, by treaty), American fighter pilots couldn't find the target area. That was a signal to the Serb troops not to expect resistance (which was futile given the troop numbers), and they, not the Dutch, committed genocide on more than 8373 men and boys, and more are still being found each year.
Disgusting that one would even contemplate making fun of that situation, the worst genocide in Europe since WWII.
No one is excusing the Serbs. But if the Dutch UN troops had taken in the Muslims, the Serbs would not have attacked UN forces. The Dutch troops "chickened" out and didn't do their jobs. They refused to take them in and forced these people back into unprotected areas where they were killed. That's why The Hague found the Dutch guilty. You see, it's so easy for you to blame America for stuff. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you see just how hard it is to stay morally correct in a tough and challenging world.
-
Fake news, Slobodan. You should be ashamed of yourself, playing games over the backs of thousands of people killed. Disgusting...
;D ;D ;D
The usual response from the left: feigned moral outrage when faced with inconvenient facts.
-
;D ;D ;D
The usual response from the left: feigned moral outrage when faced with inconvenient facts.
-1
-
Ahmmm...
-
I didn't know the Dutch were found criminally guilty by the Hague in letting 300 people get killed.
Didn't you? It's not a secret, though maybe not reported in the US since you don't accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.
It's not so easy to make the right call when you're actually involved. Much easier pointing fingers at America while you sit on your butt.
Who is pointing fingers and who is sitting on their butts (apart from you, that is)?
-
The usual response from the left
What does this have to do with "the left" ?
-
What does this have to do with "the left" ?
Nothing. It's a transparent diversion tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What does this have to do with "the left" ?
Jeremy, I can see from your picture that you're just a kid, but where are you? You're obviously absorbing the kind of political crap being taught in United States schools at the moment, so I'm curious.
-
Didn't you? It's not a secret, though maybe not reported in the US since you don't accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.
That's one way of not getting convicted yourself. Don't recognize the International Criminal Court, and prosecute whistleblowers.
So transparent.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No one is excusing the Serbs. But if the Dutch UN troops had taken in the Muslims, the Serbs would not have attacked UN forces. The Dutch troops "chickened" out and didn't do their jobs. They refused to take them in and forced these people back into unprotected areas where they were killed. That's why The Hague found the Dutch guilty. You see, it's so easy for you to blame America for stuff. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you see just how hard it is to stay morally correct in a tough and challenging world.
Alan, that has not answered the point about ignored, delayed military aid for the Dutch. Nobody seriously
believes that the requests did not get through to HQ.
You have simply opted to ignore it and hide behind your usual mantra of the world blaming America for everything. Your country, or however you care to define it, does not equate with the people supposedly running the foreign "interventions". Vietnam is one such classical example, where people here on this very forum, with personal experience, will tell you it was the politicians back home who fucked up on their behalf and brought about the indignity of the big boy getting a flea in his ear. The guys at the front have to follow orders, or we are back to the Middle Ages: robber barons, Christian mercenaries and assorted bows, arrows, swords and spears for hire. Where your politicians have not thought it through, they should follow the sage advice: when in doubt, do nowt.
-
Alan, that has not answered the point about ignored, delayed military aid for the Dutch. Nobody seriously
believes that the requests did not get through to HQ...
Nobody seriously believes that the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary army would have dared to attack and destroy the Dutch troops, which the West would have treated as an act of war, had they had the balls to hold their ground. But you have to have the balls. It much easier to second-guess others from a comfy armchair.
-
That's one way of not getting convicted yourself. Don't recognize the International Criminal Court, and prosecute whistleblowers.
So transparent.
Cheers,
Bart
Absolutely, Bart. You shouldn't ignore the ICC. After all, the judges on the International Criminal Court were appointed by whom. . .? Golly, must have been God.
-
Alan, that has not answered the point about ignored, delayed military aid for the Dutch. Nobody seriously
believes that the requests did not get through to HQ.
You have simply opted to ignore it and hide behind your usual mantra of the world blaming America for everything. Your country, or however you care to define it, does not equate with the people supposedly running the foreign "interventions". Vietnam is one such classical example, where people here on this very forum, with personal experience, will tell you it was the politicians back home who fucked up on their behalf and brought about the indignity of the big boy getting a flea in his ear. The guys at the front have to follow orders, or we are back to the Middle Ages: robber barons, Christian mercenaries and assorted bows, arrows, swords and spears for hire. Where your politicians have not thought it through, they should follow the sage advice: when in doubt, do nowt.
I didn't find the Dutch guilty. The Hague did.
-
Nobody seriously believes that the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary army would have dared to attack and destroy the Dutch troops, which the West would have treated as an act of war, had they had the balls to hold their ground. But you have to have the balls. It much easier to second-guess others from a comfy armchair.
It was 1995 and yet that same paramilitary army obviously believed it could get away with the murder of 8,000. But they were rational enough to understand the consequences of attacking a lightly armed U.N. base?
That whole place was engulfed in madness.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Ron_Haviv_-_Massacre_in_Bijeljina.jpg
-
It was 1995 and yet that same paramilitary army obviously believed it could get away with the murder of 8,000. But they were rational enough to understand the consequences of attacking a lightly armed U.N. base?
That whole place was engulfed in madness....
Yes, madness that most civil wars are, including the American one. As for the first sentence, yes, you can get away with much more when you kill each other in a civil war than when you kill a single foreign soldier. Just ask the one million Tutsis in Rwanda. The world didn't blink.
As for your image, there were also whole Serbian villages eradicated and women raped as well, but the media wants you to believe only one side (Bosnian Serbs) was committing atrocities. It shall be noted that Bosnian Serbs were only 1/3 of the Bosnian population, i.e., outnumbered 2:1 by Muslims and Croats in the civil war.
-
I didn't find the Dutch guilty. The Hague did.
Red herring. Nobody said that you had.
-
Red herring. Nobody said that you had.
Sorry, Rob, you did say that:
... You have simply opted to ignore it and hide behind...
"It" being:
...the point about ignored, delayed military aid for the Dutch...
That "point" was not ignored by Alan, but by the court. If you accuse Alan of ignoring it (as you did) then you are implying he, Alan, also found the Dutch guilty. Simple logic, you can't have it both ways.
-
Nobody seriously believes that the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary army would have dared to attack and destroy the Dutch troops, which the West would have treated as an act of war, had they had the balls to hold their ground. But you have to have the balls. It much easier to second-guess others from a comfy armchair.
Talking about armchairs, it was the USA (together with the UK and France) who sealed the fate of those 8000+ men and boys, by deciding to withhold air-support. Apparently, that decision had been made already weeks before. General Mladic knew there would be no support, so he could do as he wanted.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995
Bart
-
Talking about armchairs, it was the USA (together with the UK and France) who sealed the fate of those 8000+ men and boys, by deciding to withhold air-support. Apparently, that decision had been made already weeks before. General Mladic knew there would be no support, so he could do as he wanted.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995
Bart
The Dutch UN forces were not blamed for the 8000. Rather, for the 300 civilians they had in protection and then turned them over to the other side knowing they would probably be killed.
Having said that, my main point in pushing this is not to condemn the Dutch. There's a lot of fog in war. It's often difficult to know what's the right thing to do especially when the safety of your own forces is in question. So I ask you to consider America who sometimes makes what in retrospect turns out to be a poor decision. Nothing's perfect and hindsight is 20/20. Just like the Dutch forces, American forces and American politicians often err even though their heart and hopes are in the right place. Wouldn't it be decent and fair for the both of us to be be reasonable in measuring success and failure and moral judgements with this in mind and stop the constant criticizing?
-
Wouldn't it be decent and fair for the both of us to be be reasonable in measuring success and failure and moral judgements with this in mind and stop the constant criticizing?
There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.
Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.
Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sorry, Rob, you did say that:
"It" being:
That "point" was not ignored by Alan, but by the court. If you accuse Alan of ignoring it (as you did) then you are implying he, Alan, also found the Dutch guilty. Simple logic, you can't have it both ways.
An impressive display of obtuse mathematical logic applied to the service of extrapolation
:-)
-
There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.
Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.
Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.
Cheers,
Bart
Far better to look at it as propaganda.
-
Far better to look at it as propaganda.
I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.
-
I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.
Exactly. If you can't convince, confuse/distract/divert. It's a very obvious strategy, also used by Russia (and others).
Same is happening with the questioning of Kamala Harris' nationality. Unless called out for what it is, it will repeat until doubt is sowed in the minds of shallow people.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This thread is the internet version of a laugh track. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.
Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.
Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.
Cheers,
Bart
You sound like Trump.
-
I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.
All sides practice this. What balances it out is the amount from each point of view. Unfortunately, the media is biased to the left. So we get a distorted balance.
-
I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.
But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?
Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.
-
But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?
Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.
I was thinking more of Russia and China as the frontrunners in this trend, but with the rest of us following on as the oligarchs observe the boundless benefits to be reaped. The current concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% is only a taste of what is to come.
-
But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?
Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.
Interestingly, the American founders were almost as distrustful of democracy as they were of centralized power. They thought people would vote the country into bankruptcy which is happening. The original constitution rules had each state's legislature elect their two senators. That was changed to popular vote in the 1900's by constitutional amendment. We all know about the presidential electors, another way to prevent the passion of democracy. As recently as 2016, the Democrat party had superdelegates to pick who would run for president. They didn't have to follow the popular vote in the nomination process. The Democrat party was not Democratic. It was afraid of its own members who might vote for someone a little crazy like Sanders. Hillary had wrapped up all of the superdelegates getting their commitment to vote for her before one popular vote was made. Sanders didn't know what hit him. He lost before he started. I think they changed their rules for 2020.
-
I was thinking more of Russia and China as the frontrunners in this trend, but with the rest of us following on as the oligarchs observe the boundless benefits to be reaped. The current concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% is only a taste of what is to come.
Well, the leaders of the Democrat party wants to spread the wealth around. Of course, they're referring to your wealth not theirs. So not much is going to happen with the 1% regardless of which party wins.
-
The Democrat nomination for 2020 presidential election is starting to look like the Republican process for the 2016 election. Most of the candidates are round 1% in the polls. How do you look in the mirror in the morning and try to get going for the day when you know 99% of the people don't like you? :-[
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/harris-warren-2020-dems-poll-1396656 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/harris-warren-2020-dems-poll-1396656)
-
So not much is going to happen with the 1% regardless of which party wins.
Didn't they get a tax break to make them even wealthier?
It looks like it does matter which party wins.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Didn't they get a tax break to make them even wealthier?
It looks like it does matter which party wins.
Cheers,
Bart
The rich Democrats as well as Republicans are also smiling all the way to the bank. Do you really think that the Democrats will change tax laws that really hurt the rich if they win? They've been in charge on and off for decades helping democrats as well as republicans get rich. What's going to change? Do you think Kamala Harris is going to do that? I'd be shocked. Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession.
-
Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession.
As the financial prospectus documents frequently say: "Past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance"
-
Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession.
Ah, the benefits of deregulation!
-
There has to be balance. So don't want to overdo things.
-
Do you really think that the Democrats will change tax laws that really hurt the rich if they win?
That is precisely what Elizabeth Warren is saying she'll do.
-
That is precisely what Elizabeth Warren is saying she'll do.
I don;t think she's going to be nominated or win if she is. In any case, it requires Congress to pass legislation, and they only tweak taxes. Not enough to hurt the rich. There are always loopholes the rich can take advantage of that the rest of us can't. In any case, most Americans don't care about rich people and actually admire them. Only socialists who want to redistribute wealth hate them. Most Americans are worried about health care for themselves and their own financial issues. They don;t walk around wanted to "punish" the rich for being successful. They wish they were one of them and hope some day to be successful like them. This still is America after all.
-
Republican Congressman Amash quits the Republican party. Amash, a libertarian, has been the one Republican along with Democrats calling for impeachment of Trump. So now it seems he may run as a third party candidate for president. If he does, who will he hurt more? The Democrat or Republican in the election? Which votes will he peel off?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/politics/justin-amash-leaving-gop/index.html
-
... most Americans don't care about rich people and actually admire them...
"Most Americans are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires" someone said ;)
-
That is precisely what Elizabeth Warren is saying she'll do.
Cut her some slack, she's just trying to figure out out who we're supposed to be trying to hurt. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
-
Cut here some slack, she's just trying to figure out out who we're supposed to be trying to hurt. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
Heh.
-
Cut here some slack, she's just trying to figure out out who we're supposed to be trying to hurt. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
Let's see. Warren, the left and Democrats don't want to hurt Trump, his kids, or anyone else or put them in jail. Maybe hang them. They don't want to deny those who believe differently the right to speak freely. They don't want to take away money from those who earned it and distribute to themselves.
The thing we should all be against is more government power - on both sides. It doesn;t matter who uses it. It will always take away our freedoms. It's government power that hurts us. It doesn;t distinguish in the end because power itself corrupts. We should vote for people who want to diminish power not just change who gets "hurt".
-
It's government power that hurts us.
Just wondering, Alan. Are you going to be celebrating the moon landing later this month?
-
I don;t think she's going to be nominated or win if she is. In any case, it requires Congress to pass legislation, and they only tweak taxes. Not enough to hurt the rich. There are always loopholes the rich can take advantage of that the rest of us can't. In any case, most Americans don't care about rich people and actually admire them. Only socialists who want to redistribute wealth hate them. Most Americans are worried about health care for themselves and their own financial issues. They don;t walk around wanted to "punish" the rich for being successful. They wish they were one of them and hope some day to be successful like them. This still is America after all.
An interesting collection of thoughts, there.
As we, the poor, can't "take advantage" of loopholes because we have no money on whose behalf to take that advantage, it shouldn't upset us if "the rich" can: the thing's academic.
That "most Americans are worried about health care for themselves and their own financial issues" kinda tells me that most Americans would be better of and enjoy a far more calm lifestyle, free of health worry, if they embraced one if those dreadful "socialist" parties that embraced a social health system that was absolute.
Your final point, that Americans don't grudge you your success, but rather strive for it themselves is something I always believed was true - but I don't know any Americans these days other than rather rich ones, so my view could be out if date - and was something I found in stark contrast to most of the Brits I used to know, who hated others doing well if they could not. My Humber brought me a lot of flak. So when it rusted I bought a sports car, just like Keith's.
:-)
-
Just wondering, Alan. Are you going to be celebrating the moon landing later this month?
I think he's already been celebrating...
:-)
-
In any case, it requires Congress to pass legislation, and they only tweak taxes.
That was quite a tweak last year.
-
Just wondering, Alan. Are you going to be celebrating the moon landing later this month?
He's over the moon with the military parade in Washington.
And all that without a Secretary of Defense since General Mattis left ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
That "most Americans are worried about health care for themselves and their own financial issues" kind tells me that most Americans would be better of and enjoy a far more calm lifestyle, free of health worry, if they embraced one if those dreadful "socialist" parties that embraced a social health system that was absolute.
The trouble is most people don't understand how complicated the current system is. Most large corporate HR departments hate company insurance plans as the largest number of questions they get come from employees who are having issues with the insurance company. I think if you asked most CEOs the would be happy to see the government take things over in one form or another (doesn't have to be an NHS model; it could be a regulated insurance model like Switzerland or Holland) so the company could focus on making or selling stuff.
I am on the Board of Directors of a non-profit and one of our activities is providing health insurance to scientific researchers and their families. I'm on the insurance committee and see the day to day stuff on claims. Our organization self-insures but have a large insurance company that manages the claims. We were in deep trouble three years ago as claims were outpacing premiums and the endowment was in trouble. We had to make some difficult decisions about benefits and co-pays and it was not easy to do. We stopped covering fertility treatments and tightened up the prescription drug formulary. We have a $250,000 stop loss policy that we pay a lot of money for that will cap our payments in the event of a large claim. One year we had several premature births and hit the stop-loss within a month. One of those claims carried over into the next plan year and we had to eat another $250,000. If more people had this type of day to day experience and education I would listen to them when talking about how to fix the healthcare problems in the US. Unfortunately, they do not and only talk about how dangerous "socialized medicine" is despite not knowing much about how the current system works.
-
... We were in deep trouble three years ago as claims were outpacing premiums and the endowment was in trouble. We had to make some difficult decisions about benefits and co-pays and it was not easy to do...
If our esteemed pompous friend’s (luckily, he ignores my posts) board was in “deep trouble” and “had to make some difficult decisions,” why do you think a socialized system won’t have to do the same and worse? People in socialized medicine have to wait for months for major procedures, if approved at all. My late mother had to wait seven months for a triple bypass, while in the same period being invited to the hospital three times, only to be returned from the hospital door with a “sorry, we are full.”
The latest Bernie Sanders proposal sounds like a wonderful dream: any doctor, any procedure, any hospital, any treatment, with no copays, no deductibles, no premiums. I mean, what’s not to like? Who in his sane mind wouldn’t like such a system? The only question is, how realistic is it? Can we really provide a unlimited budget for all of that? Or the government would soon start doing what Alan’s board had to do: stop covering certain treatments and drugs. Anyone who is familiar how VA (Veterans Administrarion) works, how long veterans have to wait and how often they are denied appropriate treatment, would know what I am talking about.
-
Tell me where I'm wrong here:
Americans pay more for health care than any other nation.
Americans have the same or worse health care results than any other nation.
Americans frequently suffer irreparable financial ruin because they get sick.
Americans suffer the indignity and insanity of reading highway billboards advertising hospitals. (who pays for those ads?)
America is the only western nation to not offer universal, government funded health care.
America is host to some of the world's best medical technologies, practices and practitioners.
Democrats are in favour of aligning health care practices with those of the rest of the world. Republicans refuse to consider this.
So, EITHER: the entire rest of the world (and Democrats) are wrong and Republicans (and the health care industry) are right.
OR: Democrats (and the rest of the world) are right and Republicans are wrong.
Please correct any errors in my knowledge.
-
Tell me where I'm wrong here:
Americans pay more for health care than any other nation.
Americans have the same or worse health care results than any other nation.
Americans frequently suffer irreparable financial ruin because they get sick.
Americans suffer the indignity and insanity of reading highway billboards advertising hospitals. (who pays for those ads?)
America is the only western nation to not offer universal, government funded health care.
America is host to some of the world's best medical technologies, practices and practitioners.
Democrats are in favour of aligning health care practices with those of the rest of the world. Republicans refuse to consider this.
So, EITHER: the entire rest of the world (and Democrats) are wrong and Republicans (and the health care industry) are right.
OR: Democrats (and the rest of the world) are right and Republicans are wrong.
Please correct any errors in my knowledge.
You will have to first reconcile the bold text with the rest of your knowledge. Why is it that we have the best?
-
You will have to first reconcile the bold text with the rest of your knowledge. Why is it that we have the best?
Probably because you are the most populated western country. There are more doctors, more hospitals, more universities, etc. Does that make them the best?
I recently travelled a lot in the Middle East and there are specialised hospitals everywhere. There is probably one for ingrown toenails.
-
I'm not sure that it's me that has to reconcile that item.
-
If our esteemed pompous friend’s (luckily, he ignores my posts) board was in “deep trouble” and “had to make some difficult decisions,” why do you think a socialized system won’t have to do the same and worse? People in socialized medicine have to wait for months for major procedures, if approved at all. My late mother had to wait seven months for a triple bypass, while in the same period being invited to the hospital three times, only to be returned from the hospital door with a “sorry, we are full.”
The latest Bernie Sanders proposal sounds like a wonderful dream: any doctor, any procedure, any hospital, any treatment, with no copays, no deductibles, no premiums. I mean, what’s not to like? Who in his sane mind wouldn’t like such a system? The only question is, how realistic is it? Can we really provide a unlimited budget for all of that? Or the government would soon start doing what Alan’s board had to do: stop covering certain treatments and drugs. Anyone who is familiar how VA (Veterans Administrarion) works, how long veterans have to wait and how often they are denied appropriate treatment, would know what I am talking about.
They can't. That's what happened in Britain when the government let a child die overriding the parent's decision. That's what happens with socialization. Individuals lose their freedom. It's powerful and uncaring government that decides.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained)
-
They can't. That's what happened in Britain when the government let a child die overriding the parent's decision. That's what happens with socialization. Individuals lose their freedom. It's powerful and uncaring government that decides.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained)
On the contrary, the courts (not the government) took a decision in the interests of the child. Parents don't have the right to subject their children to needless suffering.
-
They can't. That's what happened in Britain when the government let a child die overriding the parent's decision. That's what happens with socialization. Individuals lose their freedom. It's powerful and uncaring government that decides.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained)
That is the most utterly ill-informed, ignorant misstatement that I have yet seen on this site, and it's certainly faced stiff competition. Even the article you cite doesn't support the conclusion you draw. Read the judgments, Alan; learn a little about the medicine; give the matter thought rather than using it for your own propaganda; and then apologise.
Jeremy
-
I am on the Board of Directors of a non-profit and one of our activities is providing health insurance to scientific researchers and their families. I'm on the insurance committee and see the day to day stuff on claims. Our organization self-insures but have a large insurance company that manages the claims. ... We have a $250,000 stop loss policy that we pay a lot of money for that will cap our payments in the event of a large claim.
The two phrases I have emphasised seem to me to be contradictory. From your description, what you do is not "self-insurance"; it is conventional insurance with a large excess.
Jeremy
-
The trouble is most people don't understand how complicated the current system is. Most large corporate HR departments hate company insurance plans as the largest number of questions they get come from employees who are having issues with the insurance company. I think if you asked most CEOs the would be happy to see the government take things over in one form or another (doesn't have to be an NHS model; it could be a regulated insurance model like Switzerland or Holland) so the company could focus on making or selling stuff.
I am on the Board of Directors of a non-profit and one of our activities is providing health insurance to scientific researchers and their families. I'm on the insurance committee and see the day to day stuff on claims. Our organization self-insures but have a large insurance company that manages the claims. We were in deep trouble three years ago as claims were outpacing premiums and the endowment was in trouble. We had to make some difficult decisions about benefits and co-pays and it was not easy to do. We stopped covering fertility treatments and tightened up the prescription drug formulary. We have a $250,000 stop loss policy that we pay a lot of money for that will cap our payments in the event of a large claim. One year we had several premature births and hit the stop-loss within a month. One of those claims carried over into the next plan year and we had to eat another $250,000. If more people had this type of day to day experience and education I would listen to them when talking about how to fix the healthcare problems in the US. Unfortunately, they do not and only talk about how dangerous "socialized medicine" is despite not knowing much about how the current system works.
You've touched upon some of the problems with a national health sevice, in fact.
I see a national health service as one that guarantees your health, not your vanity or aspirations, or your bad lifestyle choices. Health is not the same as creating a family, which is in the lap of the gods or, perhaps more accurately - if you keep away from swans and showers of gold - inside your respective knickers and the ability of the bits therein to function according to plan. If, for whatever reason they don't, and pregnancies don't show, then that's not a "health" issue: it's a personal one that's not going to kill you or stop you working or from living an otherwise normal life: you are still healthy. There are other such things that get heaped onto the account of the poor old service; it should revert to being only about health.
Health providers being taken to court. If they are private providers, then I can understand why some patients might feel they have had a bum deal: if profit is at the heart and soul of the enterprise then what can you expect? Corners will inevitably be cut unless you have a sheik as patient. If you remove the profit motive, then everyone in the organisation will be freed to work towards the best possible outcome in the absence of fiscal strictures that may dictate how much can be spent on a delivery, for example. (I am guessing these things have an agreed top price in the medical/insurance contract.) I do not think it should be possible to sue doctors for things that go wrong during surgery, for example. With correct scrutiny, idiots do not get jobs in operating theatres. You simply have to accept that if something can go wrong, then there is the chance that it might. That's part of the risk of living. Murder by doctor is another matter.
Cosmetic surgery is another area that strikes me as doubtful. Yes, as result of birth deformity, accident or cancer, for example, rebuilds may be appropriate on the national ticket - probably are. But if it strays into vanity bcause you want to be a model, for example, and there's nothing actually wrong with you, then I hope no state or insurance company is expected to pay for that kind of thing.
Then there's the little matter of self-harm: should smokers still expect free lung, throat or mouth cancer treatment? Should those who have made themselves obese expect free heart, cancer and other fat-related sickness treatment? Folks talk convenient bravado crap about a nanny state: states have a responsibility towards their people. Not only should they take active steps to make people face the realities of their lifestyles, they should also ban the causes of so much eventual distress. Ban the marketing of tobacco products, of suggary drinks, of fatty, sweet junk foods. It may be unpoplar, but it can be done, and should be done. My wife and I both stopped having sugar with our tea because so many people we knew didn't take it, that we became used not to being offered any; today, I drink very little tea and couldn't take even a sip of sweet tea without spitting it straight out. In fact, I have taken to drinking hot water instead, and even my coffee intake has dropped considerably, but that was mainly because of post-heart attack advice.
A national health service must not be taken as synonymous with the abandoning of self-control and sensible living.
Rob
-
Tell me where I'm wrong here:
1. Americans pay more for health care than any other nation.
2. Americans have the same or worse health care results than any other nation.
3. Americans frequently suffer irreparable financial ruin because they get sick.
4. Americans suffer the indignity and insanity of reading highway billboards advertising hospitals. (who pays for those ads?)
5. America is the only western nation to not offer universal, government funded health care.
6. America is host to some of the world's best medical technologies, practices and practitioners.
7. Democrats are in favour of aligning health care practices with those of the rest of the world. Republicans refuse to consider this.
So, EITHER: the entire rest of the world (and Democrats) are wrong and Republicans (and the health care industry) are right.
OR: Democrats (and the rest of the world) are right and Republicans are wrong.
Please correct any errors in my knowledge.
1. Americans spend more on everything else when compared to the rest of the world, why would healthcare be different? Plus, we have the worse diet and probably exercise the least, so our lifestyle plays a large part of it.
2. Once again, our lifestyle is the worse in the world. We eat more meat, more sugar, more fructose, more processed foods. Do you think people as unhealthy as us are going to end up better even with great healthcare than people who actually eat correctly? Hippocrates once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” The west has forgotten this and this more then likely why we are so bad off.
3. Going back to Slobo's post, at least we have the option of being served and served immediately for major operations. The other option is death. And before on go about the quality of other countries, you need to really look at non-emergency operations, such as those not associated with some type of accident. In all cases I have looked, we still have the best care.
4. What's wrong with advertising hospitals? Would you rather us not know what hospitals are in the area, where they are, what they perform?
5. Very obvious truism.
6. Which is precisely due to our healthcare system being largely capitalism based. You cant expect companies to invest large amounts of money into research if they can not make a profit. But this is exactly what many other countries do, limit prices and limit profits. You see the results, no one really invests money into companies outside of the USA. On top of that, while we do have a freer market based health system, it is still highly regulated and the government makes it difficult to bring a new drug or devise to market. This means once a company develops a product, other companies in many instances dont see the reason to follow suit since it cost too much to bring it to market, allowing a monopoly to exist and providing no checks on prices. This was on display with the Epi Pen a few years ago. At the time, other companies responded by trying to develop their own, but it was predicted to take more then a year to get approval for a device that was nothing more then a automated syringe with a already approved drug in it. Go figure. Deregulating the air industry in this country had the net effect of creating more airline companies and lowing ticket prices. Why would this be any different with medical products?
7. Doing so will kill the profit motive and stagnate research. Although their are many people who are kind hearted and go into research to help the world, it still cost money to do so, lots of money. If investors cant make a profit with their investment, they will put their money into other areas of the market. Moneys given to the medical research world will dry up. Sure, some universities will continue to do research and perhaps make break throughs, but the vast majority of money is currently in private companies. This will start to disappear.
-
The two phrases I have emphasised seem to me to be contradictory. From your description, what you do is not "self-insurance"; it is conventional insurance with a large excess.
Jeremy
Jeremy, you misunderstand self insurance. Conventional insurance means that you pay a management company, say Aetna, BlueCross, or United Health care a flat rate and they assume all the risks. they also set an underwriting margin that set's their reserve and profit margin. In a self insurance model, the organization assumes the full liability and has to set it's own reserve and margin. I'm not aware of any self insurance model that is designed to make a profit. Self insurers will routinely purchase stop loss policies as a way of controlling risk and have to be vigilant to maintain proper margins. In most cases self insurers can run a program that costs less than contracting with a profit making organization.
-
Probably because you are the most populated western country. There are more doctors, more hospitals, more universities, etc. Does that make them the best?
I recently travelled a lot in the Middle East and there are specialised hospitals everywhere. There is probably one for ingrown toenails.
What part of the Middle East? Some of the oil rich countries have so money per capita, they dont know what to do with it. So I am sure a lot of it goes into hospitals.
However, once we get off of fossil fuels, their oil money will dry up as fast as water does in those countries, so this could very well be a temporary occurrence.
-
Another point.
I was recently reading a top ten list on the worse ways to die (do ask how I came across this). I was surprised to see Scaphism at the number 2 rank since it is always universally regarded as number 1. But number 1 is now considered dying of old age in a Western culture.
Turns out we are so good at extending life, at a great cost mind you, but we still don't know how to mitigate the pain associated with this extension of life. I once read that end of life treatments in the final couple of weeks is what eats up the most money in our medical system. However, if spending this money to only extend life by a couple of weeks ends up making it the worse way to die, worse then Scaphism, perhaps we are misguided in our approach at it.
-
6. Which is precisely due to our healthcare system being largely capitalism based. You cant expect companies to invest large amount of money into research if they can not make a profit. But this is exactly what many other countries do, limit prices and limit profits. You see the results, no one really invest money into companies outside of the USA. On top of that, while we do have a freer market based health system, it is still highly regulated and the government makes it difficult to bring a new drug or devise to market. This means once a company develops a product, other companies in many instances dont see the reason to follow suit since it cost too much to bring it to market, allowing a monopoly to exist and providing no checks on prices. This was on display with the Epi Pen a few years ago. At the time, other companies responded by trying to develop their own, but it was predicted to take more then a year to get approval for a device that was nothing more then a automated syringe with a already approved drug in it. Go figure.
Five of the top ten pharma companies are foreign (Bayer, Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK, Novartis). Pharmaceutical regulations are pretty much the same world wide and in fact most approvals of novel therapies occur first in the US. There are many examples of competition within therapeutic categories for pharmaceuticals. To cite one classic example, Liptor was the fifth or sixth statin drug to be approved in the US yet it became the number one prescribed drug as it had the best benefit/risk profile of all the drugs in the class. The EpiPen is a complicated example to cite as it is a drug-device combination and hence requires more regulatory oversight. Because it is an injectable, manufacturing is more complex because of sterility concerns. While Mylan has the marketing rights for the EpiPen there have been several other adrenaline auto injectors on the market. One was recalled last year because it delivered inconsistent doses of the medicine and AdenaClick is available for much less than the EpiPen. Autoinjector technology is no longer covered by patents and there are numerous drugs available today that use that technology (most are high cost biologics).
-
What part of the Middle East? Some of the oil rich countries have so money per capita, they dont know what to do with it. So I am sure a lot of it goes into hospitals.
However, once we get off of fossil fuels, their oil money will dry up as fast as water does in those countries, so this could very well be a temporary occurrence.
No, Joe: those cats understand diversification of portfolio better than you think. Heysoos, they own most of what's worth owning in London!
-
Turns out we are so good at extending life, at a great cost mind you, but we still don't know how to mitigate the pain associated with this extension of life. I once read that end of life treatments in the final couple of weeks is what eats up the most money in our medical system. However, if spending this money to only extend life by a couple of weeks ends up making it the worse way to die, worse then Scaphism, perhaps we are misguided in our approach at it.
It's not just medical treatment but cost of long term care that build up. You see a lot of people setting up trusts to shield their income so they qualify for government assistance in nursing homes (Medicaid covers this) and the cost of home health assistance if you choose to age in place is expensive as well.
-
Another point.
I was recently reading a top ten list on the worse ways to die (do ask how I came across this). I was surprised to see Scaphism at the number 2 rank since it is always universally regarded as number 1. But number 1 is now considered dying of old age in a Western culture.
Turns out we are so good at extending life, at a great cost mind you, but we still don't know how to mitigate the pain associated with this extension of life. I once read that end of life treatments in the final couple of weeks is what eats up the most money in our medical system. However, if spending this money to only extend life by a couple of weeks ends up making it the worse way to die, worse then Scaphism, perhaps we are misguided in our approach at it.
Worst way of dying contains so many variables that as a proposition, it's almost absurd. Amongst many, would be being mentally and physically well, but destitute, with your house and everything else being taken away from you. From the palace to the street.
-
My understanding is that the government doesn't want to spend the money fir the amount it would cost.
-
Worst way of dying contains on so many variables that as a proposition, it's almost absurd. Amongst many, would be being mentally and physically well, but destitute, with your house and everything else being taken away from you. From the palace to the street.
Maybe, but the ancient world came up with some pretty heinous execution techniques. Some were fast and painless, some lasted days (like Roman crucifixion) and some lasted weeks (like Scaphism). In talking about pure physical pain experienced over a long period, I cant imagine something worse, except perhaps for now dying slowly from old age in an hospital where death is still the end result, all the while experiencing non-stop pain that would have been avoided if death came a couple weeks earlier.
-
On the contrary, the courts (not the government)...
Courts are the government.
Unless you are a disciple of the AOC, that is, not knowing the three branches of government.
-
That is the most utterly ill-informed, ignorant misstatement that I have yet seen on this site, and it's certainly faced stiff competition...
Why, Jeremy? I am genuinely puzzled. It seems to me Alan K. simply stated a fact, no?
-
Courts are the government.
Unless you are a disciple of the AOC, that is, not knowing the three branches of government.
He doesn't know the difference, Slobodan, and certainly hasn't a clue about the three branches. He won't tell us his age or where he is, but it's pretty clear he's very young and not in the U.S., and likely not in Canada. Ignorance isn't a limiting factor for people with opinions who aren't willing to do any research. Nowadays you don't have to go to the library and sort through the cards in the catalog to do the kind of research you need to avoid this kind of ignorance. But you still have to put forth a small bit of effort. Too much trouble.
-
Courts are the government.
Unless you are a disciple of the AOC, that is, not knowing the three branches of government.
As long as you understand that air superiority was crucial to the defeat of Cornwallis of Yorktown you’re qualified in my book. ;D
-
He doesn't know the difference, Slobodan, and certainly hasn't a clue about the three branches. He won't tell us his age or where he is, but it's pretty clear he's very young and not in the U.S., and likely not in Canada. Ignorance isn't a limiting factor for people with opinions who aren't willing to do any research. Nowadays you don't have to go to the library and sort through the cards in the catalog to do the kind of research you need to avoid this kind of ignorance. But you still have to put forth a small bit of effort. Too much trouble.
It's kind of sad how many people don't understand basic civics any more.
I went to a catholic grade school and private high school, and they drilled this into our heads. (Along doing times tables to the point where we started dreaming about it, can you imagine the torture.) So my experience certainly does not relate to the overall public. I have to ask, is civics still taught in school?
I know time tables are not nearly as much, and instead we teach kids why 2x4=8 instead forcing them to memorizing it. I am sure there is an argument as to why we need to concentrate on this more then rote memorization. However, as a former high school math teacher I can tell you the biggest hold up kids have today in higher levels of arithmetic is not knowing products of multiplication instantly without needing to use a calculator. So many of my students got held up in Algebra and wasted time trying to figure out which two numbers when multiplied had the product of the number currently in the problem. (Personally I blame all of this on grade school teachers. I tutored too many of them in college to have any confidence what so ever in their basic arithmetic skills and the ability to actually teach it.)
I fear if civics is taking a back seat in schooling, we are only doomed for people not understanding how the government really works and getting bent out of shape more often.
I also fear that since we are concentrating on our history too much and only skimming over the history of socialist countries and the atrocities committed within those countries, we are setting up a recipe for disaster.
-
He doesn't know the difference, Slobodan, and certainly hasn't a clue about the three branches. He won't tell us his age or where he is, but it's pretty clear he's very young and not in the U.S., and likely not in Canada. Ignorance isn't a limiting factor for people with opinions who aren't willing to do any research. Nowadays you don't have to go to the library and sort through the cards in the catalog to do the kind of research you need to avoid this kind of ignorance. But you still have to put forth a small bit of effort. Too much trouble.
Alan was referring to a case in the UK.
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/
"The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament."
-
Five of the top ten pharma companies are foreign (Bayer, Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK, Novartis). Pharmaceutical regulations are pretty much the same world wide and in fact most approvals of novel therapies occur first in the US. There are many examples of competition within therapeutic categories for pharmaceuticals. To cite one classic example, Liptor was the fifth or sixth statin drug to be approved in the US yet it became the number one prescribed drug as it had the best benefit/risk profile of all the drugs in the class. The EpiPen is a complicated example to cite as it is a drug-device combination and hence requires more regulatory oversight. Because it is an injectable, manufacturing is more complex because of sterility concerns. While Mylan has the marketing rights for the EpiPen there have been several other adrenaline auto injectors on the market. One was recalled last year because it delivered inconsistent doses of the medicine and AdenaClick is available for much less than the EpiPen. Autoinjector technology is no longer covered by patents and there are numerous drugs available today that use that technology (most are high cost biologics).
Well, as you stated, the USA is typically the first place a new product is release, so you have to wonder why? Perhaps because it is easier here to start making a profit off of it?
However, I will contest that this is a double edged sword, and that my overall free market ways does cause me to have a certain amount of confirmation bias as well. I recently watched a documentary on new medical devices being pushed hard onto doctors by the manufacturers with little testing done. (Regulations for medical devices are considerably lower then for new drugs.) However, many doctors don't realize how little testing has been done, since it is assumed from the fact that other areas of medical research require a lot, and they just recommend these things to their patients with many having pretty severe results. I think one example they cited was a new joint replacement device that was found to leach out a mentally damaging metal compound into the blood stream. The doctor who used this device on himself nearly lost his license due to mental issues that developed over time. Fortunately he was able to diagnose the cause and had the new joint replaced with a time tested product.
So, yes, some regulation is needed. Too much though can be bad.
-
Courts are the government.
And that's the problem in the USA, because they are supposed to be 3 independent branches of government. The lack of independence is/should be troubling.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S., AOC, apparently Slobodan's nightmare because he can't help it to bring up her name, wasn't talking about the 3 branches of government, that's why she chose other (inaccurate) words.
-
And that's the problem in the USA, because they are supposed to be 3 independent branches of government. The lack of independence is/should be troubling.
Cheers,
Bart
Explain how there is no independents in the courts from the other two branches of government? I am curious to know of examples.
-
... "The justice system is one of the three branches of the state....
Most people use "state" and "government" interchangeably, in their broadest meaning.
-
Are all you other guys secretly retired as I am publicly, unemployed, uemployable or just skiving off at work when you should be sweating in service to the master?
So much time on your hands!
;-)
-
... He won't tell us his age or where he is, but it's pretty clear he's very young and not in the U.S., and likely not in Canada...
Russ,
Jeremy is a Brit, just of the Kim Philby type, I presume ;) :P
-
Most people use "state" and "government" interchangeably, in their broadest meaning.
You surprise me, Slobo. I didn't suppose you were decent enough to apologise for your mistake, but I did think you were smart enough to shut up. As Russ seems to have done, Or perhaps he has no internet in his library.
-
Are all you other guys secretly retired as I am publicly, unemployed, unemployable ...
All of the above, Rob.
-
Explain how there is no independents in the courts from the other two branches of government? I am curious to know of examples.
Sure Joe,
Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?
* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.
You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You surprise me, Slobo. I didn't suppose you were decent enough to apologise for your mistake, but I did think you were smart enough to shut up. As Russ seems to have done, Or perhaps he has no internet in his library.
What mistake? As I said, "state" and "government" are used interchangeably for most intents and purposes. I just forgot for a moment that "Brits and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language."
-
On the contrary, the courts (not the government) took a decision in the interests of the child. Parents don't have the right to subject their children to needless suffering.
That's a slippery slope.
-
That is the most utterly ill-informed, ignorant misstatement that I have yet seen on this site, and it's certainly faced stiff competition. Even the article you cite doesn't support the conclusion you draw. Read the judgments, Alan; learn a little about the medicine; give the matter thought rather than using it for your own propaganda; and then apologise.
Jeremy
From the article: [size=78%]"Against his parents’ wishes, the hospital where he was receiving care withdrew life support; his parents were barred by British courts from seeking care for Alfie elsewhere."[/size]
Also, "Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I favor trying to keep government out of these decisions. We don;t turn our kids over to the government. Certainly the article showed there's a lot of support for this point of view from millions of people across the globe. Certainly, you have a right to disagree and have your point of view. But I would not call your view "...utterly misinformed, ...propaganda...ignorant..." Nor would I demand an apology from you. This case certainly has plenty of room for reason to believe one way or the other without you calling people names.
-
Sure Joe,
Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?
* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.
You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.
Cheers,
Bart
And how are judges chosen in the Netherlands, Bart? Does God point to them and say: "You're appointed?" ALL appointments of this sort are political, no matter where they're made. The United States method of "advise and consent" in the Senate probably is the best method. It allows both sides into the act, and the result usually is a compromise. If you want a classic example, check the history of Clarence Thomas's appointment.
-
As long as you understand that air superiority was crucial to the defeat of Cornwallis of Yorktown you’re qualified in my book. ;D
Hi James,
One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):
Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.
-
Sure Joe,
Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?
* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.
You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.
Cheers,
Bart
Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking. Also, since they are appointed for life this means they are not engaged in politics either, leaving them to think independently instead of trying to constantly appease the change in tides.
Furthermore, many Supreme change their mind once on the bench. The most famous was Sandra Day O'Connor who became pro-choice even though she was very pro-life prior to her appointment. Also, some recent court cases have shown that it is impossible to really figure out how a justice will vote on any given subject.
-
...but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke.
How exactly do you accidentally say that the continental armies took over airports?
-
Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.
But the ones that appoint them sure are !!
-
Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking. Also, since they are appointed for life this means they are not engaged in politics either, leaving them to think independently instead of trying to constantly appease the change in tides.
Furthermore, many Supreme change their mind once on the bench. The most famous was Sandra Day O'Connor who became pro-choice even though she was very pro-life prior to her appointment. Also, some recent court cases have shown that it is impossible to really figure out how a justice will vote on any given subject.
Beside being appointed for life (they can't be fired, only impeached by COngress for bad behavior), their salary cannot be reduced. These protections give them license to decide however they want without fear of outside pressure, making them extremely independent. These protection extends to all Federal judges not just the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court.
-
But the ones that appoint them sure are !!
To a degree you're right. But parties change (Obama was a liberal Democrat and Trump is a Conservative Republican at least when it comes to appointing judges). So the Federal court system balances out between conservatives and liberals. But as Joe said above, you never know how a justice will vote regardless of how you perceived them before they were appointed. The independence given to them by our Constitution often causes them to change their views of things. Although, liberal judges tend to not change their liberal views as often as conservative judges change their conservative views.
-
But as Joe said above, you never know how a justice will vote regardless of how you perceived them before they were appointed.
Never?
-
How exactly do you accidentally say that the continental armies took over airports?
Easily. He meant "ports."
-
Easily. He meant "ports."
Did he? Did he misread the teleprompter or was he winging it? Usually he can read pretty well, but gets into trouble when he goes off script, as he is want to do.
-
All of the above, Rob.
Without a huge win on the lottery, it's not an enviable position. I wish like hell I had something worthwhile to do with what's left of my capable time, preferably something to do with making fashion snaps again. Maybe it's age-related, but as I said to one of the calendar pictures on my wall recently, nice at the time, sweetheart, but no more, thanks. And I meant it - still do.
:-(
-
Well, as you stated, the USA is typically the first place a new product is release, so you have to wonder why? Perhaps because it is easier here to start making a profit off of it?
FDA is the best resourced regulatory agency in the world. Companies pay user fees that fund 60% of the personnel, and they are highly trained and very capable reviewers (disclosure: I was involved in the negotiation of the user fee program at its inception in 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations through 2006; I retired just prior to the reauthorization in 2010)
However, I will contest that this is a double edged sword, and that my overall free market ways does cause me to have a certain amount of confirmation bias as well. I recently watched a documentary on new medical devices being pushed hard onto doctors by the manufacturers with little testing done. (Regulations for medical devices are considerably lower then for new drugs.) However, many doctors don't realize how little testing has been done, since it is assumed from the fact that other areas of medical research require a lot, and they just recommend these things to their patients with many having pretty severe results. I think one example they cited was a new joint replacement device that was found to leach out a mentally damaging metal compound into the blood stream. The doctor who used this device on himself nearly lost his license due to mental issues that developed over time. Fortunately he was able to diagnose the cause and had the new joint replaced with a time tested product.
So, yes, some regulation is needed. Too much though can be bad.
I wouldn't call it a lower standard but a different standard. If a device can be shown to be equivalent to one already on the market there is a lesser burden. Anything that is novel requires a full dossier for approval. One can also point to the dietary supplement regulations which are pretty much non-existent and only after we see serious safety problems are they addressed by the FDA. While you are correct about doctors not knowing full information about medical devices, they are also terribly ignorant about the benefits and risks of the drugs they prescribe. Often they don't even know about critical interactions between certain drugs that can endanger a patient's well being.
-
Easily. He meant "ports."
Reading from a teleprompter; "Our army manned the air, It Rand, the ramparts, it took over the airports it did everything it had to do.
Maybe he was reading a flawed text? He seemed to stick to the teleprompter for the most part, which was a pleasant surprise.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi James,
One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):
Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.
Well yeah - of course he misspoke. Get back to me when he wears a tan suit, because then we can really hammer him on the important stuff ;).
Generally speaking though, Trump would be well-advised to remember that at least half of this political thing is 100% mental :D
-
Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.
If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.
That smacks of politicization in my book.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.
That smacks of politicization in my book.
Cheers,
Bart
Sure, Bart. And a campaign to elect a judge is NOT politics. Right? ROTFL
-
And how are judges chosen in the Netherlands, Bart? Does God point to them and say: "You're appointed?"
Hi Russ,
No, God is not part of the three branches of government in my Country. We DO run a democracy.
Although the thread is about the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I'd be happy to explain a different approach that seems to be working fine for many centuries already. The main difference is that we use a system of weighted cooptation instead of the nomination of 1 person by 1 (politically colored) President.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in consultation with the Procurator General, first draws up a list of recommendations for six persons. Three persons are nominated by the (our version of a) House of Representatives of the States General, from which the government must make a choice. Finally, like the other members of the judiciary, the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by royal decree.
Since our government is a result of a popular vote system, that leads to (not 2 but) many (i.e. currently 13 !) different parties weighing in based on equal representation of the population's desires (1 woman/man 1 vote). Also, virtually every citizen age 18 or above can cast an anonimous vote (no need to register) to elect members of the House of Representatives. The turnout percentage of the latest elections was 81.9% of the eligible voters. The political affiliation of Judges does not play a role (it's usually unknown), because Judges are impartial and bound to upholding the law as it's written.
Because throughout the process all parties have a (popular weighted) voice in influencing the different stages, even when narrowing down on the final 3 candidates from which the (popularly weighted) government (24 persons) makes a choice, it is as much depoliticized as humanly possible, while doing justice to the will of the people.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Never?
You're being your pedantic self again. Everyone else understands my point.
-
You're being your pedantic self again. Everyone else understands my point.
I wouldn't be so sure. Given some of the things you say, it's hard to know when you are being literal and when you are being hyperbolic.
-
But the ones that appoint them sure are !!
So, what's your point?
As I pointed out before, there have been several Judges who ended not being as conservative or as liberal as those who had appointed them would have liked. So to imply that Supremes are a carbon copy of those who appointed is not justified and shows your severe lack of knowledge with history.
Even the so called experts on the court are often surprised by decisions.
-
Hi James,
One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):
Quote
Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.
Report to moderator Logged
Slobodan
Most normal people know what people mean when they misspeak. We all do it, especially people who speak publicly who aren't politicians or public speakers like Trump. Reagan had a habit of it as did Eisenhower. The liberal left always made fun of these things to bring them down. With Trump it's become a sport.
-
FDA is the best resourced regulatory agency in the world. Companies pay user fees that fund 60% of the personnel, and they are highly trained and very capable reviewers (disclosure: I was involved in the negotiation of the user fee program at its inception in 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations through 2006; I retired just prior to the reauthorization in 2010)
I wouldn't call it a lower standard but a different standard. If a device can be shown to be equivalent to one already on the market there is a lesser burden. Anything that is novel requires a full dossier for approval. One can also point to the dietary supplement regulations which are pretty much non-existent and only after we see serious safety problems are they addressed by the FDA. While you are correct about doctors not knowing full information about medical devices, they are also terribly ignorant about the benefits and risks of the drugs they prescribe. Often they don't even know about critical interactions between certain drugs that can endanger a patient's well being.
I am aware of this, but since nearly all devices have a similar already approved counterpart, it is an easy loophole to get around. Not sure how you would fix it without it then becoming over burdensome.
Insofar as your ending, I guess this is a reason to vet your doctor and pick a good one, assuming you are will always be legally allowed to do so.
-
If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.
That smacks of politicization in my book.
Cheers,
Bart
Well thanks for proving my point Bart.
All of what you just mentioned was politicking done by not a single judge, but politicians. Fact is, after all of that horse running, the judge who eventually got appointed was not part of any of it.
Insofar as Roe v Wade, like I mentioned before, the conservatives thought they had it with O'Conner. I would not be surprised if Roberts fails them again.
-
I am aware of this, but since nearly all devices have a similar already approved counterpart, it is an easy loophole to get around. Not sure how you would fix it without it then becoming over burdensome.
Insofar as your ending, I guess this is a reason to vet your doctor and pick a good one, assuming you are will always be legally allowed to do so.
You can always pick your own doctor. The question is whether they are in network or out of network, and so whether your insurance covers their fees. Or with Medicare and Medicaid, whether they accept such payments.
-
If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.
That smacks of politicization in my book.
Cheers,
Bart
The founders wrote the constitution. They weren't stupid. They didn't want justices to run for office like politicians making promises of how they would decide cases to get the votes to be elected as a judge. The wanted them selected by the president under the advice and consent of the Senate. The latter method which is how it now works is less politicized then the former because it better allows justices to be independent of politics when they vote their decision on cases. Can you imagine how political their decisions would become if they had to run for office every four years? You'd have judges voting one way only to reverse their decision in time for the next election if they thought the electorate would vote them out of office. They be exactly like the politicians we have now.
-
You can always pick your own doctor. The question is whether they are in network or out of network, and so whether your insurance covers their fees. Or with Medicare and Medicaid, whether they accept such payments.
Sure, currently.
I am not sure if this is true, but I remember a Brit once telling me that the idea of having a consistent general practitioner was a foreign idea with their health system.
-
So, what's your point?
As I pointed out before, there have been several Judges who ended not being as conservative or as liberal as those who had appointed them would have liked. So to imply that Supremes are a carbon copy of those who appointed is not justified and shows your severe lack of knowledge with history.
Even the so called experts on the court are often surprised by decisions.
Appointees over the past 20 years have been very true to their political leanings. Roberts is in a unique position as he is the Chief Justice and 'sometimes' thinks he has an obligation to find consensus. If there was one less liberal jusitce (may happen if Trump is reelected), Roberts would be a reliable conservative vote. Last Justice who confounded everyone was David Souter and the Republican President(s) will never make that mistake again particularly since the Federalist Society has to vet every single one of the appointees to either the Supreme or other lower Federal courts. Amazing that we have non-governmental group basically making the decision that is entrusted to the President.
-
If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.
That smacks of politicization in my book.
Cheers,
Bart
PS: Nothing has happened. Roe vs. Wade is still in force and won;t be changed. So if there was "politicization", it hasn't worked and won't work.
-
Jeremy, you misunderstand self insurance. Conventional insurance means that you pay a management company, say Aetna, BlueCross, or United Health care a flat rate and they assume all the risks. they also set an underwriting margin that set's their reserve and profit margin. In a self insurance model, the organization assumes the full liability and has to set it's own reserve and margin. I'm not aware of any self insurance model that is designed to make a profit. Self insurers will routinely purchase stop loss policies as a way of controlling risk and have to be vigilant to maintain proper margins. In most cases self insurers can run a program that costs less than contracting with a profit making organization.
You're still just describing insurance with a large excess. Your organisation determines how much risk it is prepared to bear and insures above that risk. When I insure my house contents, I decide how much risk I want to bear and inform my insurers, who then adjust my premium accordingly.
Jeremy
-
Appointees over the past 20 years have been very true to their political leanings. Roberts is in a unique position as he is the Chief Justice and 'sometimes' thinks he has an obligation to find consensus. If there was one less liberal jusitce (may happen if Trump is reelected), Roberts would be a reliable conservative vote. Last Justice who confounded everyone was David Souter and the Republican President(s) will never make that mistake again particularly since the Federalist Society has to vet every single one of the appointees to either the Supreme or other lower Federal courts. Amazing that we have non-governmental group basically making the decision that is entrusted to the President.
Nothing new about it. The American Bar Association has always given its imprimatur on the nominees. Presidents often also check with with non-governmental organizations for recommendations for all types of offices including judgeships. Otherwise, how would they know of the hundreds of judges across the nation that could be appointed to Federal courts during their 4 or 8 years in office? Obama did the same thing when he nominated liberal judges to the courts. But of course when Trump does the same, only from a conservative side, he's castigated as "evil". Just more anti-TRump blather just for the heck of it.
-
Obama did the same thing when he nominated liberal judges to the courts. But of course when Trump does the same, only from a conservative side, he's castigated as "evil". Just more anti-TRump blather just for the heck of it.
And more anti-Obama blather just for the heck of it.
-
And more anti-Obama blather just for the heck of it.
Nobody called Obama evil. However, with Trump, the left and Democrats call him evil, a Nazi, a fascist, for just doing what every president has done.
-
Courts are the government.
Not really. Montesquieu formulated the idea of separation of powers, with three branches of the State: judiciary, legislature and executive. You in America maintain that tripartite separation; your executive and legislature are involved in the appointment of at least some of the judiciary, but once appointed your judges are wholly independent.
We in the UK have a system which coheres rather less to Montesquieu's idea. Our judiciary is independent, judges being appointed by a quango called the Judicial Appointments Commission. The executive, however, is drawn almost in its entirety from the legislature and sits once appointed as part of the legislature. Until a few years ago, the members of the highest court in the country, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, were automatically made members of the upper chamber because in theory the appeal lay to the entire House. Tony Blair removed their right to be members of the House, creating a separate new court which is called the Supreme Court*. He addressed a theoretical source of conflict, without addressing the rather more real mixture of executive and legislature. The powers of the UKSC are rather more limited than those of your SC, because the underlying tenet of the British Constitution places emphasis on the legislature: "The Queen, in Parliament, is supreme".
Jeremy
*We already had one, in fact: the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales had been created in 1875, but history was never one of Tony's strong points.
-
Nobody called Obama evil. However, with Trump, the left and Democrats call him evil, a Nazi, a fascist, for just doing what every president has done.
Nobody? Or am I being pedantic again? And you being hyperbolic?
-
Hi Russ,
No, God is not part of the three branches of government in my Country. We DO run a democracy.
Although the thread is about the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I'd be happy to explain a different approach that seems to be working fine for many centuries already. The main difference is that we use a system of weighted cooptation instead of the nomination of 1 person by 1 (politically colored) President.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in consultation with the Procurator General, first draws up a list of recommendations for six persons. Three persons are nominated by the (our version of a) House of Representatives of the States General, from which the government must make a choice. Finally, like the other members of the judiciary, the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by royal decree.
Since our government is a result of a popular vote system, that leads to (not 2 but) many (i.e. currently 13 !) different parties weighing in based on equal representation of the population's desires (1 woman/man 1 vote). Also, virtually every citizen age 18 or above can cast an anonimous vote (no need to register) to elect members of the House of Representatives. The turnout percentage of the latest elections was 81.9% of the eligible voters. The political affiliation of Judges does not play a role (it's usually unknown), because Judges are impartial and bound to upholding the law as it's written.
Because throughout the process all parties have a (popular weighted) voice in influencing the different stages, even when narrowing down on the final 3 candidates from which the (popularly weighted) government (24 persons) makes a choice, it is as much depoliticized as humanly possible, while doing justice to the will of the people.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
What you just described is a thoroughly political process. How do the people voting find out about the people for whom they're voting? Your House of Representatives (or equivalent) chooses three people. That's about as political a process as you could invent. Then there's a vote. Again, a political process. Yes, parties don't enter into the process, but the word has to go out about the people upon whom the vote will be cast. I'd guess that a large part of this word is the history of the actions of the people up for election. In the end, politics reigns supreme, just as it does in our system and in every system.
Look at the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. The Senate was majority Democrat. The majority leader was Robert Byrd, a deep south guy who'd been a leader in the KKK. Thomas is black. Thomas won with the support of 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats, while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted to reject his nomination. If the vote had been purely party-oriented, as you assume, Thomas would have lost hands down.
Bottom line, our system works well. One reason is that the Senate isn't elected by nationwide popular vote. If you want a real look at how it all works, read the novel, Advise and Consent by Alan Drury.
I think your system probably works well for a country as small as the Netherlands. For the United States it would never work.
-
Nobody? Or am I being pedantic again? And you being hyperbolic?
Yes you're being pedantic again. Sure there were people who didn't like President Obama. But the constant din of nasty adjectives flung at Trump never ends and is deeply insulting to the Office of the President and those who support him. Frankly, it may help him in time for the 2020 election if independents think that he got an unfair press and the economy is still good and we're not at war.
-
From the article: [size=78%]"Against his parents’ wishes, the hospital where he was receiving care withdrew life support; his parents were barred by British courts from seeking care for Alfie elsewhere."[/size]
Also, "Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I favor trying to keep government out of these decisions. We don;t turn our kids over to the government. Certainly the article showed there's a lot of support for this point of view from millions of people across the globe. Certainly, you have a right to disagree and have your point of view. But I would not call your view "...utterly misinformed, ...propaganda...ignorant..." Nor would I demand an apology from you. This case certainly has plenty of room for reason to believe one way or the other without you calling people names.
How are you ignorant and ill-informed? Let me count the ways.
First, some facts.
1. Alfie had a severe degenerative brain disease. CT/MR scanning had demonstrated extensive destruction of his brain, both cerebrum and cerebellum, and its replacement in his skull with fluid.
2. He also had intractable epilepsy, near-continuous seizure activity being demonstrated on electroencephalography.
3. There was some evidence that he was in pain.
4. He was unresponsive to his surroundings; apparent responses to touch represented induced seizures.
5. While the diagnosis was not established, its dramatically destructive and irreversible effects were beyond doubt.
6. The "state" did not intervene in his care.
7. The doctors involved in his care formed the view that continued supportive therapy was unjustified, futile and, given some evidence of pain, harmful.
The hospital Trust therefore applied to the High Court for a declaration that withdrawal of treatment would be in Alfie's best interests and therefore legal. The application, of a kind not infrequently made, was opposed by the parents and therefore came to a hearing, at which Alfie's interests were represented by Counsel instructed for that purpose; his parents appeared and so did the Trust. The case was heard by Mr Justice Hayden, an extremely experienced High Court Judge.* His careful and detailed judgment can be read here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html). Although listed I think for two days, the hearing lasted for seven because of the Judge's attempts to ensure that the parents were given every assistance. He granted the declaration sought.
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was dismissed for reasons given here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html). The Supreme Court declined to hear their further appeal.
They applied to the European Court of Human Rights, which held that there had been no breach.
There were several subsequent hearings, concerned in part with the plan for withdrawal of treatment. Links to those decisions can be found here (https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?query=%28alfie%29+AND+%28evans%29&show=200&highlight=1&mask_path=%2F&method=boolean&sort=date).
There was no intervention by the State. There was a difference of opinion between medical staff, supported by a wealth of objective evidence, and the parents who, understandably, were reluctant to accept the inevitable. Where such difference arises, it must be adjudicated upon.
It is an obvious nonsense to suggest that in such circumstances the parents are or can or should be the sole arbiters of the child's welfare. The child is not the plaything of his parents; he is an individual. It is equally nonsensical to suggest that even if they are capable of reaching a conclusion as to his best interests, all parents will act in accordance with those interests. The issue was not whether the life was worth living; it was whether there was in reality a life at all.
If you knew any of that, you hid it well. That is why my adjectives are appropriate.
Jeremy
* disclosure: I know Sir Anthony Hayden well; we were in Chambers together for several years and he was Head of my previous Chambers while I was a tenant.
(I have not had time to proof-read this, the longest post I have yet made here. Errors are, of course, mine.)
-
Nobody? Or am I being pedantic again?
Yes. And annoying.
-
Jeremy, in spite of the long post, you remain fundamentally wrong.
-
But the constant din of nasty adjectives flung at Trump never ends and is deeply insulting to the Office of the President and those who support him.
Nobody in recent political memory is more guilty of flinging nasty adjectives than Trump.
That's much of the reason why he's viewed with such disrespect globally.
-
How are you ignorant and ill-informed? Let me count the ways.
Be careful. You risk being annoying to Slobodan.
-
How are you ignorant and ill-informed? Let me count the ways.
First, some facts.
1. Alfie had a severe degenerative brain disease. CT/MR scanning had demonstrated extensive destruction of his brain, both cerebrum and cerebellum, and its replacement in his skull with fluid.
2. He also had intractable epilepsy, near-continuous seizure activity being demonstrated on electroencephalography.
3. There was some evidence that he was in pain.
4. He was unresponsive to his surroundings; apparent responses to touch represented induced seizures.
5. While the diagnosis was not established, its dramatically destructive and irreversible effects were beyond doubt.
6. The "state" did not intervene in his care.
7. The doctors involved in his care formed the view that continued supportive therapy was unjustified, futile and, given some evidence of pain, harmful.
The hospital Trust therefore applied to the High Court for a declaration that withdrawal of treatment would be in Alfie's best interests and therefore legal. The application, of a kind not infrequently made, was opposed by the parents and therefore came to a hearing, at which Alfie's interests were represented by Counsel instructed for that purpose; his parents appeared and so did the Trust. The case was heard by Mr Justice Hayden, an extremely experienced High Court Judge.* His careful and detailed judgment can be read here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html). Although listed I think for two days, the hearing lasted for seven because of the Judge's attempts to ensure that the parents were given every assistance. He granted the declaration sought.
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was dismissed for reasons given here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html). The Supreme Court declined to hear their further appeal.
They applied to the European Court of Human Rights, which held that there had been no breach.
There were several subsequent hearings, concerned in part with the plan for withdrawal of treatment. Links to those decisions can be found here (https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?query=%28alfie%29+AND+%28evans%29&show=200&highlight=1&mask_path=%2F&method=boolean&sort=date).
There was no intervention by the State. There was a difference of opinion between medical staff, supported by a wealth of objective evidence, and the parents who, understandably, were reluctant to accept the inevitable. Where such difference arises, it must be adjudicated upon.
It is an obvious nonsense to suggest that in such circumstances the parents are or can or should be the sole arbiters of the child's welfare. The child is not the plaything of his parents; he is an individual. It is equally nonsensical to suggest that even if they are capable of reaching a conclusion as to his best interests, all parents will act in accordance with those interests. The issue was not whether the life was worth living; it was whether there was in reality a life at all.
If you knew any of that, you hid it well. That is why my adjectives are appropriate.
Jeremy
* disclosure: I know Sir Anthony Hayden well; we were in Chambers together for several years and he was Head of my previous Chambers while I was a tenant.
(I have not had time to proof-read this, the longest post I have yet made here. Errors are, of course, mine.)
The individual case is not the question. Rather, it's who gets to decide generally as presented in the article that I quote again here:
"Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I take the same view as the article. So, are you saying that it's writer and all those in the world that believe the same thing are ignorant and ill-informed? I think on reflection, you might reconsider your views. Certainly, you don't have to agree with our viewpoint. But your stance doesn;t have to include insults to those of opposing views.
-
Nobody in recent political memory is more guilty of flinging nasty adjectives than Trump.
That's much of the reason why he's viewed with such disrespect globally.
I agree that Trump is often wrong in his use of adjectives, yes even personal insults. I wish he would stop. However, the press should rise above it and not be pulled into lowering itself to similar banter because of their leanings. Their position is to remain objective in their reportage. Once they start calling everything he does "fascist", "unconstitutional", etc., they have entered the political arena and their news is no longer news. They're becoming a political opponent.
-
I agree that Trump is often wrong in his use of adjectives, yes even personal insults. I wish he would stop. However, the press should rise above it and not be pulled into lowering itself to similar banter because of their leanings. Their position is to remain objective in their reportage. Once they start calling everything he does "fascist", "unconstitutional", etc., they have entered the political arena and their news is no longer news. They're becoming a political opponent.
Does that mean Fox News is objective, or have they become Trump's political proponent.
-
The individual case is not the question.
The problem is, general principals are always applied to individual cases. It is how we evaluate general principals.
-
The individual case is not the question. Rather, it's who gets to decide generally as presented in the article that I quote again here:
"Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I take the same view as the article. So, are you saying that it's writer and all those in the world that believe the same thing are ignorant and ill-informed? I think on reflection, you might reconsider your views. Certainly, you don't have to agree with our viewpoint. But your stance doesn;t have to include insults to those of opposing views.
Alan - please explain what this case has to do with the NHS and how it would have come out differently had the child been treated at a private hospital.
On second thoughts, please don't - I've read enough of your nonsense for one night. Or, indeed, for a lifetime.
-
Does that mean Fox News is objective, or have they become Trump's political proponent.
Most cable news is politically biased whether on the left or right although Fox really has two outlets. There's their "talking heads" cable that favors conservative views like MSNBC and CNN favors liberal news. Then there's Fox News that while is slightly right-center, presents both sides of most issues in a more balanced view.
However, the media I'm referring to are the news outlets that presents themselves as just providing the news. Like NBC, CBS, ABC, The Washington Post, The NY Times. Meanwhile they're biased as heck and often insulting to the president. As the detective used to say on the TV show "Dragnet", "just the facts, maam, just the facts." That's something they forgot how to do.
-
Alan - please explain what this case has to do with the NHS and how it would have come out differently had the child been treated at a private hospital.
On second thoughts, please don't - I've read enough of your nonsense for one night. Or, indeed, for a lifetime.
OK. I won't add anything. Now get a good night's sleep. It seems like your need it.
-
Then there's Fox News that while is slightly right-center, presents both sides of most issues in a more balanced view.
I am not familiar with that aspect of Fox News. When I turn on Fox News morning or evening, I just hear the talking heads. Fox and friends in the morning, Hannity et al in the evening. Perhaps I listen at the wrong times.
Is what you described also the case with CNN, MSNBC, etc. where at certain times of the day they are slightly left center but present both sides of most issues in a more balanced view, or are they all left all the time?
-
The problem is, general principals are always applied to individual cases. It is how we evaluate general principals.
There's a legal expression. "Hard cases make bad law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law)
The question is not this particular child. It may have made sense for everyone including the parents to stop exceptional medical procedures because of this child's terminal condition. But it misses the issue for most people. Do we want government or family to decide when to pull the plug? Do we want government or family to decide when a person has lost "quality" living experience? Do we want to take general medical care out of the hands of parents to give to government officials who don't have a personal stake in the decision? That's what these laws lead too. It's a slippery slope when you start granting bureaucrats the right to draw lines according to their moral and personal standards. It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting an unborn child. Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this. Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?
-
It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting as unborn child. Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this. Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?
So I take it then that you are pro-choice.
-
So I take it then that you are pro-choice.
No. Society should not be in the business of killing. It cheapens human life. It leads to disrespect of people so we do the things that leads to government deciding how sick children are treated rather than parents; where government kills children by rule and law. Nothing is sacred any more. We disrespect God and man.
-
I am not familiar with that aspect of Fox News. When I turn on Fox News morning or evening, I just hear the talking heads. Fox and friends in the morning, Hannity et al in the evening. Perhaps I listen at the wrong times.
Is what you described also the case with CNN, MSNBC, etc. where at certain times of the day they are slightly left center but present both sides of most issues in a more balanced view, or are they all left all the time?
CNN went from a fairly neutral news source to being very biased, especially with Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo. Back when the Jessie Smollett case finally came crumbling down, Don Lemon admitted that he was a friend of Jessie, made it obvious he was still supporting him and then gave advise on air about how Jessie should handle this. Mind you this was after it was clear as day that the whole story was fabricated.
That really did it for me. No way could a friend be fair on the reporting. The fact that CNN thought it was appropriate to allow Lemon to report on the subject, especially in this manner, pretty much secured it for me.
There have been plenty of other things as well, but this was the icing on the cake.
I just can not look at CNN as being anything else then a biased news source any more.
Chris Cillizza and Zakaria are the only ones at CNN I give any real credence to, and always like how well thought out their opinions are. I also respect Chris Matthews because he goes after anyone, including fellow liberals. You dont get a free pass on his show, unlike so many other liberal and conservative hosts give to those in their corresponding parties.
-
... what this case has to do with the NHS and how it would have come out differently had the child been treated at a private hospital...
I think we will agree on this one. The balance between courts/system/government/state and family transcends particular medical/insurance system.
In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.
Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.
As I said, it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights.
By the same token, people taking principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.
-
In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.
Actually there was nothing quick about it. It took seven years to resolve. Someone had to resolve the issue as between the parents and the husband, so naturally the courts became involved. It is how our system works.
-
Actually there was nothing quick about it. It took seven years to resolve.
There you go, being annoyingly pedantic again. I didn’t say it was quickly resolved.i said it quickly escalated from a family disagreement to court and state involvement. In any case, quickly or not, it isn’t relevant for the issue.
-
There you go, being annoyingly pedantic again. I didn’t say it was quickly resolved.i said it quickly escalated from a family disagreement to court and state involvement. In any case, quickly or not, it isn’t relevant for the issue.
It did not quickly escalate. It was eight years after she was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state before the first lawsuit was brought. It took another seven years to finally adjudicate, so fifteen years from start to finish.
-
Oh, for f*ck’s sake, your pedantry is not relevant for the subject under discussion.
-
I agree that Trump is often wrong in his use of adjectives, yes even personal insults. I wish he would stop. However, the press should rise above it and not be pulled into lowering itself to similar banter because of their leanings. Their position is to remain objective in their reportage. Once they start calling everything he does "fascist", "unconstitutional", etc., they have entered the political arena and their news is no longer news. They're becoming a political opponent.
I do not believe that the reporters of the New York Times or Washington Post have ever used those terms. They have done a lot of fact checking and pointed out many examples of untruths.
-
You're still just describing insurance with a large excess. Your organisation determines how much risk it is prepared to bear and insures above that risk. When I insure my house contents, I decide how much risk I want to bear and inform my insurers, who then adjust my premium accordingly.
Jeremy
Self insurance is different as there is not an underwriting profit involved. In your example the insurer makes a profit on your premium. In our case we eliminate that profit along with some over head. We design a plan that does not turn a profit but maintains a reserve to assure a break even point. It is just a different approach,
-
I think we will agree on this one. The balance between courts/system/government/state and family transcends particular medical/insurance system.
In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.
Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.
As I said, it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights.
By the same token, people taking principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.
The Schiavo Case as you stated was between two private parties, family members who sued each other. The government never decided on what health care Terry Schiavo would get. They only decided which of the private family members were her legal guardian. The family member would make the decision. In the British case, however, the government was the party to the lawsuit. They in fact made the decision what medical care the child would get. The family member had to sue the government, and of course lost.
This is what you get with socialized medicine and socialism in general. By turning responsibility over to the government to take care of you, you forfeit your power and control. You become like the subjects in 1984, wards of the state with no power and no freedom to decide. The state now has authority over you. So the issue with the British case is not what medical care the child should get. But who shall make that decision. The state now becomes the arbiter of which doctors you see; what type of medical care you get. And in the end they will decide whether you live or die. The British have themselves to blame by insisting on universal medical care and making their government a "mommy" state. This is the end result of socialized medicine. And we Americans are moving in that direction and will reap what we sow, as well.
-
This is what you get with socialized medicine and socialism in general. By turning responsibility over to the government to take care of you, you forfeit your power and control.
This is simply not true.
-
The Schiavo Case as you stated was between two private parties, family members who sued each other. The government never decided on what health care Terry Schiavo would get. They only decided which of the private family members were her legal guardian. The family member would make the decision....
It is not as simple as that.
The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.
-
This is simply not true.
I already see it here in America. Since I retired and now have Medicare. Medicare is our government provided health insurance if you're over 65 and no longer work or have private insurance. There are many doctors of higher quality and experience that I cannot use because they do not accept Medicare. They've opted out. So because I can no longer afford to pay them out of pocket, I cannot use them. I must use other more inferior doctors that accept Medicare. If I was still younger, I would have private health insurance that would still cover these doctors.
-
It is not as simple as that.
The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.
Sure, there was a lot of government and public discussion and intervention to force the decision. The government even tried to kidnap Schiavo. But in the end, it was the independent courts all the way up to and including the US Supreme Court, not the government, that decided which family member had the legal right to decide whether to continue medical care or not. Neither the government nor the court decided what that medical care was to be. That was left up to the husband, the family member the court declared had the legal right to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case#Final_feeding_tube_removal_and_federal_involvement
But all of this is not the main point I was making. I was trying to show how socialized medicine leads to government takeover of who decides these things. That family and individuals will be cut out. That's something I believe you oppose and would agree with my point of view as well. Socialism leads to loss of individual freedoms.
-
It is not as simple as that.
The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.
So in fact precisely the opposite of what Alan claimed - that in (all stand please!!) the USA (fanfare!!!) the courts would not be involved and family members could do as they pleased with the luckless patient.
-
Sure, there was a lot of government and public discussion and intervention to force the decision. The government even tried to kidnap Schiavo. But in the end, it was the independent courts all the way up to and including the US Supreme Court, not the government, that decided which family member had the legal right to decide whether to continue medical care or not. Neither the government nor the court decided what that medical care was to be. That was left up to the husband, the family member the court declared had the legal right to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case#Final_feeding_tube_removal_and_federal_involvement
But all of this is not the main point I was making. I was trying to show how socialized medicine leads to government takeover of who decides these things. That family and individuals will be cut out. That's something I believe you oppose and would agree with my point of view as well. Socialism leads to loss of individual freedoms.
That was indeed your main point but you’ve failed yet again to provide any support for it. A smarter man would take the opportunity to shut up and learn something. Consider that Jeremy is an expert on medical law. He has taken the time to provide you with a comprehensive explanation of how you are wrong. (Imagine how much he’d charge for that in real life :-) ). Don’t you think it might be wiser to stop digging the hole you’re in and get back to your usual repertoire of how great Trump is, and the rest of the BS? Just a piece of friendly advice.
-
The individual case is not the question. Rather, it's who gets to decide generally as presented in the article that I quote again here:
"Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I take the same view as the article. So, are you saying that it's writer and all those in the world that believe the same thing are ignorant and ill-informed? I think on reflection, you might reconsider your views. Certainly, you don't have to agree with our viewpoint. But your stance doesn;t have to include insults to those of opposing views.
Alan, I have given you the information necessary for you to form a view on the case which was the subject of your original comment. You have plainly not bothered to read the judgments. Quoting an incorrect view, which misrepresents the facts, does nothing to advance your argument.
The quoted text is simply wrong, yes. As I have clearly indicated, and as is obvious to anyone who is prepared to depart from preconceptions and educate himself on the detail, the case had nothing to do with the state taking a view on life, which you persist in confusing with medical opinion. The "state"'s involvement was simply to adjudicate, by a means long-established, between the views of the medical profession and those of the parents. The first emphasised sentence above displays a complete lack of understanding of the issues, which can have been acquired only because the author, like you, has not troubled to acquaint himself with the actual facts but, again like you, is using the case to advance his prejudice against what he perceives as "socialised medicine". It is wrong. Not arguably wrong, or possibly wrong; just wrong.
The answer to your question, which I have emphasised above, is quite simply yes. If you blind yourself to the facts, the opinions you derive from them are worse than worthless; they are harmful.
Jeremy
-
Do we want government or family to decide when to pull the plug? Do we want government or family to decide when a person has lost "quality" living experience? Do we want to take general medical care out of the hands of parents to give to government officials who don't have a personal stake in the decision? That's what these laws lead too. It's a slippery slope when you start granting bureaucrats the right to draw lines according to their moral and personal standards. It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting an unborn child. Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this. Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?
Your wilfully self-imposed ignorance is little short of staggering. The case raised none of those issues.
Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Jeremy
-
Self insurance is different as there is not an underwriting profit involved. In your example the insurer makes a profit on your premium. In our case we eliminate that profit along with some over head. We design a plan that does not turn a profit but maintains a reserve to assure a break even point. It is just a different approach,
What nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that your insurer (for losses above your self-selected excess of $250k) makes no profit from the premium you pay?
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, in spite of the long post, you remain fundamentally wrong.
Mere assertion is inadequate, Slobodan. Explain why you have formed that view.
Jeremy
-
This is simply not true.
Robert, it doesn't have to be. It comes as part of the catechism and mindset. If you have ever had a religious discussion with somebody totally subscibed to any of the regular faiths you get the same revelation: no matter what awkward points you raise they will be ignored or countered by the reddest of herrings.
Regarding the Brexit debacle: various times the reasons for and against, and problems associated with it have been written out and can be referrenced, but different versions of the same questions keep getting asked, repeatedly. If it tells me anything, it's that it's become a waste of time and energy trying to answer, because nothing gets taken onboard and digested - if it is even scanned.
Life is just too short for talking to oneself.
-
Two sets of robber barons. Or two sets of warlords. Or two tribal chiefs. Or two medieval kings. Or two opposing groups of financial elites and out come the peasants with their pitch forks prepared to defend their particular psychopath to the death.
Some things are apparently eternal.
-
Two sets of robber barons. Or two sets of warlords. Or two tribal chiefs. Or two medieval kings. Or two opposing groups of financial elites and out come the peasants with their pitch forks prepared to defend their particular psychopath to the death.
Some things are apparently eternal.
And probably because they had little choice. Refusal to fight for the head honcho meant slow death and the inevitable forfeiture of female family members and animals, were you lucky enough to own a goat.
These days, it's a tad more subtle, but the payment for votes still comes through the "promises" rather than in the fulfillment.
-
I already see it here in America. Since I retired and now have Medicare. Medicare is our government provided health insurance if you're over 65 and no longer work or have private insurance. There are many doctors of higher quality and experience that I cannot use because they do not accept Medicare. They've opted out. So because I can no longer afford to pay them out of pocket, I cannot use them. I must use other more inferior doctors that accept Medicare. If I was still younger, I would have private health insurance that would still cover these doctors.
This is absolutely not true. My internist has never accepted private insurance and one is only guaranteed full coverage if the doctor is in the particular plan. If you go outside the plan you have increased co-pays or could even be responsible for the full amount. We experienced this some years ago when my wife had emergency gall bladder surgery. The hospital assigned a doctor who was out of plan and we were not paying close enough attention. We were on the hook for the full surgical fee!!!
-
What nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that your insurer (for losses above your self-selected excess of $250k) makes no profit from the premium you pay?
Jeremy
Both of us seem to be dancing on the head of our respective pins. The model that I described is one of controlling up front costs and eliminating of the profit of the primary underwriter as I already described. That you seem not to grasp this concept is your problem. Of course the reinsurer that covers the stop loss has a profit built in and that premium might be readjusted from year to year depending on claims that are filed. We still have significant savings in this model compared to one that would contract directly with the primary insurer for full coverage. You are entitled to not like this explanation but the animus is better parked by the side of the road.
-
Shame on you, Jeremy, for not grasping the concept. :o
-
Alan, I have given you the information necessary for you to form a view on the case which was the subject of your original comment. You have plainly not bothered to read the judgments. Quoting an incorrect view, which misrepresents the facts, does nothing to advance your argument.
The quoted text is simply wrong, yes. As I have clearly indicated, and as is obvious to anyone who is prepared to depart from preconceptions and educate himself on the detail, the case had nothing to do with the state taking a view on life, which you persist in confusing with medical opinion. The "state"'s involvement was simply to adjudicate, by a means long-established, between the views of the medical profession and those of the parents. The first emphasised sentence above displays a complete lack of understanding of the issues, which can have been acquired only because the author, like you, has not troubled to acquaint himself with the actual facts but, again like you, is using the case to advance his prejudice against what he perceives as "socialised medicine". It is wrong. Not arguably wrong, or possibly wrong; just wrong.
The answer to your question, which I have emphasised above, is quite simply yes. If you blind yourself to the facts, the opinions you derive from them are worse than worthless; they are harmful.
Jeremy
Jeremy, I don't live in GB. So I'm not familiar with the day-to-day issues regarding this case. I'm taking the article as telling the truth. But even if there are untruths in it does not change the fact that government control of our medical care can hurt our rights to make free choices about that care. Obama lied when he said Obamacare would not cause you to change your doctors. In the end, a single payer system must make choices since there is not an ever supply of funding to pay for everything. So government's choices may not comport with the individual's choice so they have lost their freedom to decide. If you have a disease, and the government says that because of your old age, the government will not fund care, you're screwed. Unless you're very rich and can pay out of pocket or you can afford to fly to America for the care. With private insurance, you have more options and more free choices.
Look how Brexit is affecting national health care, a government controlled system. Brits overseas, ex-pats, might lose health care once Brexit goes into effect. Had there been private health care, individuals would still be able to decide what kind and how much care their insurance policies handles. They lost their freedom to decide how to live by turning their lives over to the care of bureaucrats in government who care little about them. I would rather keep important decisions about my life in my hands. I just don't trust the government. That extends to making end-of-life decisions. When you go in for serious surgery in the US, the hospital asks you to sign or not sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). If you sign it, and you have major failure let's say of breathing or your heart during or after the procedure, the hospital will not take extraordinary measures to keep you alive. They will let nature takes it's course. If you don't sign it, they are obligated by law to take all measures to keep you alive even if you have to be put in a induced coma state. There's no telling what government may decide once they take over fully. That's what makes the British kid's story so important. It represents a transfer of power to the state about our personal freedoms to make choices.
-
This is absolutely not true. My internist has never accepted private insurance and one is only guaranteed full coverage if the doctor is in the particular plan. If you go outside the plan you have increased co-pays or could even be responsible for the full amount. We experienced this some years ago when my wife had emergency gall bladder surgery. The hospital assigned a doctor who was out of plan and we were not paying close enough attention. We were on the hook for the full surgical fee!!!
I'm sorry you got caught paying the fee. It happened to me once under Medicare. I used a doctor who had opted out. I had to pay his entire fee. Even my out-of-network plan refused to pick up any payments. The rule is if your primary (Medicare in my case) does not pay anything, your secondary and tertiary private plans will not pay anything either. So now the the first question I ask before making an doctor's appointment or when I went in for surgery was, "Do you accept Medicare?" I learned my lesson.
Before I got old and went on Medicare, my out-of-network private plans worked for me as follows. If the doctor was in the primary plan, then the plan paid him fully (a lower amount that he agreed with to be in the plan). I was only responsible for a small annual deductible. However, if the doctor was out of network, this same private primary plan would pay him let's say 30% of his fee equal to what he would have gotten if he was in the plan. However, my secondary plan would kick in and pay him 90% of the 70% balance. In effect, I would be paying less than 10% out-of-pocket for out-of-network doctors.
-
So government's choices may not comport with the individual's choice so they have lost their freedom to decide.
Actually, the only thing you have lost is your ability to chose and to have someone else pay for it. Even private insurance will not pay for treatments and procedures it deems not medically necessary. Denials of coverage happen all the time. That's why hospitals won't do procedures without precertification from the insurance company that it will pay for it. No coverage, no money, no procedure, except in an emergency.
-
Before I got old and went on Medicare, my out-of-network private plans worked for me as follows. If the doctor was in the primary plan, then the plan paid him fully (a lower amount that he agreed with to be in the plan). I was only responsible for a small annual deductible. However, if the doctor was out of network, this same private primary plan would pay him let's say 30% of his fee equal to what he would have gotten if he was in the plan. However, my secondary plan would kick in and pay him 90% of the 70% balance. In effect, I would be paying less than 10% out-of-pocket for out-of-network doctors.
If I read you correctly, you had two medical insurance plans when you were working? This is pretty unusual; we only had one plan which my employer offered. I know from my work with the non-profit that I previously described that out of plan doctor fees vary all over the place. Some HMOs require you ONLY to use their doctors unless you are traveling outside the area that the HMO covers.
-
Actually, the only thing you have lost is your ability to chose and to have someone else pay for it. Even private insurance will not pay for treatments and procedures it deems not medically necessary. Denials of coverage happen all the time. That's why hospitals won't do expensive procedures without precertification from the insurance company that it will pay for it.
It's also common for both doctors and hospitals to require you to sign a document that you guarantee to pay the bill in the event coverage is denied. I'm will to wager that most people do not understand what they are signing.
-
Actually, the only thing you have lost is your ability to chose and to have someone else pay for it. Even private insurance will not pay for treatments and procedures it deems not medically necessary. Denials of coverage happen all the time. That's why hospitals won't do procedures without precertification from the insurance company that it will pay for it. No coverage, no money, no procedure, except in an emergency.
But with private plans, you get to choose. It's like automobiles. Not every car has all the safety features. But you have a choice of which safety features you want by buying the car you want. One of my cars has a backup camera; the other doesn't. Once you go to a single payer government plan, you have no choices. You get what the government provides - take it or leave it.
-
But with private plans, you get to choose.
No private insurance plan will pay for treatments and procedures which it deems not medically necessary.
-
If I read you correctly, you had two medical insurance plans when you were working? This is pretty unusual; we only had one plan which my employer offered. I know from my work with the non-profit that I previously described that out of plan doctor fees vary all over the place. Some HMOs require you ONLY to use their doctors unless you are traveling outside the area that the HMO covers.
Yes, I was very fortunate working my last job for the NYC government.
-
No private insurance plan will pay for treatments and procedures which it deems not medically necessary.
Not all cars provide all the safety feature either. But you get to choose which car and safety features you want. With government health care, there are no choices unless you're rich and can pay out-of-pocket.
-
All this incredible minefield of potential fiscal annihilation, and you still turn the collective nose up at the very idea of a national, free-at-point-of-use service! I never would have imagined that dogma and the painful effects of it could still stand between you and the simple solution: a little social sense of collective responsibility and something for the common good.
But no, government is out to destroy you. Government is so dumb that it doesn't understand that when it destroys you it has destroyed itself. Heysoos, your pool of possible politician candidates must be even worse - and even more thick - than ours! Who would have imagined that possible? But isn't there something written on those stone tablets to the effect that you ultimately get what you deserve?
Just watched ex-PM John Major in a good interview on, broadly, the next Tory PM and Brexit. At last a man who can tell it like it is - even if it is only because, as he says, he is out of politics. What a shame Alan didn't get a chance to hear him - not that I expect it would have helped him much. But anyway, as Major said, in a choice between party or country, country must come first. That would never translate, dear me no!
A shame so many good people have become so disenchanted with party and, in some cases, country.
-
But with private plans, you get to choose.
Assuming you have a choice and can afford to pay the premiums for the insurance plan you choose.
-
All this incredible minefield of potential fiscal annihilation, and you still turn the collective nose up at the very idea of a national, free-at-point-of-use service! I never would have imagined that dogma and the painful effects of it could still stand between you and the simple solution: a little social sense of collective responsibility and something for the common good.
But no, government is out to destroy you. Government is so dumb that it doesn't understand that when it destroys you it has destroyed itself. Heysoos, your pool of possible politician candidates must be even worse - and even more thick - than ours! Who would have imagined that possible? But isn't there something written on those stone tablets to the effect that you ultimately get what you deserve?
Just watched ex-PM John Major in a good interview on, broadly, the next Tory PM and Brexit. At last a man who can tell it like it is - even if it is only because, as he says, he is out of politics. What a shame Alan didn't get a chance to hear him - not that I expect it would have helped him much. But anyway, as Major said, in a choice between party or country, country must come first. That would never translate, dear me no!
A shame so many good people have become so disenchanted with party and, in some cases, country.
???
-
All this incredible minefield of potential fiscal annihilation, and you still turn the collective nose up at the very idea of a national, free-at-point-of-use service! I never would have imagined that dogma and the painful effects of it could still stand between you and the simple solution: a little social sense of collective responsibility and something for the common good.
But no, government is out to destroy you. Government is so dumb that it doesn't understand that when it destroys you it has destroyed itself. Heysoos, your pool of possible politician candidates must be even worse - and even more thick - than ours! Who would have imagined that possible? But isn't there something written on those stone tablets to the effect that you ultimately get what you deserve?
Just watched ex-PM John Major in a good interview on, broadly, the next Tory PM and Brexit. At last a man who can tell it like it is - even if it is only because, as he says, he is out of politics. What a shame Alan didn't get a chance to hear him - not that I expect it would have helped him much. But anyway, as Major said, in a choice between party or country, country must come first. That would never translate, dear me no!
A shame so many good people have become so disenchanted with party and, in some cases, country.
Rob, I wish you could visit me here in Florida during the winter and chat with the Canadians who come down so they can go to a doctor, pay, and get what they need: simple things like MRI's. It's not that they can't get the stuff in Canada, but that they may die before their number comes up in the system. If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.
-
All this incredible minefield of potential fiscal annihilation, and you still turn the collective nose up at the very idea of a national, free-at-point-of-use service! I never would have imagined that dogma and the painful effects of it could still stand between you and the simple solution: a little social sense of collective responsibility and something for the common good.
But no, government is out to destroy you. Government is so dumb that it doesn't understand that when it destroys you it has destroyed itself. Heysoos, your pool of possible politician candidates must be even worse - and even more thick - than ours! Who would have imagined that possible? But isn't there something written on those stone tablets to the effect that you ultimately get what you deserve?
Just watched ex-PM John Major in a good interview on, broadly, the next Tory PM and Brexit. At last a man who can tell it like it is - even if it is only because, as he says, he is out of politics. What a shame Alan didn't get a chance to hear him - not that I expect it would have helped him much. But anyway, as Major said, in a choice between party or country, country must come first. That would never translate, dear me no!
A shame so many good people have become so disenchanted with party and, in some cases, country.
There's plenty of charity in the US. We help each out a lot. My concern is what you describe is Socialism, where efforts for the common good turns out to become the common bad. Speaking of British PM's, I reminded of what your Margaret Thatcher said: "They've got the usual Socialist disease – they've run out of other people's money".
-
There's plenty of charity in the US. We help each out a lot.
That is of course why one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in the US is unforeseen medical expenses.
-
Jeremy, I don't live in GB. So I'm not familiar with the day-to-day issues regarding this case. I'm taking the article as telling the truth. But even if there are untruths in it does not change the fact that government control of our medical care can hurt our rights to make free choices about that care. Obama lied when he said Obamacare would not cause you to change your doctors. In the end, a single payer system must make choices since there is not an ever supply of funding to pay for everything. So government's choices may not comport with the individual's choice so they have lost their freedom to decide. If you have a disease, and the government says that because of your old age, the government will not fund care, you're screwed. Unless you're very rich and can pay out of pocket or you can afford to fly to America for the care. With private insurance, you have more options and more free choices.
Look how Brexit is affecting national health care, a government controlled system. Brits overseas, ex-pats, might lose health care once Brexit goes into effect. Had there been private health care, individuals would still be able to decide what kind and how much care their insurance policies handles. They lost their freedom to decide how to live by turning their lives over to the care of bureaucrats in government who care little about them. I would rather keep important decisions about my life in my hands. I just don't trust the government. That extends to making end-of-life decisions. When you go in for serious surgery in the US, the hospital asks you to sign or not sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). If you sign it, and you have major failure let's say of breathing or your heart during or after the procedure, the hospital will not take extraordinary measures to keep you alive. They will let nature takes it's course. If you don't sign it, they are obligated by law to take all measures to keep you alive even if you have to be put in a induced coma state. There's no telling what government may decide once they take over fully. That's what makes the British kid's story so important. It represents a transfer of power to the state about our personal freedoms to make choices.
Harry H. Soos, Alan, get with the reality!
We, the expats caught up abroad in the Brexit shitstorm, ALWAYS HAVE HAD access to private medical insurance, both abroad as in the UK! I ran it in tandem with my and my wife's entitlement to the local Spanish national health service (a RIGHT granted because it was reciprocated in Britain.) It would still be reciprocated in out foreign country of residence only if we leave with an agreed deal, as would the rights of Europeans still living or working in Britain. It is the nightmare scenario of crashing out with no deal, as the Ultra Blue lot wants to do, that tears up everything for both sides.
I no longer have that private cover because it became too bloody expsnsive for me to afford, exactly as in your own case.
What in hell is there not to understand? It has been reduced to the most simple of terms anyone can formulate - if you don't get it now you never, ever will.
-
Rob, I wish you could visit me here in Florida during the winter and chat with the Canadians who come down so they can go to a doctor, pay, and get what they need: simple things like MRI's. It's not that they can't get the stuff in Canada, but that they may die before their number comes up in the system. If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.
My wife and I have been at doctors many times when they wanted MRI's or a CT scan in the middle of the appointment. So their nurse would call the lab up on the phone and give them the prescription. The we'd take the elevator down to the lab and get the MRI within the hour. We'd go back up to the doctor who would already have the report that was sent by computer to him so he could continue his treatment. I can't imagine waiting days or weeks much less months to get an MRI.
-
Rob, I wish you could visit me here in Florida during the winter and chat with the Canadians who come down so they can go to a doctor, pay, and get what they need: simple things like MRI's. It's not that they can't get the stuff in Canada, but that they may die before their number comes up in the system. If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.
And I could share with you 100 anecdotes of superb medical care in Canada. And nobody here files for bankruptcy because they happen to break their leg.
The data and the surveys are out there and freely available. People with good jobs and with a lot of money get good medical care in the US, everyone knows this. But all the data, from repeated surveys and studies, show that the US spends much more on health care with worse outcomes overall and that a sizeable number of US citizens don't have any medical care, that your time off work because of illness tops most other countries, in short your medical system is very polarized. But I also accept that many of you don't care about this, and that's your choice. If you think you're well served, that's all that matters, but stop making pronouncements on what goes on in other countries based on echo chamber memes. The info is out there, all you have to do is read it.
-
My wife and I have been at doctors many times when they wanted MRI's or a CT scan in the middle of the appointment. So their nurse would call the lab up on the phone and give them the prescription. The we'd take the elevator down to the lab and get the MRI within the hour. We'd go back up to the doctor who would already have the report that was sent by computer to him so he could continue his treatment. I can't imagine waiting days or weeks much less months to get an MRI.
Is this since you have been on Medicare or before when you were on private insurance?
-
There's plenty of charity in the US. We help each out a lot. My concern is what you describe is Socialism, where efforts for the common good turns out to become the common bad. Speaking of British PM's, I reminded of what your Margaret Thatcher said: "They've got the usual Socialist disease – they've run out of other people's money".
Terribly poor attempt at quoting, both Mrs T. and myself.
Put as you have put it, it's a blanket condemnation she would be making to include her own party, the Conservatives.
It is also a total non sequitur.
I did not refer to Socialism; I called for a little sense of social responsibility. Those are two entirely separate and different words, concepts and uses.
-
Harry H. Soos, Alan, get with the reality!
We, the expats caught up abroad in the Brexit shitstorm, ALWAYS HAVE HAD access to private medical insurance, both abroad as in the UK! I ran it in tandem with my and my wife's entitlement to the local Spanish national health service (a RIGHT granted because it was reciprocated in Britain.) It would still be reciprocated in out foreign country of residence only if we leave with an agreed deal, as would the rights of Europeans still living or working in Britain. It is the nightmare scenario of crashing out with no deal, as the Ultra Blue lot wants to do, that tears up everything for both sides.
I no longer have that private cover because it became too bloody expsnsive for me to afford, exactly as in your own case.
What in hell is there not to understand? It has been reduced to the most simple of terms anyone can formulate - if you don't get it now you never, ever will.
Rob, First I'm sorry that you have these problems. Having issues with medical insurance coverage especially as we grow older becomes particularly serious and stressful. I just had major surgery. I still haven't seen all the bills and payments that are suppose to be made by Medicare. I'm worried that all of them won't be picked up. The surgery was very expensive. While everything is suppose to be picked up, I signed a waiver in the hospital that says that all cost may not be and I'm responsible. Sometimes doctors opt out of Medicare and I'll be stuck paying.
A lot of tax money goes for Medicare as I'm sure it does for British national health care. If that money was left in our pockets, we could better afford private insurance where in your case you wouldn't have to worry about how Brexit influences your coverage. But that's the problem when the government takes over. We lose our freedom of choice.
-
Is this since you have been on Medicare or before when you were on private insurance?
Both.
-
And I could share with you 100 anecdotes of superb medical care in Canada. And nobody here files for bankruptcy because they happen to break their leg.
The data and the surveys are out there and freely available. People with good jobs and with a lot of money get good medical care in the US, everyone knows this. But all the data, from repeated surveys and studies, show that the US spends much more on health care with worse outcomes overall and that a sizeable number of US citizens don't have any medical care, that your time off work because of illness tops most other countries, in short your medical system is very polarized. But I also accept that many of you don't care about this, and that's your choice. If you think you're well served, that's all that matters, but stop making pronouncements on what goes on in other countries based on echo chamber memes. The info is out there, all you have to do is read it.
Yes, Robert. I've read the "info." It all comes down to "figures don't lie, but liars figure." Real bottom line: people who need serious medical care come to the U.S. for it. Yes, they have to be able to afford it. That's true inside and outside medicine.
-
Both.
I don't get it. You're getting MRIs and CT scans and heart surgeries at the drop of a hat and still castigating the Medicare system as the devil's spawn. You seem to be doing all right by it.
-
Harry H. Soos, Alan, get with the reality!
We, the expats caught up abroad in the Brexit shitstorm, ALWAYS HAVE HAD access to private medical insurance, both abroad as in the UK! I ran it in tandem with my and my wife's entitlement to the local Spanish national health service (a RIGHT granted because it was reciprocated in Britain.) It would still be reciprocated in out foreign country of residence only if we leave with an agreed deal, as would the rights of Europeans still living or working in Britain. It is the nightmare scenario of crashing out with no deal, as the Ultra Blue lot wants to do, that tears up everything for both sides.
I no longer have that private cover because it became too bloody expsnsive for me to afford, exactly as in your own case.
What in hell is there not to understand? It has been reduced to the most simple of terms anyone can formulate - if you don't get it now you never, ever will.
Rob - do you ever get the impression you're banging your head on a brick wall? Alan has his drum to beat and he pretends every piece of data, no matter how irrelevant, backs him up. soon he will be pretending that the weather forecast supports his world view. Oh. Hang on. he already does.
-
Terribly poor attempt at quoting, both Mrs T. and myself.
Put as you have put it, it's a blanket condemnation she would be making to include her own party, the Conservatives.
It is also a total non sequitur.
I did not refer to Socialism; I called for a little sense of social responsibility. Those are two entirely separate and different words, concepts and uses.
I believe as most Americans have in a lot of social responsibility. My taxes reflect that. Currently, about half, maybe more, of health care filters through the government in one form or another. Americans also spend about $500 billion on private charity every year. Plus billions more in welfare, food stamps, shelter and housing, etc. for the poor and needy. Both federal and state dollars are spent. Medical care is a problem, I'm not denying it. But the more government get involved, the more it's going to cost. We see that with government loans for college tuition. The cost of college has gone up 4 fold while general inflation has gone up less that 2x. Whenever the government gets involved it cost more for less. The government run Veterans Administration is an example. As a vet I could use the VA medical services that I'm entitled to. But I never have. It just isn't very good. And you wait forever to get any care.
-
I don't get it. You're getting MRIs and CT scans and heart surgeries at the drop of a hat and still castigating the Medicare system as the devil's spawn. You seem to be doing all right by it.
But I was getting MRI's and CT scans and other better services before Medicare. Many of the best doctors have opted out of Medicare. So I can no longer use them because I can't afford to pay them. Before, these doctors were covered with my private plans.
-
Rob - do you ever get the impression you're banging your head on a brick wall? Alan has his drum to beat and he pretends every piece of data, no matter how irrelevant, backs him up. soon he will be pretending that the weather forecast supports his world view. Oh. Hang on. he already does.
Well, climate change is causing the earthquakes in California yesterday and today.
Well, aren't they? :)
-
I did not refer to Socialism; I called for a little sense of social responsibility. Those are two entirely separate and different words, concepts and uses.
A common meme these days. Otherwise known as "dog whistle" politics.
Canada is commonly and incorrectly referred to by Americans as "Socialist".
BTW, Alan, in a doctor's office a few years ago the doc decided I needed a CAT scan. I was in the machine in less than an hour. This in the Socialist hellhole known as Canada, eh? And rural Canada at that. Nearly a thousand kilometers from Vancouver.
-
... ALWAYS HAVE HAD access to private medical insurance...
Most Democratic presidential candidates are for elimination of private insurance in the US.
-
Oh, for f*ck’s sake, ...
This from the person who once chastised me here for using the acronym "OMFG"
-
This from the person who once chastised me here for using the acronym "OMFG"
Peter, in both cases, my reasoning is the same: I am trying to avoid offending our religious forum members by using God's name in vain ;)
-
A common meme these days. Otherwise known as "dog whistle" politics.
Canada is commonly and incorrectly referred to by Americans as "Socialist".
BTW, Alan, in a doctor's office a few years ago the doc decided I needed a CAT scan. I was in the machine in less than an hour. This in the Socialist hellhole known as Canada, eh? And rural Canada at that. Nearly a thousand kilometers from Vancouver.
Why are you telling me? It was Rob who complained about the Canadian system. Tell him. I like Canada and the Canadians. I think they're good friends of ours. :)
-
Eh.
-
Most Democratic presidential candidates are for elimination of private insurance in the US.
I thought only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris held up their hands when asked that question during the debates, and Kamala Harris later retracted saying that she misunderstood the question.
-
Rob, I wish you could visit me here in Florida during the winter and chat with the Canadians who come down so they can go to a doctor, pay, and get what they need: simple things like MRI's. It's not that they can't get the stuff in Canada, but that they may die before their number comes up in the system. If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.
Russ, does that imply that Canadians do not have access to private health insurance in Canada? It's much better sense to have access to both, for those who can afford it, on the understanding that the state system still works for those with no alteratives. I certainly have no desire to deprive anyone with the means their private health insurance. As I mentioned before, we had it too until the cost seemed pointless when we discovered how good the state system was too.
-
If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.
I would much rather use USPS than UPS ore FedEx for shipping packages.
-
I did not refer to Socialism; I called for a little sense of social responsibility. Those are two entirely separate and different words, concepts and uses.
I'll quote Rob more extensively to provide context. Rob, like me, disavows the notion that social responsiblity and Socialism are equivalent. Or, more egregiously, that Socialism and Communism are the same.
My comment wasn't aimed at you, Alan. Rather at those who attempt to equate the two. Frequently conservative Americans, talking about Canada.
-
So in fact precisely the opposite of what Alan claimed ...
You might notice I didn't respond to Alan's reply to the part you quoted. That is because I realized he had a point: ultimately, in spite of state/government efforts to the contrary, the courts sided with a family member. The case was ultimately resolved on the strength of the legal argument who had a stronger power of attorney (I am using this term loosely), not on the moral/ideological issues like right-to-life, etc. Yes, the state (or the government in its narrower meaning) tried to intervene along the moral and ideological lines, but it didn't succeed. The courts ultimately sided with a solution that was the opposite of what the government wanted.
-
... Socialism and Communism are the same...
And yet they are. Just different stages on the same path.
-
I thought only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris held up their hands when asked that question during the debates, and Kamala Harris later retracted saying that she misunderstood the question.
If so, I then stand corrected.
-
I would much rather use USPS than UPS ore FedEx for shipping packages.
I have used USPS priority mail to send packages for years. I print out the label on my computer and drop the package off at the post office. I have tracking information the minute its scanned and everything gets delivered within two days. Pretty good deal and cheaper than UPS and FedEx unless one has a corporate account.
-
Why are you telling me? It was Rob who complained about the Canadian system. Tell him. I like Canada and the Canadians. I think they're good friends of ours. :)
I most certainly did no such thing! I know squat about the Canadian system, and was asking whether Canadians going south for medical aid, privately, implied they did not have access to private medical insurance in Canada.
-
This from Forbes Magazine, June 11:
"Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.
"Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank."
-
I most certainly did no such thing! I know squat about the Canadian system, and was asking whether Canadians going south for medical aid, privately, implied they did not have access to private medical insurance in Canada.
Rich Canadians go occasionally south to US for medical aid, mainly because of significantly shorter waiting times and more specialists.
On the other hand, quite a few Americans travel north to get their elective surgeries done in Canada, mainly hernia. Even with travel costs, these surgeries are still cheaper in Canada.
Both Canadians and Americans travel to central Europe to get pampered in hot thermal spas.
-
Mere assertion is inadequate, Slobodan. Explain why you have formed that view.
Yes, you are right, I should have elaborated. In my defense, I was waiting for a borscht to arrive and typing on my iPhone, which was no match for your "longest ever post." ;)
My assertion is based on two things:
1. Your treatment of Alan as a fellow forum member is unnecessarily harsh, abrasive, and condescending. You are not alone in that. Rob and the other Jeremy help a lot too. As I mentioned earlier, it is uncalled for. Alan is one of the most polite and patient contributors, and as such doesn't deserve the insults.
2. Alan didn't question the medical or legal aspects of the case. Therefore, your medical and legal arguments, as much as it comes from your unquestionably laudable expertise in both fields, is irrelevant. Alan raised a higher-level issue of who gets to decide about life and death, and sided with just about half of the world's view on it. You seem to think (correct me if wrong) that medical profession should have the say in life and death decisions, to the point of ultimately deciding it. That the courts ultimately only sided with the experts. I couldn't disagree more with such a view. The role of experts is to give their opinion, not to decide. I, as a parent, should have the final say. If I want my child on life support for the rest of his life, that should be my privilege to decide, not doctors'. If I can afford it, of course. There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights. Having said that, if I were in those shoes (father), I would have probably opted to end the life sooner rather the later. However, I was particularly troubled by the court's decision to prevent the parents from moving him to another hospital, willing to provide free care, under the questionable argument of "pain." It is one thing for courts to say, rightly or wrongly, well, that hospital is right, they can pull the plug. But completely different thing to say, no, you can not avoid their decision by moving it to another willing hospital. Such a level of state control over individuals scares the hell out of me.
As I posted earlier:
Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.... it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights. By the same token, people taking a principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.
-
Rich Canadians go occasionally south to US for medical aid, mainly because of significantly shorter waiting times and more specialists.
On the other hand, quite a few Americans travel north to get their elective surgeries done in Canada, mainly hernia. Even with travel costs, these surgeries are still cheaper in Canada.
Both Canadians and Americans travel to central Europe to get pampered in hot thermal spas.
Pampered in hot thermal spas... babies do that everywhere; even the smell's much the same.
-
This from Forbes Magazine, June 11:
"Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.
"Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank."
Interesting how you're willing to quote data from organizations that agree with your pre-conceived conclusions but disparage those that don't.
And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it. Neither of those organizations speak for Canadian citizens.
-
... And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it...
You don't like inconvenient facts?
-
Both of us seem to be dancing on the head of our respective pins. The model that I described is one of controlling up front costs and eliminating of the profit of the primary underwriter as I already described. That you seem not to grasp this concept is your problem. Of course the reinsurer that covers the stop loss has a profit built in and that premium might be readjusted from year to year depending on claims that are filed. We still have significant savings in this model compared to one that would contract directly with the primary insurer for full coverage. You are entitled to not like this explanation but the animus is better parked by the side of the road.
Of course you can save money by covering your own costs until your insurance (insurance, not re-insurance) kicks in. I can save money on my house contents policy in the same way. I'm not "self insuring"; I'm just accepting some of the risk myself, exactly as you are.
Shame on you, Jeremy, for not grasping the concept. :o
I know. Humbling. Brain the size of a planet, too.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, I don't live in GB. So I'm not familiar with the day-to-day issues regarding this case. I'm taking the article as telling the truth. But even if there are untruths in it does not change the fact that government control of our medical care can hurt our rights to make free choices about that care. Obama lied when he said Obamacare would not cause you to change your doctors. In the end, a single payer system must make choices since there is not an ever supply of funding to pay for everything. So government's choices may not comport with the individual's choice so they have lost their freedom to decide. If you have a disease, and the government says that because of your old age, the government will not fund care, you're screwed. Unless you're very rich and can pay out of pocket or you can afford to fly to America for the care. With private insurance, you have more options and more free choices.
Look how Brexit is affecting national health care, a government controlled system. Brits overseas, ex-pats, might lose health care once Brexit goes into effect. Had there been private health care, individuals would still be able to decide what kind and how much care their insurance policies handles. They lost their freedom to decide how to live by turning their lives over to the care of bureaucrats in government who care little about them. I would rather keep important decisions about my life in my hands. I just don't trust the government. That extends to making end-of-life decisions. When you go in for serious surgery in the US, the hospital asks you to sign or not sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). If you sign it, and you have major failure let's say of breathing or your heart during or after the procedure, the hospital will not take extraordinary measures to keep you alive. They will let nature takes it's course. If you don't sign it, they are obligated by law to take all measures to keep you alive even if you have to be put in a induced coma state. There's no telling what government may decide once they take over fully. That's what makes the British kid's story so important. It represents a transfer of power to the state about our personal freedoms to make choices.
I realise you don't live here. I have explained to you that the article on which you base your views of the case is wrong and I have given you links which will, if followed, allow you to understand the facts. I have no idea why you decline to do so.
The story of Alfie Evans demonstrates nothing of the kind, which is why your persistent ignorance is so irritating. What it represents is something which the UK, America, every civilised country understands: that, as I have already put it, children are not the playthings of their parents, parents do not always know what is best for their children and sometimes it is necessary for decisions to be made in the child's best interests, even if that is against the parents' wishes. I know little of the US social care system, but if you have no means by which children may be removed by the State from inadequate parents, I would be astonished.
Misusing the series of events which led, after exhaustive legal argument, to the death of a child from an incurable, catastrophic degenerative disease to promulgate your political views, views which are wholly irrelevant to the issues in that case, is reprehensible.
Jeremy
-
Yes, you are right, I should have elaborated. In my defense, I was waiting for a borscht to arrive and typing on my iPhone, which was no match for your "longest ever post." ;)
My assertion is based on two things:
1. Your treatment of Alan as a fellow forum member is unnecessarily harsh, abrasive, and condescending. You are not alone in that. Rob and the other Jeremy help a lot too. As I mentioned earlier, it is uncalled for. Alan is one of the most polite and patient contributors, and as such doesn't deserve the insults.
2. Alan didn't question the medical or legal aspects of the case. Therefore, your medical and legal arguments, as much as it comes from your unquestionably laudable expertise in both fields, is irrelevant. Alan raised a higher-level issue of who gets to decide about life and death, and sided with just about half of the world's view on it. You seem to think (correct me if wrong) that medical profession should have the say in life and death decisions, to the point of ultimately deciding it. That the courts ultimately only sided with the experts. I couldn't disagree more with such a view. The role of experts is to give their opinion, not to decide. I, as a parent, should have the final say. If I want my child on life support for the rest of his life, that should be my privilege to decide, not doctors'. If I can afford it, of course. There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights. Having said that, if I were in those shoes (father), I would have probably opted to end the life sooner rather the later. However, I was particularly troubled by the court's decision to prevent the parents from moving him to another hospital, willing to provide free care, under the questionable argument of "pain." It is one thing for courts to say, rightly or wrongly, well, that hospital is right, they can pull the plug. But completely different thing to say, no, you can not avoid their decision by moving it to another willing hospital. Such a level of state control over individuals scares the hell out of me.
Can't stand borscht.
Alan's original remark was this:
They can't. That's what happened in Britain when the government let a child die overriding the parent's decision. That's what happens with socialization. Individuals lose their freedom. It's powerful and uncaring government that decides.
As I have explained, in detail, that is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts. It is a disgraceful misuse of a tragic case to make a political point. That kind of misrepresentation led, during the currency of the case, to death threats agains the paediatricians, angry mobs besieging the hospital and demands that Alder Hey - a children's hospital, one of the most renowned children's hospitals in the country - should be bombed. The NHS is very far from perfect; it has enormous failings. It is not, however, an uncaring organisation and the doctors at Alder Hey who made the decisions which led to the litigation are not uncaring - quite the reverse. They are independent of the "state", which played no part in their decision-making. They wished to do what they considered was best for the child and, since there was disagreement, some external decision-making was necessary.
I have previously agreed with much of what Alan has written. But that remark, and his persistent adherence to the view that "socialization" or a "powerful and uncaring government" allows death is utterly disgraceful. He found an article which supported the view he wished to promulgate, and used it without any attempt to establish its accuracy.
Your second paragraph raises issues which are more nuanced, and on which there is scope for disagreement. But I could not disagree more strongly with your view that parents are the sole arbiter of what is best for a child's welfare, for the reasons set out in my previous post. It is absolutely not the case, here or in any other country with a functioning legal system. A child is a separate person, entitled to decisions made in his best interests, and in this case, as usual, with the benefit of separate representation in the proceedings.
It would of course have been much easier for Alder Hey to allow Alfie Evans to be moved to a different hospital, in a different country. But it would have been wrong - morally wrong - in the prevailing circumstances. That is the decision which it fell to the Courts to make; and that was the decision made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in England, with which the European Court of Human Rights declined to interfere.
Jeremy
-
Interesting how you're willing to quote data from organizations that agree with your pre-conceived conclusions but disparage those that don't.
And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it. Neither of those organizations speak for Canadian citizens.
Let's see if I understand what you're saying, Robert. You believe these data are incorrect?
-
... I could not disagree more strongly with your view that parents are the sole arbiter of what is best for a child's welfare...
Which is not my view.
Let me repeat what I said:
... There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights.... it is a matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights.
-
Interesting how you're willing to quote data from organizations that agree with your pre-conceived conclusions but disparage those that don't.
And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it. Neither of those organizations speak for Canadian citizens.
Hi, Robert. Here's another one. This one's from Huff Post, certainly not a right-wing publication:
"Canadian health care is the best in the world. At least, that's what we like to tell ourselves.
"But the reality is that Canada ranks last among 11 OECD countries when it comes to wait times. And that's just the beginning of our problems..."
If you'd like to read more, go to https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/24/canadian-health-care-system-problems_n_4661626.html?fbclid=IwAR3k7TlPGebPLvthnGV9pk7G0VkGUXqZVILJoN1vRx7kdosnKPdQV0FjJmk
-
"Canadian health care is the best in the world. At least, that's what we like to tell ourselves.
"But the reality is that Canada ranks last among 11 OECD countries when it comes to wait times. And that's just the beginning of our problems..."
If you'd like to read more, go to https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/24/canadian-health-care-system-problems_n_4661626.html?fbclid=IwAR3k7TlPGebPLvthnGV9pk7G0VkGUXqZVILJoN1vRx7kdosnKPdQV0FjJmk
40 years ago, Canadian health care used to pretty good.
Currently, there are many more users, fewer (relatively) resources (financial and medical staff), more regulations, more malpractice suits, higher insurances (both for practitioners and patients), so the reality is different than what the government tells you.
-
This from Forbes Magazine, June 11:
"Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.
"Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank."
A well-known right wing conservative "think tank", much derided by the many Canadians. I can't attest to the veracity of their data, but I do understand that wait times for non-essential procedures can be problematic.
My experience is precisely the opposite. If you need help quickly, it's there.
-
Hi, Peter. Read my grab, above, from Huff Post, a well-known left-wing liberal think (or whatever it is liberals do) tank.
-
If you'd like to read more, go to https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/24/canadian-health-care-system-problems_n_4661626.html?fbclid=IwAR3k7TlPGebPLvthnGV9pk7G0VkGUXqZVILJoN1vRx7kdosnKPdQV0FjJmk
It is hard to take seriously an article in which one of the enumerated complaints is that hospital parking is too expensive and they don't make change inside. Are you sure the article is not satire?
-
It is hard to take seriously an article in which one of the enumerated complaints is that hospital parking is expensive...
Well, in my experience, American hospitals offer free valet.
-
I most certainly did no such thing! I know squat about the Canadian system, and was asking whether Canadians going south for medical aid, privately, implied they did not have access to private medical insurance in Canada.
Sorry Rob. I think it was Russ who was complaining about the Canadian system.
-
A well-known right wing conservative "think tank", much derided by the many Canadians. I can't attest to the veracity of their data, but I do understand that wait times for non-essential procedures can be problematic.
My experience is precisely the opposite. If you need help quickly, it's there.
It varies, Peter. Actually, quite often, the waiting times for MRI and other scans in small rural communities (if they have such equipment) are almost non-existent, while the large hospitals in big cities require long waiting times.
Personally, I had MRI done twice, both four years ago in a large hospital in Newmarket, Ontario. They were free, but the waiting times were 7 months for the first MRI, and 6 weeks for the second. Hopefully, the waiting times have been reduced by now.
Waiting times for hip surgery are 6-8 months in Ontario. After the surgery, you get 2 days to recuperate in the hospital, then you need a good friend to take a care of you or have to pay for reconvalescence stay in a retirement home or similar institution. In Germany, the waiting times are 1-2 months, and they keep you in the hospital for 2-3 weeks.
-
Yes, you are right, I should have elaborated. In my defense, I was waiting for a borscht to arrive and typing on my iPhone, which was no match for your "longest ever post." ;)
My assertion is based on two things:
1. Your treatment of Alan as a fellow forum member is unnecessarily harsh, abrasive, and condescending. You are not alone in that. Rob and the other Jeremy help a lot too. As I mentioned earlier, it is uncalled for. Alan is one of the most polite and patient contributors, and as such doesn't deserve the insults.
2. Alan didn't question the medical or legal aspects of the case. Therefore, your medical and legal arguments, as much as it comes from your unquestionably laudable expertise in both fields, is irrelevant. Alan raised a higher-level issue of who gets to decide about life and death, and sided with just about half of the world's view on it. You seem to think (correct me if wrong) that medical profession should have the say in life and death decisions, to the point of ultimately deciding it. That the courts ultimately only sided with the experts. I couldn't disagree more with such a view. The role of experts is to give their opinion, not to decide. I, as a parent, should have the final say. If I want my child on life support for the rest of his life, that should be my privilege to decide, not doctors'. If I can afford it, of course. There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights. Having said that, if I were in those shoes (father), I would have probably opted to end the life sooner rather the later. However, I was particularly troubled by the court's decision to prevent the parents from moving him to another hospital, willing to provide free care, under the questionable argument of "pain." It is one thing for courts to say, rightly or wrongly, well, that hospital is right, they can pull the plug. But completely different thing to say, no, you can not avoid their decision by moving it to another willing hospital. Such a level of state control over individuals scares the hell out of me.
As I posted earlier:
Thanks for your support. Regarding state control over individuals, the British action smacks of 1984.
-
It varies, Peter. Actually, quite often, the waiting times for MRI and other scans in small rural communities (if they have such equipment) are almost non-existent, while the large hospitals in big cities require long waiting times.
Personally, I had MRI done twice, both four years ago in a large hospital in Newmarket, Ontario. They were free, but the waiting times were 7 months for the first MRI, and 6 weeks for the second. Hopefully, the waiting times have been reduced by now.
Waiting times for hip surgery are 6-8 months in Ontario. After the surgery, you get 2 days to recuperate in the hospital, then you need a good friend to take a care of you or have to pay for reconvalescence stay in a retirement home or similar institution. In Germany, the waiting times are 1-2 months, and they keep you in the hospital for 2-3 weeks.
Les, Before we believe those multi-month long MRI wait times, I have to ask you if you are making up false data like those news articles RSL quoted earlier?
-
Well, in my experience, American hospitals offer free valet.
You can usually get change from the info booth, too. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸!!!
-
We were up in Montreal visiting friends a couple of weeks ago. I saw more hospitals in various parts of town than we have in my part of Maryland and Washington DC. Our friends are very happy with their health care and have not encountered long wait times. It's important to remember that health care in Canada is delivered by the provincial government and it maybe that the prairie provinces have less services but that is no different than in rural US states where the number of hospitals is small and diminishing.
-
I realise you don't live here. I have explained to you that the article on which you base your views of the case is wrong and I have given you links which will, if followed, allow you to understand the facts. I have no idea why you decline to do so.
The story of Alfie Evans demonstrates nothing of the kind, which is why your persistent ignorance is so irritating. What it represents is something which the UK, America, every civilised country understands: that, as I have already put it, children are not the playthings of their parents, parents do not always know what is best for their children and sometimes it is necessary for decisions to be made in the child's best interests, even if that is against the parents' wishes. I know little of the US social care system, but if you have no means by which children may be removed by the State from inadequate parents, I would be astonished.
Misusing the series of events which led, after exhaustive legal argument, to the death of a child from an incurable, catastrophic degenerative disease to promulgate your political views, views which are wholly irrelevant to the issues in that case, is reprehensible.
Jeremy
Jeremy: Since you complained that I had read a misinformed article, I did a search on Google and this article from the BBC popped up.:
In it was said: "His parents said they wanted to fly him to a hospital in Italy but this was blocked by Alder Hey, which said continuing treatment was "not in Alfie's best interests"."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949)
This makes my point. I am opposed to a government sanctioned hospital deciding what should happen to this child. It's not the hospital's business if the parents want to seek care elsewhere in another hospital. Certainly the court should have just let the parents decide what they wanted to do. There are people all the time who have terminally ill children who take their children to places all over the country hoping to find help. Obviously. most don;pt find that help. Who are we, the government, courts, or a hospital to decide they shouldn't do that? That they're "hurting" the child if they do. That's rubbish. The child is not a ward of the state. The parents have the child's best interests at heart. Sure, there are times when the state must protect children when their parents are acting with harm in mind. But we don;t need hospitals and government interfering in cases like this. Families should make the decision when the plug is pulled. Some of this is going on in America too. We are too quick to take traditional parental responsibility out of the hands of the parents. We should be very careful about these things in my opinion.
-
Les, Before we believe those multi-month long MRI wait times, I have to ask you if you are making up false data like those news articles RSL quoted earlier?
No reason for making it up, Alan. Now even to me, 7 months waiting seems incredible, but that's what it was. Real story, real numbers.
I think, the difference between those two times (7 months and 6 weeks) was due mainly to the fact that by the time of the second scan the MRI room was already functioning on 3 shifts (I think, my appointment was for 10pm or so). Other factors for the first lengthy wait could have been that particular time of year, doctor's weight, and the state/availability of the actual MRI equipment.
The MRI test facility was in a hospital, and most likely it is used and reserved mainly for emergencies and in-patients. Whenever I needed Xray, blood test, or other routine test, I had it done at a private lab, most of the time with no waiting.
-
No reason for making it up, Alan. Now even to me, 7 months waiting seems incredible, but that's what it was. Real story, real numbers.
I think, the difference between those two times (7 months and 6 weeks) was due mainly to the fact that by the time of the second scan the MRI room was already functioning on 3 shifts (I think, my appointment was for 10pm or so). Other factors for the first lengthy wait could have been that particular time of year, doctor's weight, and the state/availability of the actual MRI equipment.
The MRI test facility was in a hospital, and most likely it is used and reserved mainly for emergencies and in-patients. Whenever I needed Xray, blood test, or other routine test, I had it done at a private lab, most of the time with no waiting.
I think we have a lot more MRI's and other very expensive testing equipment in the USA. That may account for the quick turnaround time for getting these tests. Of course, in the US, doctors prescribe these tests more frequently, maybe too much so. We tend to overtest here in America because doctors are afraid of liability lawsuits. They pay huge amounts for insurance. With more tests, more equipment is bought. More radiologists have to be paid to read the scans. All of this raises the cost of medical care here.
-
I think we have a lot more MRI's and other very expensive testing equipment in the USA. That may account for the quick turnaround time for getting these tests. Of course, in the US, doctors prescribe these tests more frequently, maybe too much so. We tend to overtest here in America because doctors are afraid of liability lawsuits. They pay huge amounts for insurance. With more tests, more equipment is bought. More radiologists have to be paid to read the scans. All of this raises the cost of medical care here.
Overtesting is not so bad. A more serious problem is that in the USA they also over-operate.
An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed annually with the number of unnecessary hospital stays around 8.9 million a year.
Annually, between 20 million and 25 million surgeries are performed not including plastic surgery. One study determined that almost 29% were not necessary (Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 212). One example concluded that 27% of hysterectomies, number two in common surgeries, did not even need this procedure performed.
https://sweeneylawfirm.com/content/unnecessary-surgeries
-
I have used USPS priority mail to send packages for years. I print out the label on my computer and drop the package off at the post office. I have tracking information the minute its scanned and everything gets delivered within two days. Pretty good deal and cheaper than UPS and FedEx unless one has a corporate account.
USPS has never been a concern for me either; it's always customs that worries me. So far that have not failed me. Every box of Cuban cigars from overseas has made it through unnoticed. ;)
-
Overtesting is not so bad. A more serious problem is that in the USA they also over-operate.
https://sweeneylawfirm.com/content/unnecessary-surgeries (https://sweeneylawfirm.com/content/unnecessary-surgeries)
I agree. People jump into surgeries like they're getting a tooth pulled. Surgeons recommend them because, well, that's what they do. Again, some recommendation for surgery is because doctors don't want to get sued for not recommending them and then someone dies. If the patient tell them they don;t want the surgery anyway, then at least the doctor can say he recommended it. One of the main things to help our costs would be to change tort laws to stop so many lawsuits and the huge awards granted by juries. Doctors spend six figures on liability insurance which gets included in his patient fees. It all adds to medical costs.
-
I agree. People jump into surgeries like they're getting a tooth pulled. Surgeons recommend them because, well, that's what they do. Again, some recommendation for surgery is because doctors don't want to get sued for not recommending them and then someone dies. If the patient tell them they don;t want the surgery anyway, then at least the doctor can say he recommended it. One of the main things to help our costs would be to change tort laws to stop so many lawsuits and the huge awards granted by juries. Doctors spend six figures on liability insurance which gets included in his patient fees. It all adds to medical costs.
Very true. The first and simplest step in reducing the healthcare costs would be to get rid of the frivolous law suits and consequently expensive malpractice insurances.
In addition, many more lives would be saved.
-
"(Senator) Kamala Harris proposes $100 billion plan for black homeownership."
More "free" stuff to buy votes. This is why the original constitution had legislatures select senators and not by popular vote which it was changed to in the 1900's.. More redistribution of wealth. Never ends.
This is how the housing crisis of 2008 started in the early 2000's. When Congress forced banks to give mortgages to people who shouldn't get them. Here we go again.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/06/kamala-harris-homeownership-2020-1399253
-
"(Senator) Kamala Harris proposes $100 billion plan for black homeownership."
Basically, a racist proposal.
-
Very true. The first and simplest step in reducing the healthcare costs would be to get rid of the frivolous law suits and consequently expensive malpractice insurances.
In addition, many more lives would be saved.
This is an erroneous conclusion. Several states have caps on how much can be awarded on malpractice lawsuits. There is little impact on the cost of healthcare on those states versus states that do not have a cap.
-
The malpractice suits and excessive malpractice insurance are real expenditures and they increase total healthcare costs. Not counting the doctor's time in court rooms and legal offices which could be used more productively for seeing more patients. I can't even guess such costs, but they add up.
Not only that, but because of the threat of malpractice suits, many doctors won't engage in new or potentially risky surgeries and treatments, thus indirectly contributing to higher death rates.
-
Jeremy: Since you complained that I had read a misinformed article, I did a search on Google and this article from the BBC popped up.:
In it was said: "His parents said they wanted to fly him to a hospital in Italy but this was blocked by Alder Hey, which said continuing treatment was "not in Alfie's best interests"."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949)
Alan, I give up. I present you with links which will allow you, with a single click and a little time and mental effort, to inform yourself of the issues in the case; yet you insist on acquiring only information pre-digested and filtered for you by journalists. How can you hope ever to understand? You wish to present the case as "1984", as interference by government, by the "state", yet you wilfully refuse to read the original sources, which would indicate that it was nothing of the kind.
I have in the past read your posts with interest and respected your opinions. This episode has destroyed that respect: as Sir Alan Herbert brilliantly put it, "It is like the thirteenth stroke of a crazy clock, which not only is itself discredited but casts a shade of doubt over all previous assertions.". Were it not for my obligation as forum moderator to read all posts, I would make you the first, and only, person on my "blocked" list.
I'm saddened.
Jeremy
-
Alan, I give up. I present you with links which will allow you, with a single click and a little time and mental effort, to inform yourself of the issues in the case; yet you insist on acquiring only information pre-digested and filtered for you by journalists. How can you hope ever to understand? You wish to present the case as "1984", as interference by government, by the "state", yet you wilfully refuse to read the original sources, which would indicate that it was nothing of the kind.
I have in the past read your posts with interest and respected your opinions. This episode has destroyed that respect: as Sir Alan Herbert brilliantly put it, "It is like the thirteenth stroke of a crazy clock, which not only is itself discredited but casts a shade of doubt over all previous assertions.". Were it not for my obligation as forum moderator to read all posts, I would make you the first, and only, person on my "blocked" list.
I'm saddened.
Jeremy
It's that refusal - or is it inability? - to take on board new information that contradicts an established, ingrained credo, that is the thing raising blood pressure and making tempers fly. The frustration of writing something that clearly explains why some things are as they are, which is subsequently ignored, and then the same old point raised over and over again, removes all sense of corresponding with a sane human being.
As my granddad used to say to me: trying to convince a fool is like trying to whip the fog! Yep, he was talking to me about me, but I was maybe twelve at the time. As we know, time changes everything!
;-)
-
It's that refusal - or is it inability? - to take on board new information that contradicts an established, ingrained credo, that is the thing raising blood pressure and making tempers fly. The frustration of writing something that clearly explains why some things are as they are, which is subsequently ignored, and then the same old point raised over and over again, removes all sense of corresponding with a sane human being.
But Rob, you (and I) are just a dinosaur. This is the way the internet, and the rest of the media, are these days. There is no obligation felt to tell the truth, or engage in rational debate. Claims are made and before the truth is checked, the subject moves on and new claims are made. The lies and the truth become hopelessly mixed. Trump is the obvious example, but in deference to our friends across the Herring Pond, consider instead our next Prime Minister, who sets big store by his record as London mayor, but as everyone knows, those claims simply don't stack up against the truth, from Heathrow runways to knife crime.
I read somewhere that in USSR time there was a word for a lie that everyone knew was a lie - perhaps Slobo can help me out. Now we have caught up with the Commies. Maybe Slobo is partly right - socialism does indeed end up in totalitarianism, but then so does everything else !
-
But Rob, you (and I) are just a dinosaur. This is the way the internet, and the rest of the media, are these days. There is no obligation felt to tell the truth, or engage in rational debate. Claims are made and before the truth is checked, the subject moves on and new claims are made. The lies and the truth become hopelessly mixed. Trump is the obvious example, but in deference to our friends across the Herring Pond, consider instead our next Prime Minister, who sets big store by his record as London mayor, but as everyone knows, those claims simply don't stack up against the truth, from Heathrow runways to knife crime.
I read somewhere that in USSR time there was a word for a lie that everyone knew was a lie - perhaps Slobo can help me out. Now we have caught up with the Commies. Maybe Slobo is partly right - socialism does indeed end up in totalitarianism, but then so does everything else !
You may be interested in a recent BBC World Service Trending podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csyvmx (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csyvmx). The blurb from the "Show More" link is:
"Six years ago, when he was a curious, guitar-playing student, Kal Turnbull started a subreddit – a section of the website Reddit - called Change My View. He encouraged people to post their opinions and invite other users to politely argue against them.
It took off, and now has more than 700,000 subscribers. And now Kal wants to take the idea beyond Reddit, with a new website – ChangeAView.com – which just launched."
It is an experiment on how to structure polite online discussions. The podcast itself is less than 30 min long.
-
You may be interested in a recent BBC World Service Trending podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csyvmx (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csyvmx). The blurb from the "Show More" link is:
[...]
It is an experiment on how to structure polite online discussions. The podcast itself is less than 30 min long.
Thanks - I'll check it out. I've been participating in internet forums since the days of USENET Newsgroups, and there have always been some places that were bear-pits, but the level of discourse does seem to have plummetted in the last couple of years.
-
Thanks - I'll check it out. I've been participating in internet forums since the days of USENET Newsgroups, and there have always been some places that were bear-pits, but the level of discourse does seem to have plummetted in the last couple of years.
I think it's worse recently because of the world stage: the Trump victory has opened floodgates and given voice to emotional responses once absent - or if not absent, then not as polarized - from everyday life. I think Brexit has done exactly the same thing: no halfway house can exist.
-
I think it's worse recently because of the world stage: the Trump victory has opened floodgates and given voice to emotional responses once absent - or if not absent, then not as polarized - from everyday life. I think Brexit has done exactly the same thing: no halfway house can exist.
Related to this is this sad/funny story https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cafe-frida-files-complaint-police-posters-far-right-1.5202757 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cafe-frida-files-complaint-police-posters-far-right-1.5202757). The report tells about some far-right protesters who plastered the outside of a vegetarian restaurant with signs in support of Quebec's Bill 21. For those who don't know, the bill forbids the wearing of religious symbols by public employees (loosely defined). For some reason these clowns targeted a vegetarian restaurant, a bizarre choice, but obviously they felt emboldened to do so by the "signalling".
Odd that the foot soldiers in the white supremacy movement never seem to be who you would choose to stud the herd.
-
I think it's worse recently because of the world stage: the Trump victory has opened floodgates and given voice to emotional responses once absent - or if not absent, then not as polarized - from everyday life. I think Brexit has done exactly the same thing: no halfway house can exist.
Maybe it's because the stakes are higher/being raised?
Irreversible Climate Change tipping points,
Mass migration due to failed regimes and climate change,
The proliferation of (Nuclear) Weapons,
Unstable/Oppressive regimes,
Change of World leadership towards China,
Increased (eye-witness) visibility of wrongdoings by use of Mobile Phones,
etc.
The Powers that were, have a lot to lose and they are losing it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You live in a world of hurt, Bart. Sorry to hear that. I see you're only 18. When you grow up things may look better.
-
You live in a world of hurt, Bart. Sorry to hear that. I see you're only 18. When you grow up things may look better.
Not really, I just don't live in your bubble...
But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html
The point is not so much what an Ambassador has to say about the Trump administration, but who leaked the confidential messages?
The houses of cards are crumbling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe it's because the stakes are higher/being raised?
Irreversible Climate Change tipping points,
Mass migration due to failed regimes and climate change,
The proliferation of (Nuclear) Weapons,
Unstable/Oppressive regimes,
Change of World leadership towards China,
Increased (eye-witness) visibility of wrongdoings by use of Mobile Phones,
etc.
The Powers that were, have a lot to lose and they are losing it.
Cheers,
Bart
According to Steve Pinker and others, we're far better off now than we used to be. In the past we'd kill each other by the millions and millions of others would die from preventable causes. But we're largely denied that spectacle of slaughter these days so men have to get their fix of misery by being twerps on the internet. Women don't seem to need to do this as much. :)
-
I'm disappointed how some people want to shutdown the other side when they disagree with their points of view. It's a sad day for free speech and free thought. What's the point of having a forum? You might as well shut it down.
-
But we're largely denied that spectacle of slaughter these days so men have to get their fix of misery by being twerps on the internet.
The twerps come in different flavors, e.g. those who express their insignificance by grandstanding/insulting and those with a mission to disrupt. Thank goodness there are also those who try to do beneficial things, but they are often hard to notice by the overall low Signal to Noise ratio (and it's the noise level that causes the problem).
Cheers,
Bart
-
But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time, Bart. Thanks for the link. It's obvious the poor guy needs professional help.
-
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time, Bart. Thanks for the link. It's obvious the poor guy needs professional help.
Well, he's your President ... ;)
-
It's not the President rattling his head in that article. The guy practically was foaming at the mouth. The UK may need a straightjacket to get him home.
-
But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html
Fascinating. I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers?—but they sure look authentic to me. (In fact, they read remarkably like the reports American diplomats send back to Washington about the politics of their host countries.)
Of course there's nothing new here. The reports and assessments contained in the British embassy cables closely correspond to the information journalists have been getting from White House insiders since the beginning of the Trump Administration.
I suspect Sir Kim may soon be returning to the U.K. and transitioning into retirement.
-
I'm disappointed how some people want to shutdown the other side when they disagree with their points of view. It's a sad day for free speech and free thought. What's the point of having a forum? You might as well shut it down.
What's the point of having a forum where people just repeat lies over and over and refuse to participate in reasoned discussion? None whatsoever - might as well shut it down indeed. Or just leave it to stew as people migrate elsewhere.
-
It's that refusal - or is it inability? - to take on board new information that contradicts an established, ingrained credo, that is the thing raising blood pressure and making tempers fly. The frustration of writing something that clearly explains why some things are as they are, which is subsequently ignored, and then the same old point raised over and over again, removes all sense of corresponding with a sane human being.
Exactly, Rob. Well put.
I'm disappointed how some people want to shutdown the other side when they disagree with their points of view. It's a sad day for free speech and free thought. What's the point of having a forum? You might as well shut it down.
Alan, I have given you information and I have tried to facilitate your access to more information, on which you could then base reasoned argument. I have failed; instead, you prefer to wallow in the pit of your own ignorance and persistently to co-opt as support for your entrenched views a dead baby and his no doubt caring but grievously misguided parents. The first is a matter of your choice; the second, quite despicable.
I have not shut down you, the discussion or the forum, nor do I wish or intend at present to do so. I have merely written that your actions in relation to this topic have led me no longer to respect your views on it or any other topic; but I am not so naive as to believe that that is of the slightest interest or concern to you.
I will not engage with you further. There is no point.
Jeremy
-
According to Steve Pinker and others, we're far better off now than we used to be. In the past we'd kill each other by the millions and millions of others would die from preventable causes. But we're largely denied that spectacle of slaughter these days so men have to get their fix of misery by being twerps on the internet. Women don't seem to need to do this as much. :)
Pinker is correct but only about some parts of the world. One wonders about the prospects of women in many areas of the developing world. We certainly have fewer large wars and the ones we do have tend to be small regional conflicts. The spectre of something like the 30 years war that ravaged 17th century Central Europe don't seem to be a possibility these days.
-
Fascinating. I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers? Making stuff up?
-
Fascinating. I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers?
Possibly both, to help Nigel Farage in weakening the UK and Europe.
Of course there's nothing new here. The reports and assessments contained in the British embassy cables closely correspond to the information journalists have been getting from White House insiders since the beginning of the Trump Administration.
Indeed, but the consistency between the different sources is worrisome.
I suspect Sir Kim may soon be returning to the U.K. and transitioning into retirement.
Yes, but mostly as a token of goodwill to Trump, not because something was lacking in his observations.
The real question remains, who leaked the documents??? But that's something for the Brexit thread.
Cheers,
Bart
-
For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.
-
Exactly, Rob. Well put.
Alan, I have given you information and I have tried to facilitate your access to more information, on which you could then base reasoned argument. I have failed; instead, you prefer to wallow in the pit of your own ignorance and persistently to co-opt as support for your entrenched views a dead baby and his no doubt caring but grievously misguided parents. The first is a matter of your choice; the second, quite despicable.
I have not shut down you, the discussion or the forum, nor do I wish or intend at present to do so. I have merely written that your actions in relation to this topic have led me no longer to respect your views on it or any other topic; but I am not so naive as to believe that that is of the slightest interest or concern to you.
I will not engage with you further. There is no point.
Jeremy
It is of concern to me. Not because we have different points of view. But that you'd let it rupture a relationship between us. I'm sorry about that. We all say a lot of things that often seems totally different than what seems reasonable to us. Certainly I felt that about many posts here. But I always came back to the table and listened to everyone subsequently.
-
For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.
Thanks, Slobo. You've gotten your share of hits as well that were totally unfair. However, we're both still standing giving it as well as taking it. .
-
Now they are victims. Typical.
-
Now they are victims. Typical.
You made me smile. :)
-
Not really, I just don't live in your bubble...
But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html
The point is not so much what an Ambassador has to say about the Trump administration, but who leaked the confidential messages?
The houses of cards are crumbling.
Cheers,
Bart
I don't think the Brits ought to use this ambassador to negotiate trade deals with Trump after Brexit. They might not wind up with a single peppercorn from him.
-
I don't think the Brits ought to use this ambassador to negotiate trade deals with Trump after Brexit. They might not wind up with a single peppercorn from him.
That's not the role of an ambassador.
But, knowing the British humor which I like a lot, it might become his next job.
Cheers,
Bart
-
For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.
As your hero put it - "Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege"
Alan is not being persecuted for having an opinion, he is being criticised for his wanton disregard for the facts.
-
As your hero put it - "Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege"
Alan is not being persecuted for having an opinion, he is being criticised for his wanton disregard for the facts.
There was no disregard of the facts.
Facts, in general, are necessary, but not sufficient factor. Both Alan and I are aware of the same facts, yet come to a different conclusion, based on the same set of facts, than you lot (pardon the British expression).
Is that so surprising? In every case that comes to SCOTUS, the nine judges are presented with the same set of facts. And yet, in most many cases, the decision is made 5:4 or similar, rarely, if ever, as 9:0 (though our resident constitutional expert could prove me wrong). How is that possible? If all the judges are presented with the same facts, they surely should come, as reasonable and highly educated people, to a unanimous decision, no? Do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?
P.S. I thought he is your hero?
-
In every case that comes to SCOTUS, the nine judges are presented with the same set of facts. And yet, in most cases, the decision is made 5:4 or similar, rarely, if ever, as 9:0 (though our resident constitutional expert could prove me wrong).
Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting to anyone other than the constitutional scholar, and so you never hear about them. SCOTUS cases are characterized by being well reasoned on both sides, which is often not the case with much of public discourse.
-
Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting except to the constitutional scholar.
Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?
-
Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?
Lord help us if Alan Klein ever became a SC judge !!
-
Unfortunately, the politics of the day seems to allow everyone to call those they disagree with "morons" Nazis" Hitler, fascists, etc. If you can call the President of the US those names, certainly we can call forum members as well. Just read some of the reader's responses on articles about Trump in some of the "news" websites.We don't know how to discuss things any longer. Everything is a prize fight, winner take all. If you have a different opinion than me, well your opinion is not valid. Worse still, we want to shut you up and not hear from you at all. Look what's happening on college campuses? One side prevents others from speaking. Their speech is deemed harmful, not worthy of listening too. This is in colleges where learning and open debate were always treasured. Well, it's become like 1984 there as well. The government will define which speech is valid and who will be punished for violating government standards. Fortunately in America, free speech still is protected by our constitution and laws. But civil discourse has become mean. Maybe it's the fault of the web. We never before had a place where we can say what we want anonymously and not suffer the consequences of being socially rejected. It's carried over to the public square.
-
Lord help us if Alan Klein ever became a SC judge !!
Another personal attack. Can't you make a cogent argument?
-
Another personal attack. Can't you make a cogent argument?
Yes, I can indeed, but what's the point?
-
Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?
Rarely ignorant, but certainly other epitaphs depending on the particular decision and one's political persuasion. It depends on which media you elect to read.
-
Yes, I can indeed, but what's the point?
Sorry, people make personal attacks when they can't make a cogent argument.
-
For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.
No one prevented him from expressing an opinion. He can write whatever her wants, within reason, and that's all that's required. However, that doesn't preclude having those opinions judged. An opinion is not de facto valid because you happen to have it. Alan has expressed disagreements with the opinions of other many times. That's part and part of what discussion is.
No one ever insulted him, unless you think that disagreement is an insult, in which case you are multiply guilty of that yourself.
-
Sorry, people make personal attacks when they can't make a cogent argument.
Yawn.
-
For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.
Slobodan, I can speak for nobody but myself, but as I hope is crystal clear from what I have written, while I disagree fundamentally with his opinion, that is not the cause of my anger; it is his wilful refusal to learn and accept the facts of the case on which he mistakenly relies which is infuriating.
Jeremy
-
Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting to anyone other than the constitutional scholar, and so you never hear about them. SCOTUS cases are characterized by being well reasoned on both sides, which is often not the case with much of public discourse.
One can go to the SCOTUS database and find out exactly the ratios are. Here is a Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/?utm_term=.b7cd78233574) story that quickly comes up with Google that speaks to this issue. There are a lot of mundane cases that the Court takes up that end up with clear cut decisions but one seldom reads about them.
-
Slobodan, I can speak for nobody but myself, but as I hope is crystal clear from what I have written, while I disagree fundamentally with his opinion, that is not the cause of my anger; it is his wilful refusal to learn and accept the facts of the case on which he mistakenly relies which is infuriating.
Jeremy, and THAT (bold) is precisely the source of my deep disappointment. Such a stance presupposes that, after facts are presented, everyone should come to the same conclusion and form the same opinion. As I demonstrated with my SCOTUS parallel, this is definitely not the case.
-
... No one ever insulted him...
You are kidding, right? Calling him "ignorant," etc. is not insulting? There are numerous posts with more or less direct condescending comments directed at him, and I even pointed that out on at least two occasions.
-
Terming somebody "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult. It may be a statement of fact.
Ignorance is not an attitude nor an opinion. It is a lack of knowledge.
-
I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...
the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing.
Sorry Bart.
-
Terming somebody "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult. It may be a statement of fact.
Ignorance is not an attitude nor an opinion. It is a lack of knowledge.
So, which facts Alan, myself, or, as a parallel, SCOTUS justices didn't know when they disagreed? Once again, the same group of people, presented with the same set of facts, will come to a different conclusion. That's a fact.
There is this persistent and pervasive stance that if only one would learn all the facts, they would see the light like the rest of the illuminati. That simply is not true.
-
Jeremy, and THAT (bold) is precisely the source of my deep disappointment. Such a stance presupposes that, after facts are presented, everyone should come to the same conclusion and form the same opinion. As I demonstrated with my SCOTUS parallel, this is definitely not the case.
No, Slobodan. Absolutely not. Please re-read what I have written.
If Alan were to acquaint himself with the facts of the case he persists in using to base his argument, and then were to run the same argument from those facts, I would disagree but I would respect the argument. It is precisely because he refuses to get to know the facts, relying instead on predigested opinions from journalists, that I refuse to engage further with him. We are not arguing about interpretation of facts; he refuses to accept their very existence.
Alan's position is similar to that of someone who claims the moon is edible because it is made of green cheese, and persists in his belief that it is edible despite overwhelming evidence that it is not in fact made of green cheese because he has read articles by journalists who maintain that it is.
If his position were that the moon is edible despite being made of moon rock, I would regard it as silly but at least in conformity with the facts.
You are kidding, right? Calling him "ignorant," etc. is not insulting?
No, it's not an insult; in this case, it's an observation. The word may be used as part of a nondescript term of abuse, but not by me. He is ignorant of the facts, and he clings to his ignorance and refuses to remedy it. I have absolutely no idea why he acts in that way - I find it quite bizarre, and out of keeping with what I understood to be his previous behaviour - but that is what he is doing.
Jeremy
-
So, which facts Alan, myself, or, as a parallel, SCOTUS justices didn't know when they disagreed? Once again, the same group of people, presented with the same set of facts, will come to a different conclusion. That's a fact.
There is this persistent and pervasive stance that if only one would learn all the facts, they would see the light like the rest of the illuminati. That simply is not true.
Slobodan, please read my post 466.
I don't give much of a damn about Alan's politics; no, actually, I could not care less. The problem I have with him is mainly to do with Brexit, where he has been given the legal facts of what the process means in its two possible versions, over and over again. But it makes no difference: the same effin' question pops up ten minutes later showing that he either has a reading problem, a comprehension problem, or is just plain trolling all of us who are interested in these subjects for whatever reasons. Come to think of it, trolling is quite likely the real reason.
Did you think of that?
-
... We are not arguing about interpretation of facts; he refuses to accept their very existence...
How do you know that? Which facts he is unaware of? Once again, we are talking past each other. My position is that even if he would read every single fact there is about the case, he, me, and many others, would still come to a different conclusion.
In spite of my already expressed disdain for links to gazillion pages of "facts" as a substitution for summarizing a position in a forum debate, I did click on your link and read your judge friend's opinion. Nothing there adds a novel fact to the case, let alone a smoking gun, which could not be inferred from the journalistic representation.
-
Slobodan, please read my post 466.
I don't give much of a damn about Alan's politics; no, actually, I could not care less. The problem I have with him is mainly to do with Brexit, where he has been given the legal facts of what the process means in its two possible versions, over and over again. But it makes no difference: the same effin' question pops up ten minutes later showing that he either has a reading problem, a comprehension problem, or is just plain trolling all of us who are interested in these subjects for whatever reasons. Come to think of it, trolling is quite likely the real reason.
Did you think of that?
Yes, Rob, I read that reply before and I read it again now, and I still believe you are wrong, for the reasons I explained in several posts above. As for trolling, my impression is that his posts are nothing of that kind. I occasionally enjoy trolling, as I do not suffer fools gladly, but Alan is a better man than me.
-
Yes, Rob, I read that reply before and I read it again now, and I still believe you are wrong, for the reasons I explained in several posts above. As for trolling, my impression is that his posts are nothing of that kind. I occasionally enjoy trolling, as I do not suffer fools gladly, but Alan is a better man than me.
Well, if you still don't see my point, there's not a lot left to say on the matter.
Rob
-
How do you know that? Which facts he is unaware of? Once again, we are talking past each other. My position is that even if he would read every single fact there is about the case, he, me, and many others, would still come to a different conclusion.
I know that because (a) his representation of the facts is incorrect; and (b) that he has not denied my assertion that he has failed to read the facts.
In spite of my already expressed disdain for links to gazillion pages of "facts" as a substitution for summarizing a position in a forum debate, I did click on your link and read your judge friend's opinion. Nothing there adds a novel fact to the case, let alone a smoking gun, which could not be inferred from the journalistic representation.
It's a judgment, not an opinion.
Then you are entitled to form a different view from mine. I wholly disagree, of course.
Jeremy
-
...I wholly disagree, of course.
I think, Jeremy, that we've fully exhausted different ways in which we disagree. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that :)
-
I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...
the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing.
Sorry Bart.
+1. Not that I have any animosity toward the losing team. :)
-
I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...
the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing.
Sorry Bart.
Not just Bart but I've been a Dutch football supporter for family and sporting reasons ever since Cruyff laced up his boots in 1974. Today was the 45th anniversary of that WC loss to West Germany and now the Dutch have played in four WC finals without a win. One of these years they will get the first star to put on their orange shirt. US had the better team today but I don't consider it a beautiful thing. Bitter year for me with Ajax making it to the semifinals of the Champions league only to lose in the last five seconds of the match against Tottenham. The sun will still rise in the east and set in the west irrespective of sporting results (for which we almost always are disappointed).
-
I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...
the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing.
Sorry Bart.
Hi Joe,
No problem, congratulations. The USA had the better team, but it appeared harder to beat the Dutch team than they thought it would be.
But at the same time, it's also the best result for the Dutch Women's soccer team ever. And they've earned a place at the Olympics, so they'll have some time to grow even better by the time they meet again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I know that because (a) his representation of the facts is incorrect; and (b) that he has not denied my assertion that he has failed to read the facts.
It's a judgment, not an opinion.
Then you are entitled to form a different view from mine. I wholly disagree, of course.
Jeremy
Jeremy: I read the judgment and disagree. While the court's decision may comport with British law, it doesn;t comport with American law. First off, unlike the hospital there, hospitals here are not run and managed by government other than those run by the Veterans Administration for Veterans. All of ours are private as far as I'm aware. So in the first instance, we have British government deciding and challenging the parent's custodial rights. Private hospitals here wouldn;t challenge a parent's decision to remove the child to another hospital. They refused to return the child to the parents. So regardless of the so called "facts" there, this should never have happened. The parents should have made the decision. Government control of these things may be acceptable in Britain. But not here. Frankly, it's government interference with our freedoms.
In the judgement, par. 6, the justice contends that parents no longer have custodial rights like they use too in days past. That gave the hospital the right to keep the child and not return custody to the parents. That the habeas corpus demand by the parents does not apply because custodial rights passed to the government. Another government interference with our freedoms.
But all of the "facts", except one, have no bearing on my position. That one fact is that the parents were denied making the decision to pull the plug or to attempt to get further treatment for their child. Maybe the Brits are accustomed to handing over personal rights to an all encompassing government. So they're more comfortable with government making life and death decisions for them. But where I stand in America, I hope that's not a path we go down.
In any case, I can understand your opinion on this is different than mine. I also appreciate your strong views on the matter. I hope you can understand my points as well so we can move on from this without any ill will between us. Alan.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/in-the-matter-of-alfie-evans-court-order.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/in-the-matter-of-alfie-evans-court-order.pdf)
-
State governments and the courts in the United States take away the custodial rights, indeed the parental rights, of parents every day in cases of abuse and neglect, in other words, when they deem it in the best interest of the child. There is no controversy.
-
Hi Joe,
No problem, congratulations. The USA had the better team, but it appeared harder to beat the Dutch team than they thought it would be.
But at the same time, it's also the best result for the Dutch Women's soccer team ever. And they've earned a place at the Olympics, so they'll have some time to grow even better by the time they meet again.
Cheers,
Bart
Till next time. ;)
-
State governments and the courts in the United States take away the custodial rights, indeed the parental rights, of parents every day in cases of abuse and neglect, in other words, when they deem it in the best interest of the child. There is no controversy.
Transferring a child from one hospital to another is not considered abuse and neglect. The government would not get involved. You've created a straw man.
A hospital in America would not object to the move. The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules. In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk. In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility. It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick. Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you. I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver.
-
The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules. In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk. In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility. It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick. Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you. I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver.
Do you never get tired of spouting absolute complete and utter tripe? "The hospital is the government"? Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?
-
Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?
I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too. It's obviously beyond you. Oh, and it's "three branches" of government in the U.S. Not three arms.
-
Do you never get tired of spouting absolute complete and utter tripe? "The hospital is the government"? Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?
Jeremy, save your breath; only Slobodan can "understand him" as they used to say in the olden days.
I really wonder if he does, or whether it's just a matter of team spirit, much as I had for the Tories until the disgraceful display over Brexit and of naked, personal ambition at any price.
:-)
-
Transferring a child from one hospital to another is not considered abuse and neglect. The government would not get involved. You've created a straw man.
A hospital in America would not object to the move. The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules. In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk. In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility. It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick. Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you. I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver.
I realize that a lot of this stuff is hyperbole for effect. But it must be a complete and total mystery to you how the 7 billion people on earth who are not American get by each day. They build bridges, buildings, highways, grow crops, feed themselves, go to work, pay taxes, get sick, get healed, manage global corporations, conduct research, etc. They even manage to get through life without watching 4 hour long NFL games. Imagine that. :)
-
I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too. It's obviously beyond you. Oh, and it's "three branches" of government in the U.S. Not three arms.
It was so beyond me that I provided a clear reference to point out your error. Time to get your specs fixed.
-
I realize that a lot of this stuff is hyperbole for effect. But it must be a complete and total mystery to you how the 7 billion people on earth who are not American get by each day. They build bridges, buildings, highways, grow crops, feed themselves, go to work, pay taxes, get sick, get healed, manage global corporations, conduct research, etc. They even manage to get through life without watching 4 hour long NFL games. Imagine that. :)
I don;t watch 4 hour NFL games either. Who has time? I'm stuck at this damn computer and these forums. :)
-
I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too...
I am trying sooo hard to resist the urge to respond to the nonsense, Russ... wish me strength! ;)
-
I don;t watch 4 hour NFL games either. Who has time? I'm stuck at this damn computer and these forums. :)
Apologies for this off-topic tangent.
Back in 1987 or 1988, my employer sent me to London, UK for a couple of days to train some guys on changes we had made to some in-house software. I remember one of them telling me how much he liked NFL football and I made the comment about how the games were too long for me, especially the last "2 minutes". He looked at me in confusion and said, "What do you mean, they're only about an hour long." Which confused me. Turns out he used to watch a game summary broadcast where they only showed the actual plays, not the huddles, not the penalty calls, not the "2 minute" drills at the end of each half. If all you see are the 3 to 5 second long plays, then yeah, the game goes by pretty quickly. :)
Other than some cycling I don't watch pro sports much, but when I did I found that it was much more interesting with the sound off.
-
Apologies for this off-topic tangent....
Heck, even baseball is interesting if you watch a 5-second summary ;)
-
It was so beyond me that I provided a clear reference to point out your error. Time to get your specs fixed.
What error was that, Jeremy?
-
What error was that, Jeremy?
Short term memory problem?
-
I am growing tired of simple-minded, abusive comments in this thread which serve only to insult, and I shall not tolerate them any longer.
Jeremy
-
Apologies for this off-topic tangent.
Back in 1987 or 1988, my employer sent me to London, UK for a couple of days to train some guys on changes we had made to some in-house software. I remember one of them telling me how much he liked NFL football and I made the comment about how the games were too long for me, especially the last "2 minutes". He looked at me in confusion and said, "What do you mean, they're only about an hour long." Which confused me. Turns out he used to watch a game summary broadcast where they only showed the actual plays, not the huddles, not the penalty calls, not the "2 minute" drills at the end of each half. If all you see are the 3 to 5 second long plays, then yeah, the game goes by pretty quickly. :)
Other than some cycling I don't watch pro sports much, but when I did I found that it was much more interesting with the sound off.
What I want to know is how the hell some of y'all stand multi-day cricket matches. :o :D. Actually, maybe someone could explain cricket to me in general. For the life of me I can't figure it out, even after reading up on it.
-
What I want to know is how the hell some of y'all stand multi-day cricket matches. :o :D. Actually, maybe someone could explain cricket to me in general. For the life of me I can't figure it out, even after reading up on it.
It becomes clear when you stand in the hot sun baking all day.
-
What I want to know is how the hell some of y'all stand multi-day cricket matches. :o :D. Actually, maybe someone could explain cricket to me in general. For the life of me I can't figure it out, even after reading up on it.
Just like baseball: one guy has a bat and the other throws a ball. When the guy with the ball throws it (without lifting his leg up like a dog about to charm a tree, therefore unlike the baseball stance) the one with the stick thing is supposed to hit it - the ball - as far away from himself as he can and run like hell towards his opposite number at the end of the little regulation path, hopefully, without bumping into him. The poor chap at that other end also has to run along the path towards his partner's wicket (three erect, longer sticks bearing two shorter, horizontal ones above) and if they can only run that run once, it becomes his turn to face the madman with the hard ball. You can understand that cricket provides much incentive to run fast. The more often they can run the better, because each completed run counts as, well, a run, logically enough. Bear in mind that the running is more difficult than it need be, for both men with bats are handicapped with guards, both on their legs and inside their pants. Imagine running trussed like a Christmas turkey! You can make four runs if you hit the ball so that it runs along the lawn and hits the boundary and makes a tiny leap of delight as it stops at the edge, or be awarded six runs if you hit the ball so hard you knock it clean out of the field, much like a home run, I suppose. You also get clapped for your pains.
Whilst these two are running, the side (in the sense of team) that uses the ball instead of the bat thing, has a choice of action: it can catch the ball right off the bat, or throw it at the three little sticks with the two smaller ones above them. Trying to achieve that aim is how the game is started off, unless you count the flipping of a coin of the realm as a vital first step. As the batter is trying to hit the ball unto eternity, he is also trying to guard that set of sticks erected behind him, called the wicket, from being uprooted by said ball, which is more easily said than done, because if he stands awkwardly and the ball hits his leg, he can be accused of being leg before wicket, which can be quite insulting at times, depending how you look at it. That's pretty much a mortal sin, and you get hoofed away in shame.
If they, the people with the ball, can throw the ball as the bat people are running and hit the sticks so that one of the top ones falls down (and this is important, so pay attention: it only counts if the guy who is running towards those sticks is not close enough to them to be in, in which case he is out) then the guy with the bat is dismissed, out, gone. Alternatively, if the guy with the bat hits the ball dangerously hard and it flies up in the air threatening one of the other chaps spread around the field, the one threatened is at liberty to catch that ball (I told you it was dangerous) and the guy who hit it is out, just as if one of the small sticks on top of the three longer ones had fallen to the ground. Unfairly, for a gentleman's game, the team with the bats is only allowed to play two players at a time, whereas the other team usually employs eleven at a time. Hence the concept of the uneven playing field, another fine thing that the British Empire has donated to the world.
If throwing the ball at those sticks is done well, it curves right past the chap with the bat and knocks them down, at which point the one with the bat is supposed to turn around in disbelief, pause, adjust the strap of his helmet, put the bat under his arm and walk, with whatever dignity he can summon, right back to the pavillion, often no more than a hut, but a pavillion nonetheless. He may then have a cup of tea. Sometimes, when the two batters, as they are called, are running, one may start to run and the other hesitate or not run at all. In that case, one of them is said to be run out when the ball people send the wickets flying.
Following me so far? Fine! This process of attrition continues until the people with the bats have no more fresh, unused players left in the pavillion whom they can convince to hold a bat. The number of times they have collectively been able to complete the race up the regulation path is counted and that becomes their score.
Then they all depart the lawn and a man weating a floppy hat and carrying several jerseys waddles away too, possibly for a pee. He is called an umpire, and his job is to be a sort of referee. He stands at the end of the path along which the two with bats have to run, but thankfully, because of his age, he usually does his standing at the end towards which the ball is not being bowled. Oh, did I forget to mention it? The person called the bowler is only allowed to throw the ball with one prescribed arm movement, not just in any old way. He is also not permitted to do unusual things with his ball, which would be called ball tampering, and could get him put out of the game for several seasons (years).
After a few minutes, the game starts anew with the ball people taking the part of the former bat people.
When they have all been sent back to the pavillion their total nmber of runs is counted, and the team with the higher number wins. It, "playing the game", is considered one of the four cornerstones of fine character building, and holding the bat straight is thought a good sign of things to come.
All countries should play this game.
-
Actually, maybe someone could explain cricket to me in general.
. . .
. . .
. . .
Thank you. I knew it had to be simpler than it looks. (Cf. Mark Twain on Wagner's music: "it's better than it sounds.")
-
Just like baseball: one guy has a bat and the other throws a ball. When the guy with the ball throws it (without lifting his leg up like a dog about to charm a tree, therefore unlike the baseball stance) the one with the stick thing is supposed to hit it - the ball - as far away from himself as he can and run like hell towards his opposite number at the end of the little regulation path, hopefully, without bumping into him.
All countries should play this game.
there is a Cricket association here in the Washington DC area and I've seen a couple of matches. When we visited England in the summer of 1981 there was a test match on the television and within five minutes of watching it I pretty much understood how the game was played and scored. Can't say that I was terribly interested in following it full time but it's an interesting sport.
When I was a post-doctoral fellow at Cornell in the mid-1970s we had a Fulbright Fellow from England in the laboratory. He played on our softball team but we had to teach him the proper way to bat and he was initially confused as we didn't play the game with Cricket bats.
-
Just like baseball: one guy has a bat and the other throws a ball. When the guy with the ball throws it (without lifting his leg up like a dog about to charm a tree, therefore unlike the baseball stance) the one with the stick thing is supposed to hit it - the ball - as far away from himself as he can and run like hell towards his opposite number at the end of the little regulation path, hopefully, without bumping into him. The poor chap at that other end also has to run along the path towards his partner's wicket (three erect, longer sticks bearing two shorter, horizontal ones above) and if they can only run that run once, it becomes his turn to face the madman with the hard ball. You can understand that cricket provides much incentive to run fast. The more often they can run the better, because each completed run counts as, well, a run, logically enough. Bear in mind that the running is more difficult than it need be, for both men with bats are handicapped with guards, both on their legs and inside their pants. Imagine running trussed like a Christmas turkey! You can make four runs if you hit the ball so that it runs along the lawn and hits the boundary and makes a tiny leap of delight as it stops at the edge, or be awarded six runs if you hit the ball so hard you knock it clean out of the field, much like a home run, I suppose. You also get clapped for your pains.
Whilst these two are running, the side (in the sense of team) that uses the ball instead of the bat thing, has a choice of action: it can catch the ball right off the bat, or throw it at the three little sticks with the two smaller ones above them. Trying to achieve that aim is how the game is started off, unless you count the flipping of a coin of the realm as a vital first step. As the batter is trying to hit the ball unto eternity, he is also trying to guard that set of sticks erected behind him, called the wicket, from being uprooted by said ball, which is more easily said than done, because if he stands awkwardly and the ball hits his leg, he can be accused of being leg before wicket, which can be quite insulting at times, depending how you look at it. That's pretty much a mortal sin, and you get hoofed away in shame.
If they, the people with the ball, can throw the ball as the bat people are running and hit the sticks so that one of the top ones falls down (and this is important, so pay attention: it only counts if the guy who is running towards those sticks is not close enough to them to be in, in which case he is out) then the guy with the bat is dismissed, out, gone. Alternatively, if the guy with the bat hits the ball dangerously hard and it flies up in the air threatening one of the other chaps spread around the field, the one threatened is at liberty to catch that ball (I told you it was dangerous) and the guy who hit it is out, just as if one of the small sticks on top of the three longer ones had fallen to the ground. Unfairly, for a gentleman's game, the team with the bats is only allowed to play two players at a time, whereas the other team usually employs eleven at a time. Hence the concept of the uneven playing field, another fine thing that the British Empire has donated to the world.
If throwing the ball at those sticks is done well, it curves right past the chap with the bat and knocks them down, at which point the one with the bat is supposed to turn around in disbelief, pause, adjust the strap of his helmet, put the bat under his arm and walk, with whatever dignity he can summon, right back to the pavillion, often no more than a hut, but a pavillion nonetheless. He may then have a cup of tea. Sometimes, when the two batters, as they are called, are running, one may start to run and the other hesitate or not run at all. In that case, one of them is said to be run out when the ball people send the wickets flying.
Following me so far? Fine! This process of attrition continues until the people with the bats have no more fresh, unused players left in the pavillion whom they can convince to hold a bat. The number of times they have collectively been able to complete the race up the regulation path is counted and that becomes their score.
Then they all depart the lawn and a man weating a floppy hat and carrying several jerseys waddles away too, possibly for a pee. He is called an umpire, and his job is to be a sort of referee. He stands at the end of the path along which the two with bats have to run, but thankfully, because of his age, he usually does his standing at the end towards which the ball is not being bowled. Oh, did I forget to mention it? The person called the bowler is only allowed to throw the ball with one prescribed arm movement, not just in any old way. He is also not permitted to do unusual things with his ball, which would be called ball tampering, and could get him put out of the game for several seasons (years).
After a few minutes, the game starts anew with the ball people taking the part of the former bat people.
When they have all been sent back to the pavillion their total nmber of runs is counted, and the team with the higher number wins. It, "playing the game", is considered one of the four cornerstones of fine character building, and holding the bat straight is thought a good sign of things to come.
All countries should play this game.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up, Rob. Couple of questions...
1) When the batsman hits the ball, he immediately starts running I assume? Is his partner on the other end *required* to start running? Why would you not start running?
2) When all of your side is "out," then all of the other side is "out" is than one "innings"? How man "innings" in a match, or is the number flexible?
-
... When I was a post-doctoral fellow at Cornell in the mid-1970s...
;D ;D ;D
-
Excellent, Rob. Thanks for that. :)
Now, could you please explain cricket scores? Opaque, arcane and complex, they appear to express more than a total of runs for each team.
-
Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue highlighting the US Women's soccer team. Check the video towards the bottom. If they lost, we wouldn't be seeing this. Congrats to the winners! :)
https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/world-cup-champs-get-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-showcase/
-
Just like baseball: one guy has a bat and the other throws a ball. ...
Rob, I never had any aspirations to understand the cricket game, but I ever do, I will definitely make use of your treatise. Your posts are the greatest resource on this site.
-
Couple of questions...
1) When the batsman hits the ball, he immediately starts running I assume? Is his partner on the other end *required* to start running? Why would you not start running?
2) When all of your side is "out," then all of the other side is "out" is than one "innings"? How man "innings" in a match, or is the number flexible?
1. Not necessarily; in that respect (among many) it differs from baseball. The batsman won't start to run if he considers the ball is likely to be fielded and thrown back to the stumps before the player running towards those stumps (himself or his partner) has reached them and so would be run out. His partner is not "required" to run; if he considers it would be foolish, he can call "no", or something similar, at which point the batsman would return (quickly, usually) to his own crease.
2. A team's innings is its entire turn batting, so to the loss of 10 wickets, to winning by passing the other team's total or by declaration (voluntary end). Test matches are two innings long (each team bats twice, under normal circumstances). Other matches can be just one innings.
Now, could you please explain cricket scores? Opaque, arcane and complex, they appear to express more than a total of runs for each team.
They're fairly simple. A team on "250 for 7" has scored 250 runs and lost 7 wickets (7 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 6 wickets" has passed the other team's run total and still has 6 wickets in hand (that is, has had only 4 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 110 runs" has bowled out the opposition (taken all 10 of its wickets) and is still 110 runs ahead.
Jeremy
-
1. Not necessarily; in that respect (among many) it differs from baseball. The batsman won't start to run if he considers the ball is likely to be fielded and thrown back to the stumps before the player running towards those stumps (himself or his partner) has reached them and so would be run out. His partner is not "required" to run; if he considers it would be foolish, he can call "no", or something similar, at which point the batsman would return (quickly, usually) to his own crease.
2. A team's innings is its entire turn batting, so to the loss of 10 wickets, to winning by passing the other team's total or by declaration (voluntary end). Test matches are two innings long (each team bats twice, under normal circumstances). Other matches can be just one innings.
They're fairly simple. A team on "250 for 7" has scored 250 runs and lost 7 wickets (7 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 6 wickets" has passed the other team's run total and still has 6 wickets in hand (that is, has had only 4 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 110 runs" has bowled out the opposition (taken all 10 of its wickets) and is still 110 runs ahead.
Jeremy
Jeremy, there is already suspicion enough abroad about English gentlemen that references to "returning quicky, usually to one's own crease" can do little to improve matters.
Errol Flynn didn't help by referring to other men as "sport", either, even though "Flynn" may save the nation's honour by appearing decidedly non-English.
:-)
-
Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue highlighting the US Women's soccer team. Check the video towards the bottom. If they lost, we wouldn't be seeing this. Congrats to the winners! :)
https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/world-cup-champs-get-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-showcase/
Bad idea.
At one fell swoop, pride, publicity people and probably money have done the opposite of the stated, feminist intent. They have simply shown that they are every single bit as much "object" as the dancers in Tony Soprano's Bada Bing. If you dig frighteningly intimidating ladies, then even better: takes it to a more rare level. (I enjoy my little bit of tautology now and again! :-) )
Boy, do they look uncomfortable; maybe instinct is screaming no, don't do this thing to yourself!
Rob
-
Bad idea.
At one fell swoop, pride, publicity people and probably money have done the opposite of the stated, feminist intent. They have simply shown that they are every single bit as much "object" as the dancers in Tony Soprano's Bada Bing. If you dig frighteningly intimidating ladies, then even better: takes it to a more rare level. (I enjoy my little bit of tautology now and again! :-) )
Boy, do they look uncomfortable; maybe instinct is screaming no, don't do this thing to yourself!
Rob
Funny what money can do.
-
Funny what money can do.
I won't even tell you the pride I have had to swallow in order to earn some of it now and then.
;-)
-
1. Not necessarily; in that respect (among many) it differs from baseball. The batsman won't start to run if he considers the ball is likely to be fielded and thrown back to the stumps before the player running towards those stumps (himself or his partner) has reached them and so would be run out. His partner is not "required" to run; if he considers it would be foolish, he can call "no", or something similar, at which point the batsman would return (quickly, usually) to his own crease.
2. A team's innings is its entire turn batting, so to the loss of 10 wickets, to winning by passing the other team's total or by declaration (voluntary end). Test matches are two innings long (each team bats twice, under normal circumstances). Other matches can be just one innings.
They're fairly simple. A team on "250 for 7" has scored 250 runs and lost 7 wickets (7 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 6 wickets" has passed the other team's run total and still has 6 wickets in hand (that is, has had only 4 players out).
A team which wins a match "by 110 runs" has bowled out the opposition (taken all 10 of its wickets) and is still 110 runs ahead.
Jeremy
Ah.. OK! Thanks :). So let me see if I've got this right...
There are two people on the field on the batting team, and a full side (11 was it?) on the fielding or bowling team. The "bowler" bowls the ball in an attempt to knock over the wickets opposite him/her (I assume there's women's cricket?), and the batter is trying to both protect the wicket AND hit the ball in such a way that he and his partner on the OTHER wicket can run across to score runs by reaching the crease near the opposite wicket?
Tell me if the following is correct:
1) If the bowler bowls the ball past the batter and knocks the wicket down the batter is "out" and is then replaced with another batter.
1a) Can the bowler bowl to either wicket, or is there a batter at only one wicket, and just a runner at the other?
2) If the batter HITS the ball, he and his partner batter can start running back and forth to score runs (can you keep running back and forth as long as you want?)
2a) If the batter and his partner each score one run (i.e. both make it across to the opposite wicket safely), does the bowler switch sides and bowl to the original batter, or does the bowler stay on the same side and bowl to the guy that was previously the runner from the other end?
3) If the batter and his partner are both running, the fielding team can throw the ball at the wickets in an attempt to knock them down. If a wicket is knocked down BEFORE a batter reaches the crease (it looks like that means that some part of the batter or his stick must be inside the "safe area" from videos I saw) the batter is "out?"
3a) If a batter is out by having his wicket knocked down, WHICH runner is out? The one heading toward the wicket that made it too late?
4) Why would teams agree to quit? If a match is a hopeless case? If so, is that considered an especially humiliating loss (aside from Pakistan/India I guess, where probably any loss is humiliating).
Thanks Jeremy and Rob - I've always been curious about cricket and appreciate the time you're taking to answer basic questions!
-
Another old white guy, a progressive, decides to throw his hat into the Democrat ring for president. Tom Steyer.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/452164-dont-dismiss-tom-steyer-hes-the-most-media-savvy-candidate-going
Meanwhile, another not so old white guy decides to drop out. Congressman Eric Swalwell who spent the last two years knocking Trump on CNN grooming the public for his run. Maybe they'll give him a job.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-eric-swalwells-campaign-failed/
-
Ah.. OK! Thanks :). So let me see if I've got this right...
There are two people on the field on the batting team, and a full side (11 was it?) on the fielding or bowling team. The "bowler" bowls the ball in an attempt to knock over the wickets opposite him/her (I assume there's women's cricket?), and the batter is trying to both protect the wicket AND hit the ball in such a way that he and his partner on the OTHER wicket can run across to score runs by reaching the crease near the opposite wicket?
Yes.
Tell me if the following is correct:
1) If the bowler bowls the ball past the batter and knocks the wicket down the batter is "out" and is then replaced with another batter.
1a) Can the bowler bowl to either wicket, or is there a batter at only one wicket, and just a runner at the other?
Both are batsmen. The game is divided into overs of six balls each. At the end of each over, the bowler is replaced by another bowler, who bowls from the other end to whichever batsman is opposite him.
2) If the batter HITS the ball, he and his partner batter can start running back and forth to score runs (can you keep running back and forth as long as you want?)
Even if he doesn't hit it; if it gets past the wicket keeper (the rough equivalent of the catcher in baseball), they can run.
2a) If the batter and his partner each score one run (i.e. both make it across to the opposite wicket safely), does the bowler switch sides and bowl to the original batter, or does the bowler stay on the same side and bowl to the guy that was previously the runner from the other end?
No; see above. If the batsmen run a single (one run), or three, they will have swapped ends. Unless it happens also to have been the last ball of the over (in which case the bowling will be from the other end), the batsman on strike will be the one who wasn't on trike the previous ball.
3) If the batter and his partner are both running, the fielding team can throw the ball at the wickets in an attempt to knock them down. If a wicket is knocked down BEFORE a batter reaches the crease (it looks like that means that some part of the batter or his stick must be inside the "safe area" from videos I saw) the batter is "out?"
He must have something on the ground inside the crease in order not to be out, yes. Usually, if he's in danger of being run out, he will run with his bat stretched out in front of him and aim to ground the tip.
3a) If a batter is out by having his wicket knocked down, WHICH runner is out? The one heading toward the wicket that made it too late?
Yes.
4) Why would teams agree to quit? If a match is a hopeless case? If so, is that considered an especially humiliating loss (aside from Pakistan/India I guess, where probably any loss is humiliating).
No, because time is running short. The match ends at the end of the allotted time (usually the first / third / fifth day). If the batting side is behind on runs but not all out when the time is exhausted, the match is a draw.
So if for example team A has scored 250 in their first innings and team B 200 in theirs, and team A has reached 250 in their second innings (so they have a lead of 300) but time is running short, they might think that's a big enough lead to take the risk of declaring (closing the innings) and putting team B in to bat in the hope of getting them all out before close of play.
Thanks Jeremy and Rob - I've always been curious about cricket and appreciate the time you're taking to answer basic questions!
Welcome. It's much more complicated than either of us is letting on, actually!
There are many ways in which a batsman can be out. Bowled is one (ball hits wickets); leg before wicket (LBW) is another, very common, where the ball hits the batsman's (padded) legs and the umpire judges that it would have hit the wicket; caught, of course, just as in baseball; run out, as we've discussed; hit wicket (hits his own wicket, usually with his bat when attempting a sweep shot to play the ball behind him); and a few more obscure ways too.
Although there are some all-rounders who are very good with bat and ball, most players specialise in batting or in bowling. All must bat, though, so the bowlers tend to bat lower down the order. A good batsman might see several of his team-mates dismissed and find himself batting with a partner who mainly bowls. He'll want to protect him from the bowling as much as possible, so they will try to run a single on the last ball of each over, keeping the specialist batsman on strike.
Stuff like that!
Jeremy
-
Lightroom is easier to understand.
-
... It's much more complicated than either of us is letting on, actually!...
Oh, dear God, really!
Just look at the amount of words used to explain it.
Enter soccer: there is a boy, there is a ball, there is a goal... go get it in. End of story!
-
Oh, dear God, really! Just look at the amount of words used to explain it. Enter soccer: there is a boy, there is a ball, there is a goal... go get it in. End of story!
Some people enjoy games with more complex rules than soccer. Not everything needs to be simple-minded. It is like criticizing chess because it is not checkers. I can't stand to watch professional soccer - all those player rolling around on the field faking injuries is infantile. And of course, nothing happens, which is why all the fans get drunk.
-
Oh, dear God, really!
Just look at the amount of words used to explain it.
Enter soccer: there is a boy, there is a ball, there is a goal... go get it in. End of story!
Good grief! Even I know better than that: you need to begin with at least twenty-two boys or, these days, girls. There is strategy, without which it would become boring... then there is chanting, a part of strategy, but played by the supporters' clubs, which is mainly insulting to the opposing team and meant to raise their collective temper and force them into making mistakes. There is also same-side chanting, where players of your own team are mocked and/or taunted, often because of race, where scoring goals takes secondary position to not being colour-coded according to the regulation Pantone System. Just another kind of penalty, in a way.
This can be a very subtle tactic enjoyed by those who want to have their own team punished by the relevant football authorities either through fines or by being banned from several matches. It can be useful if they know the club probably faces a thrashing somewhere down the line. Being banned is not humiliating; losing is.
Then there is the money. It will buy bring you beautiful, over-decorated, over-madeup, over-amplified empty women who will play their part cleverly and gaze up into your face in rapture at all public occasions where there is a camera. These creatures will make you feel so good, much as did delightful Delilah poor old Samson. And in the end, they may well cost you just as much. I don't think many of them buy diesel cars.
Photographers can only look on in envy and wonder why they got it all so wrong.
-
Some people enjoy games with more complex rules than soccer. Not everything needs to be simple-minded. It is like criticizing chess because it is not checkers. I can't stand to watch professional soccer - all those player rolling around on the field faking injuries is infantile. And of course, nothing happens, which is why all the fans get drunk.
Having watched my share of sports of all kinds, I find that football and baseball game attendees consume far more beer than those going to soccer matches. I speaking only about in game consumption and not pre- and post- game drinking.
-
Having watched my share of sports of all kinds, I find that football and baseball game attendees consume far more beer than those going to soccer matches. I speaking only about in game consumption and not pre- and post- game drinking.
In all those cases the "fans" need their fix in oder to maintain their ability to believe.
;-)
-
Some people enjoy games with more complex rules than soccer. Not everything needs to be simple-minded. It is like criticizing chess because it is not checkers. I can't stand to watch professional soccer - all those player rolling around on the field faking injuries is infantile. And of course, nothing happens, which is why all the fans get drunk.
Here's a suggestion for ending those fake injury dives http://induecourse.ca/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-diving-in-soccer/ (http://induecourse.ca/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-diving-in-soccer/).
-
Here's a suggestion for ending those fake injury dives http://induecourse.ca/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-diving-in-soccer/ (http://induecourse.ca/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-diving-in-soccer/).
It is being taken care of by the implementation of Video Assistant Referee (VAR) which all the major football leagues in Europe are now employing. VAR provides a quick review to the Central Referee.
-
...
...
...
...*
* Waiting for Martin to complain about the thread not sticking to the OP subject ;)
-
...
...
...
...*
* Waiting for Martin to complain about the thread not sticking to the OP subject ;)
I'll help. Here's a one minute speech given by former President Clinton before Congress that Trump could use in his 2020 campaign regarding illegal immigration. .
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
-
I'll help. Here's a one minute speech given by former President Clinton before Congress that Trump could use in his 2020 campaign regarding illegal immigration. .
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Noooooo.... that must be a deep fake. No Democrat ever could be against open borders, abolishing ICE and Dept. of Homeland Security, free healthcare and college for illegals, etc.
Sarcasma aside, here is yet another proof how far have Democrats move from the left to the loony left:
"Democrats have moved ‘too far to the left,’ says BET network founder Bob Johnson"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/democrats-too-far-to-the-left-bet-networks-bob-johnson-says.html
...Johnson described himself as a long-time centrist and Democrat. He publicly supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. However, he has since expressed admiration for some of Donald Trump’s policies, particularly those related to the economy.
“I think the economy is doing great, and it’s reaching populations that heretofore had very bad problems in terms of jobs and employments and the opportunities that come with employment … so African-American unemployment is at its lowest level, ” Johnson said...
“I give the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large amount of Americans,” he said. “I think the tax cuts clearly helped stimulate the economy. I think business people have more confidence in the way the economy is going.”...
“A lot of people are not going to like that style,” he said, “but when he says he’s going to try to do something economically, you have to give him credit for taking some specific steps to do that.”
“At the end of the day, the American people are looking for someone who can deliver economically and deliver on opportunities,” he said.
-
Emoluments case against Trump thrown out on Appeal in unanimous decision. The States suing had lacked standing to even sue. Basically a witch hunt by democratic control states. Our federal system leaves things like this up to the federal (national) government. It's not the states' business.
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/740258653/appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump
It still leaves open the emoluments suit by congress which should be more interesting.
-
There are many ways in which a batsman can be out.
On a short visit to Oz, I instructed myself to watch cricket on TV for a few hours, just to see WTF.
One fascinating detail germane to us here at LuLa was the use of infrared cameras to identify thermal traces left when a ball grazed a player's uniform. If hit, he's out.
Baseball is a game perfectly designed for television. A mixture of political insurrection, guerrilla warfare and ballet.
Soccer (okay, "football") is ice hockey played in molasses.
There. That's the sum of my knowledge of sports.
-
On a short visit to Oz, I instructed myself to watch cricket on TV for a few hours, just to see WTF.
One fascinating detail germane to us here at LuLa was the use of infrared cameras to identify thermal traces left when a ball grazed a player's uniform. If hit, he's out.
You obviously were not paying attention - the ball has to hit the bat to be out caught, if it merely grazes some part of the clothing (gloves count as part of the bat) then the batter would be NOT OUT!
-
Basically a witch hunt by democratic control states.
We actually don't know whether it is a witch hunt or not since nothing was decided on the merits. We'll see how the other cases pan out.
-
You obviously were not paying attention - the ball has to hit the bat to be out caught, if it merely grazes some part of the clothing (gloves count as part of the bat) then the batter would be NOT OUT!
Thanks for the correction. I do recall that it was important enough that they stalled play while they consulted playback. The commentators replayed it several times with "ooos" and "aaahhhhs"
-
We actually don't know whether it is a witch hunt or not since nothing was decided on the merits. We'll see how the other cases pan out.
Emoluments have nothing to do with violating state laws. It's a Federal violation. The Democrat State AJ's just didn't like him and were out to harass and try to embarrass him. They were on a witch hunt.
-
The wheel turns. What comes around goes around as Democrats start eating their own, playing the race card, when they accuse Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democrat candidate ex-VP Biden of being racists. What buffoons. Republicans are having a good laugh and eating it up.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452856-racial-politics-roil-democratic-party
-
Science says you need a good night's sleep. Democratic presidential candidates agree:
Kamala Harris - slept to the top
Joe Biden - falls asleep
Bernie Sanders - slept through history classes
Mary Buttplug - sleeps on his stomach
Elizabeth Warren - sleeps in a wigwam
Beto - dreams in Spanish
-
Science says you need a good night's sleep.
That only partly explains Trump's behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How can anyone think the media is biased ;)
-
Who got fried for lightening a black man's natural colour on the cover?
Rob
-
Who got fried for lightening a black man's natural colour on the cover?
He is a mutt. However, not so Swiss milk chocolate as the covers try to present. All part of making him more digestible to the masses. Fired would have been the one to make him darker.
-
He is a mutt. However, not so Swiss milk chocolate as the covers try to present. All part of making him more digestible to the masses. Fired would have been the one to make him darker.
Over the edge...
Like Trump today:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172
He wrote: "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run.
He talkes about native American women, one even from the same neighbourhood he was born...
99,99% of the Americans are immigrants dating only some century back.
-
One good thing about Trump is that he gave legitimacy to non-politicians running for office.
Just imagine what a real businessman could do for America (and the rest of the world).
-
One good thing about Trump is that he gave legitimacy to non-politicians running for office.
I think there are mixed feelings for how well that worked out.
-
... He talkes about native American women..
Elizabeth Warren?
-
What a wonderful Sunday and wonderful sights. All across the nation, thousands of illegals are hunted down, handcuffed and about to be sent where they came from! Another promise kept. Rinse and repeat.
-
Oh, dear God, really!
And if you doubt it, watch the last four overs of the World Cup Final from yesterday (that's the last two of England's innings plus the two "super overs"). Then try to explain why Stokes's six should in fact have been a five and see what happens.
Jeremy
-
What a wonderful Sunday and wonderful sights. All across the nation, thousands of illegals are hunted down, handcuffed and about to be sent where they came from! Another promise kept. Rinse and repeat.
Apparently, it didn't happen on Sunday.
Strikes me as a fairly reasonable idea to throw out illegals anywhere. However, their issue then becomes removed from the reality of being crime and turned into humanitarian issues instead.
There are nutters on all sides. However, America has a massive identity problem that is too far gone ever to be resolved in the way the old generation would prefer. You begin from the basis of claiming to be a nation of immigrants. That instantly takes away the moral high ground because legal and illegal don't count as differences in humanitarian terms, and you are wide open to being accused of new hypocrisy. You're stuck with it, buddy, as we elsewhere have allowed ourselves to go. For us it was empire and its bitter fruits; for you as for us, slavery; and also for you, the fact that your new country was impossible to control without growing the population. Same with France regarding foreign exercises, and now Spain and Italy are hit by geography as much as by any African connections of yesteryear.
There really may be a massive race war or a religious one or several of both a bit down the line.
Shocking differences in wealth within every nation can't go on for ever. It really doesn't matter that some earn more because they are smarter; on normal scales it's okay, but when you get into millionaire territory it stops being acceptable not for any legal reason but simply because people can't go on seeing gross wealth stuck in their faces whilst they have to scrimp to get through the week. You can only be humiliated for so long, regardless of the reasons why you are where you are. Human nature always forces through.
Nope, I can offer no solutions either.
-
Apparently, it didn't happen on Sunday.
Strikes me as a fairly reasonable idea to throw out illegals anywhere. However, their issue then becomes removed from the reality of being crime and turned into humanitarian issues instead.
There are nutters on all sides. However, America has a massive identity problem that is too far gone ever to be resolved in the way the old generation would prefer. You begin from the basis of claiming to be a nation of immigrants. That instantly takes away the moral high ground because legal and illegal don't count as differences in humanitarian terms, and you are wide open to being accused of new hypocrisy. You're stuck with it, buddy, as we elsewhere have allowed ourselves to go. For us it was empire and its bitter fruits; for you as for us, slavery; and also for you, the fact that your new country was impossible to control without growing the population. Same with France regarding foreign exercises, and now Spain and Italy are hit by geography as much as by any African connections of yesteryear.
There really may be a massive race war or a religious one or several of both a bit down the line.
Shocking differences in wealth within every nation can't go on for ever. It really doesn't matter that some earn more because they are smarter; on normal scales it's okay, but when you get into millionaire territory it stops being acceptable not for any legal reason but simply because people can't go on seeing gross wealth stuck in their faces whilst they have to scrimp to get through the week. You can only be humiliated for so long, regardless of the reasons why you are where you are. Human nature always forces through.
Nope, I can offer no solutions either.
America isn't going to "throw out" 10-20 million illegals. Never going to happen. There will eventually be some deal made that will allow them to become citizens over time, or at least be allowed to stay without fear of arrest. However, illegals that are also felons for other reasons are another matter. We should get rid of them. That's the people they're going after.
-
After all, someone has to mow my lawn.
-
After all, someone has to mow my lawn.
In our area I would say 90% or more of the yard care people are Latino; same thing with the maid services. These are jobs that will never be automated.
-
So a furor has erupted when Trump called out the four new Democrat congresswomen who are people of color as being unpatriotic and should go home to their original countries if they hate the US. The Democrats immediately call out the race card. Of course, Trump is attacking their patriotism, not their color. But that doesn;t matter. Now the whole debate forces Speaker Pelosi to defend four of her caucus when just days ago she attacked them as being out of the mainstream middle. This now makes Democrat leadership appear just as far to the left. The more Democrats defend the four, the more they all look like the four. This all helps Trump because it suggests Democrat lack of patriotism. Democrats again took the bait.
-
So a furor has erupted when Trump called out the four new Democrat congresswomen who are people of color as being unpatriotic and should go home to their original countries if they hate the US. The Democrats immediately call out the race card. Of course, Trump is attacking their patriotism, not their color. But that doesn;t matter. Now the whole debate forces Speaker Pelosi to defend four of her caucus when just days ago she attacked them as being out of the mainstream middle. This now makes Democrat leadership appear just as far to the left. The more Democrats defend the four, the more they all look like the four. This all helps Trump because it suggests Democrat lack of patriotism. Democrats again took the bait.
Tim Scott, a black Senator from South Carolina, called out the President for making a racist remark. the worst comment was from Senator Lindsay Graham who called the four Communists. I thought that this country had put the 'Red Scare' behind us but I guess some people are always willing to go the extra mile. Even the Conservative columnists that the Washington Post publish have posted their disgust with those comments. Regardless of what one may think of the four Congresswomen (I discount much of what they say), these types of personal attacks are beyond the pale.
-
So a furor has erupted when Trump called out the four new Democrat congresswomen who are people of color as being unpatriotic and should go home to their original countries if they hate the US. The Democrats immediately call out the race card. Of course, Trump is attacking their patriotism, not their color. But that doesn;t matter. Now the whole debate forces Speaker Pelosi to defend four of her caucus when just days ago she attacked them as being out of the mainstream middle. This now makes Democrat leadership appear just as far to the left. The more Democrats defend the four, the more they all look like the four. This all helps Trump because it suggests Democrat lack of patriotism. Democrats again took the bait.
To call somebody unpatriotic or a communist without going into the content of the matter is a simple way to put anyone in the corner... Yes that works very well with the empty minded. Like with the communists in the 50's
and it deverses the attention from Trumps racist remarks about people born in the same Bronx he was born.
Trump a deal maker? What deals did he make? He is a deal destroyer, changing the face of the US internationally from reliable to not trust worthy and unpredictable.
Not a very nice combination with such a strong military force. We all may be afraid of a poor America with huge military power lead by a man like Trump
-
Tim Scott, a black Senator from South Carolina, called out the President for making a racist remark. the worst comment was from Senator Lindsay Graham who called the four Communists. I thought that this country had put the 'Red Scare' behind us but I guess some people are always willing to go the extra mile. Even the Conservative columnists that the Washington Post publish have posted their disgust with those comments. Regardless of what one may think of the four Congresswomen (I discount much of what they say), these types of personal attacks are beyond the pale.
Democrats are always calling Republicans racist. If they can do that then Republicans can call Democrats unpatriotic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Conservatives at the Washington Post?
I think you lost perspective living in the Washington DC area.
-
Democrats are always calling Republicans racist. ...
No room for debate here ...Don't start with always. Another way to stop all discussion.
This time Trumps calls himself a native American and tells a women born as native as himself, even born in the same district, to go back to ... Where? the Bronx?
No... to some country he finds she belonges based on what? Tell me, do you agree with him?
Is this your president-? thank you not mine; But being as as powerful and influencial the US is -we -Europe- on the other side of the ocean have to deal with him too.
-
Conservatives at the Washington Post?
I think you lost perspective living in the Washington DC area.
Quite frankly you have no understanding of how the Washington Post picks their columnists. I defy you to find a paper that is more balanced in this regard. Conservative columnists in the Post include: Michael Gerson, Mark Thiessen, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Rogers, George Will just to name the ones who come to mind. I read all of them to get a perspective on both sides of the debate.
-
Democrats are always calling Republicans racist. If they can do that then Republicans can call Democrats unpatriotic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Conservatives at the Washington Post?
I think you lost perspective living in the Washington DC area.
Alan, the Washington Post has, probably, one of the most truly balanced editorial slates you'll find. Truly. It regularly features full-on Trump defenders (Gary Abernathy, Hugh Hewitt, and more (Edit: Thanks Alan G - Yes, Thiessen and Ed Rogers will defend almost everything Trump does/says)), anti-Trump conservatives (George Will, Michael Gerson, Jennifer Rubin), liberals (Eugene Robinson and others), analysts (EJ Dionne) and everything in between.
Here's the point. You need to consider that when editorial boards like the Dallas Morning News, who have reliably endorsed a conservative for something like 50 years, refuse to endorse Trump, MAYBE the problem isn't "liberal media" - MAYBE the problem is Donald Trump. When people like Paul Ryan say that a Trump comment is "the definition of racist," MAYBE it's not anti-Trump bias - MAYBE it's that Donald Trump is a racist, or at a minimum, uses racial tension to fire up people that ARE racists. Maybe that's better in your book, but knowing you, I don't think it would be if you believed it.
And you're right - the left is all too eager to yell about racism for little or no reason sometimes, or to attribute to conscious racism what is more easily attributed to status quo that some people can't see around, but the fact of the matter is that in this specific case, Donald Trump told 3 Americans - brown women who were born here, in one case to parents who were ALSO born here, to "...go back to where they came from..." Alan, they "came from" HERE! The USA. What the hell else do you need to understand that Donald Trump sees them as "not American" because of their heritage?
And that, my friend, is racism.
-
In this day of the Internet, it is always difficult to escape one's past. David Leonhart of the New York Times has carefully documented many of President Trump's past statements and the reader sees that the past is prologue to the present moment. Here is the link to the collected quotes and actions: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html?module=inline His full page add wanting the death penalty for the Central Park Five, subject of a recent documentary, is particularly damning and the President to this day has not apologized to the five who were wrongfully convicted.
-
The WP is left and anti-Trump. I read their news articles all the time. Their readership is 97% anti Trump and vile when they post responses to WP articles on the web. Unlike the NY TImes, the WP doesn't review before allowing the posts to post. The NYT is also 97% anti Trump. But their reader's posts are more sophisticated with less cursing due to their moderators. The most biased part is not their opinion page. I could care less about that. It's their news section that's biased. The part that's repeated throughout the world. Of course, if you believe as they do, you see everything they do as balanced. The same thing happened in 2016 when Washington insiders just couldn't understand middle America supporting Trump. They still can't.
-
Don't worry about it, Alan. The Committee to Reelect Trump (4 women) is working on it. It'll be all right.
-
The WP is left and anti-Trump. I read their news articles all the time. Their readership is 97% anti Trump and vile when they post responses to WP articles on the web. Unlike the NY TImes, the WP doesn't review before allowing the posts to post. The NYT is also 97% anti Trump. But their reader's posts are more sophisticated with less cursing due to their moderators. The most biased part is not their opinion page. I could care less about that. It's their news section that's biased. The part that's repeated throughout the world. Of course, if you believe as they do, you see everything they do as balanced. The same thing happened in 2016 when Washington insiders just couldn't understand middle America supporting Trump. They still can't.
It's a total waste of time to look at reader's comments in any on-line newspaper. I don't read comment on either the WaPo or NYT website. Regarding the news section of the WaPo, they do a pretty good job of calling out Trump's constant lies. Do you think this is not appropriate? They have been dogged about reporting on the various cabinet members. For someone who campaigned on draining the swamp, President Trump has done little to accomplish this. He surrounds himself with syncophants and then gets rid of them when they are not fawning enough. He has incompetent family members as key advisors (did you take a look at Jared Kushner's economic development plan for the Palestinians?).
You are wrong about people not understanding why Trump won the election. I knew the minute Sanders entered the race against Clinton that she would have great difficulty winning in November. Had one of the more mainstream Republicans won the nomination it would not have been as close an election.
-
The WP is left and anti-Trump. I read their news articles all the time. Their readership is 97% anti Trump and vile when they post responses to WP articles on the web. Unlike the NY TImes, the WP doesn't review before allowing the posts to post. The NYT is also 97% anti Trump. But their reader's posts are more sophisticated with less cursing due to their moderators. The most biased part is not their opinion page. I could care less about that. It's their news section that's biased. The part that's repeated throughout the world. Of course, if you believe as they do, you see everything they do as balanced. The same thing happened in 2016 when Washington insiders just couldn't understand middle America supporting Trump. They still can't.
It is a logical error to claim that a publication is anti-Trump just because they often come out against him. They may feel that they have perfectly good reasons to criticize things he does. Btw, it is the job of the press to critically examine what people in power are doing.
The press is NOT the marketing department of the administration.
And as I've repeated many many times, the more politicians complain about the press, the more convinced I am that they're doing a good job.
-
It is a logical error to claim that a publication is anti-Trump just because they often come out against him. They may feel that they have perfectly good reasons to criticize things he does. Btw, it is the job of the press to critically examine what people in power are doing.
The press is NOT the marketing department of the administration.
And as I've repeated many many times, the more politicians complain about the press, the more convinced I am that they're doing a good job.
Newspapers are not suppose to criticize. They're suppose to report the news, not take sides. That's what good journalism is about. Criticism should be reserved for the op-ed section, not page 1.
-
Newspapers are not suppose to criticize. They're suppose to report the news, not take sides.
The moment Trump stops lying, they do not have to report that he's lying.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's a total waste of time to look at reader's comments in any on-line newspaper. I don't read comment on either the WaPo or NYT website. Regarding the news section of the WaPo, they do a pretty good job of calling out Trump's constant lies. Do you think this is not appropriate? They have been dogged about reporting on the various cabinet members. For someone who campaigned on draining the swamp, President Trump has done little to accomplish this. He surrounds himself with syncophants and then gets rid of them when they are not fawning enough. He has incompetent family members as key advisors (did you take a look at Jared Kushner's economic development plan for the Palestinians?).
You are wrong about people not understanding why Trump won the election. I knew the minute Sanders entered the race against Clinton that she would have great difficulty winning in November. Had one of the more mainstream Republicans won the nomination it would not have been as close an election.
No it's not. You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are. When 95+% of the responses are anti-Trump and liberal, you understand why the newspaper is also. They write for their customers. It's the same with cable news. They produce for their viewership too.
-
The moment Trump stops lying, they do not have to report that he's lying.
Cheers,
Bart
You told me two years ago that you found Reuters to report the news more fairly. So I've been taking your advice and reading them. You were right. They are less biased and present the news in an old-fashioned journalistic way. Unlike the NY Times and the Washington Post. You ought to take your own advice.
-
No it's not. You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are.
I don't think the comments on the left leaning websites are any worse than the comments on the right leaning websites. Pick your poison.
-
You told me two years ago that you found Reuters to report the news more fairly. So I've been taking your advice and reading them. You were right. They are less biased and present the news in an old-fashioned journalistic way. Unlike the NY Times and the Washington Post. You ought to take your own advice.
Trump accuses Democratic congresswomen of hating America, says they can leave
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats-whitehouse/trump-accuses-democratic-congresswomen-of-hating-america-says-they-can-leave-idUSKCN1UA1Y7
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday defended his attacks against four Democratic congresswomen, saying he was not concerned if people thought his tweets toward them were racist and accused the U.S. lawmakers of hating America.
Trump defiant as lawmakers blast his 'racist' attacks on four congresswomen
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats/trump-defiant-as-lawmakers-blast-his-racist-attacks-on-four-congresswomen-idUSKCN1U90H7
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump doubled down on his attacks against four minority U.S. congresswomen on Monday and dismissed concerns that his comments were racist, prompting outrage from Democrats, who moved to condemn him in the House of Representatives.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't think the comments on the left leaning websites are any worse than the comments on the right leaning websites. Pick your poison.
I'm sure you're right. However, the problem is much of the world thinks that the Washington Post and the NY Times reports the news in a balanced way. They don't. Since these papers are considered important, the world often gets a distorted view of what's going on here. They influence voters here and leaders and people in the rest of the world. Trump supporters have understood this for years. That's why they respond to his comments about "fake news" with such support.
-
Trump accuses Democratic congresswomen of hating America, says they can leave
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats-whitehouse/trump-accuses-democratic-congresswomen-of-hating-america-says-they-can-leave-idUSKCN1UA1Y7 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats-whitehouse/trump-accuses-democratic-congresswomen-of-hating-america-says-they-can-leave-idUSKCN1UA1Y7)
Trump defiant as lawmakers blast his 'racist' attacks on four congresswomen
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats/trump-defiant-as-lawmakers-blast-his-racist-attacks-on-four-congresswomen-idUSKCN1U90H7 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats/trump-defiant-as-lawmakers-blast-his-racist-attacks-on-four-congresswomen-idUSKCN1U90H7)
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, So I found another Reuters article that shows Trump in a different and better light. The point is Reuters cover different aspects fairly.You won't find headlines like this in the NYT or WP.
"Trump says a lot of progress has been made with Iran"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-trump/trump-says-a-lot-of-progress-has-been-made-with-iran-idUSKCN1UB24Y (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-trump/trump-says-a-lot-of-progress-has-been-made-with-iran-idUSKCN1UB24Y)
-
I'm sure you're right. However, the problem is much of the world thinks that the Washington Post and the NY Times reports the news in a balanced way. They don't. Since these papers are considered important, the world often gets a distorted view of what's going on here. They influence voters here and leaders and people in the rest of the world. Trump supporters have understood this for years. That's why they respond to his comments about "fake news" with such support.
Then the right needs a paper that is "considered important." I don't see any compelling candidates at the moment. Quit whining and get to work.
-
No it's not. You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are. When 95+% of the responses are anti-Trump and liberal, you understand why the newspaper is also. They write for their customers. It's the same with cable news. They produce for their viewership too.
95% are anonymous and one can have multiple accounts to post from on the WaPo site. It's very much different from the NY Times.
-
Then the right needs a paper that is "considered important." I don't see any compelling candidates at the moment. Quit whining and get to work.
So you approve that journalists should provide biased news?
-
So you approve that journalists should provide biased news?
It only seems to be biased if you don’t approve of it.
-
It only seems to be biased if you don’t approve of it.
not true. Articles can be written without to much editorializing. Also, editor's can present articles that balance out the differences. For example, you can have a particular study of how climate changes is damaging the environment. Than have another that shows how it's helping certain species. If all you show is one or the otherall the time, then your paper is biased.
-
Alan, has it ever struck you that were you to be a newspaper, you would come across as the most biased one on Earth?
Rob
-
Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker, has an interesting op-ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tweets-are-a-distraction-for-something-else-he-doesnt-want-us-to-see/2019/07/16/4274a34c-a811-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.a049ca81a9d9) this morning. She discusses the Tweet storm of the last several days against 'The Squad' and thinks that President Trump might be doing this as a sleight of hand distraction to keep attention from wandering to something he doesn't want people to think about. Her theory is that the President wants to draw attention away from Jeffery Epstein who was recently arrested in New York. Police recovered some interesting things in the safe of his apartment, including a fake passport and address in Saudi Arabia.
"The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.
Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now." writes Parker.
-
Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker, has an interesting op-ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tweets-are-a-distraction-for-something-else-he-doesnt-want-us-to-see/2019/07/16/4274a34c-a811-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.a049ca81a9d9) this morning. She discusses the Tweet storm of the last several days against 'The Squad' and thinks that President Trump might be doing this as a sleight of hand distraction to keep attention from wandering to something he doesn't want people to think about. Her theory is that the President wants to draw attention away from Jeffery Epstein who was recently arrested in New York. Police recovered some interesting things in the safe of his apartment, including a fake passport and address in Saudi Arabia.
"The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.
Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now." writes Parker.
If there is a hidden agenda, I would bet that he will escape unscathed.
If he were to go down, does anyone imagine he'd go quietly and alone? He's safe.
-
Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker. . .
Eh! Say again. . .
-
deleted
-
Eh! Say again. . .
Anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is considered a conservative at the WP.
-
deleted
Alan,
did you know that instead of just deleting the text in the post, you can "Remove" that post entirely?
Les
-
Anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is considered a conservative at the WP.
This makes it crystal clear that you’ve never really paid attention to the WaPo columnists. Parker and Gerson are center right. Theissen is a blatant Trump apologist (Ed Rogers is almost as bad), Gary Abernathy thinks that “Real America” starts at the blue ridge mountains and ends somewhere around Colorado, and no one ever in the history of the world has accused George Will of being a leftist.
-
Alan,
did you know that instead of just deleting the text in the post, you can "Remove" that post entirely?
Les
No. Thanks for the tip. I meant to say edited, see next post.
-
This makes it crystal clear that you’ve never really paid attention to the WaPo columnists. Parker and Gerson are center right. Theissen is a blatant Trump apologist (Ed Rogers is almost as bad), Gary Abernathy thinks that “Real America” starts at the blue ridge mountains and ends somewhere around Colorado, and no one ever in the history of the world has accused George Will of being a leftist.
I don;t usually read their op ed columnists. In any case, I was referring to the news section which one would think should not be opinionated or biased. Everyone on the other hand expects the op eds to be biased. In any case, conservative op ed writers at the WP don't set policy of how news is published. THat's up to the editor who push the paper toward presenting news in a liberal, Democrat, anti-Trump way. Also, 90% of journalists are mainly liberal. So that's how they write the news section.
-
This makes it crystal clear that you’ve never really paid attention to the WaPo columnists. Parker and Gerson are center right. Theissen is a blatant Trump apologist (Ed Rogers is almost as bad), Gary Abernathy thinks that “Real America” starts at the blue ridge mountains and ends somewhere around Colorado, and no one ever in the history of the world has accused George Will of being a leftist.
Hi, James. I read a lot of stuff from the WaPo, and you're right. the paper has a couple conservative columnists. but Kathleen Parker isn't one of them. Which is sad. I remember when Kathleen was bouncing from newspaper to newspaper and was quite sensible. Once she joined the WaPo the sensibleness gradually vanished, though occasionally it still pops up.
And good old George is a conservative and a very good writer, but he lives in the heart of the establishment and is a devoted never-Trumper.
-
(edit) Both the NY Times and the Washington Post, the two most influential newspapers in the country that people around the world read or supply their articles to foreign newspapers, have only endorsed Democrats for president since 1980. That's 10 elections in 36 years.
https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/ (https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/)
-
Hi, James. I read a lot of stuff from the WaPo, and you're right. the paper has a couple conservative columnists. but Kathleen Parker isn't one of them. Which is sad. I remember when Kathleen was bouncing from newspaper to newspaper and was quite sensible. Once she joined the WaPo the sensibleness gradually vanished, though occasionally it still pops up.
And good old George is a conservative and a very good writer, but he lives in the heart of the establishment and is a devoted never-Trumper.
The anti-Trump, liberals, lefty cable stations like MSNBC and CNN have done similar things. They've hired republicans and conservatives who don't like Trump and who have sold their souls for the dollar. So they're taking strong positions against not only Trump but republicans and conservatism in general. Then the cable stations try to present these people as if they're from the other side and providing a balanced view like the WP does. But these people no longer take their original views. Meanwhile the general news view is totally biased to the left. Heck, if someone offered me a half a million, I become anti-Trump, pro Bernie Sanders too.
-
Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker, has an interesting op-ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tweets-are-a-distraction-for-something-else-he-doesnt-want-us-to-see/2019/07/16/4274a34c-a811-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.a049ca81a9d9) this morning. She discusses the Tweet storm of the last several days against 'The Squad' and thinks that President Trump might be doing this as a sleight of hand distraction to keep attention from wandering to something he doesn't want people to think about. Her theory is that the President wants to draw attention away from Jeffery Epstein who was recently arrested in New York. Police recovered some interesting things in the safe of his apartment, including a fake passport and address in Saudi Arabia.
"The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.
Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now." writes Parker.
Personally I think it was a ruse to get Pelosi to defend the 4 Dems causing so much trouble.
Recent polling showed that the majority of swing voters and independents do not like AOC and the other three. This is why Pelosi felt it was okay to throw shade on them and single them out last week. This was a good move to help the Dems in moderate districts, implying to independents that they are not the party of radicals. Then Trump tweeted. Now I am not condoning Trump's tweets, but he forced Pelosi to defend those four radicals, pretty much destroying the message she sent last week to independent voters.
-
Personally I think it was a ruse to get Pelosi to defend the 4 Dems causing so much trouble.
Recent polling showed that the majority of swing voters and independents do not like AOC and the other three. This is why Pelosi felt it was okay to throw shade on them and single them out last week. This was a good move to help the Dems in moderate districts, implying to independents that they are not the party of radicals. Then Trump tweeted. Now I am not condoning Trump's tweets, but he forced Pelosi to defend those four radicals, pretty much destroying the message she sent last week to independent voters.
there are 10 times as many wacko Republicans than members of The Squad. These are the ones along with the President that the Dems ran against two years ago and it will make much more of difference than the marginal four who only have the power of Twitter and no significant power in the Congress at this point in time. When you also start looking at some of the new abortion laws in the South passed mainly by older men, women are not terribly happy with the Republican party these days. President Trump will always have his 40 percenters but can he pick up any more votes than that? This is the question that the election will answer.
-
Are you kidding, Alan? These are four reasonably cute girls. Mostly because of that they’re getting fabulous press coverage, and they keep on rattling their heads in a very anti-American way. Poor Nancy had a facelift and, like Joe Biden with his facelift, was looking a lot younger when her “procedure” was complete. The past couple weeks have brought her face back to normal old-ladyism. The four really are looking like the committee to reelect the president. If they keep it up that’s exactly what’s gonna happen, and I doubt there's any way Nancy can stop it.
-
there are 10 times as many wacko Republicans than members of The Squad. These are the ones along with the President that the Dems ran against two years ago and it will make much more of difference than the marginal four who only have the power of Twitter and no significant power in the Congress at this point in time. When you also start looking at some of the new abortion laws in the South passed mainly by older men, women are not terribly happy with the Republican party these days. President Trump will always have his 40 percenters but can he pick up any more votes than that? This is the question that the election will answer.
No Alan, they have the power of the press, and the press just loves writing about them.
Name me one wacko Republican that is getting as much air time as AOC or the others. There isn't any. I mean Hollywood even produced a documentary on AOC in her first year in congress. Because of their immense press coverage they have become the face of the party. Pelosi was trying to do the right thing last week calling them out, which was a move supported by polling of swing voters. But Trump's tweets pretty much stopped her in her tracks, and now she is defending them.
Like I said before, I am not condoning his tweets, only that instead of the leader showing that the Dems are not the party of radicals, she is now marketing the Dems as the party that embraces radicals.
Insofar as the topic of abortion, although I am pro-choice, I can't ignore the polling on this either in how it effects my opinion of which party has the advantage. Most Americans are against late term abortions. I can't see how this helps the Dems considering some of the laws past up North. Best case, the open for business late term abortion laws rile up the conservatives just as much as some of the oppressive down South abortion restrictions rile up progressives and cancel each other out. Although I still feel the evangelicals are a lot more enthusiastic for pro-life then progressives are for being pro-choice.
-
Are you kidding, Alan? These are four reasonably cute girls. Mostly because of that they’re getting fabulous press coverage, and they keep on rattling their heads in a very anti-American way. Poor Nancy had a facelift and, like Joe Biden with his facelift, was looking a lot younger when her “procedure” was complete. The past couple weeks have brought her face back to normal old-ladyism.
The four really are looking like the committee to reelect the president. If they keep it up that’s exactly what’s gonna happen, and I doubt there's any way Nancy can stop it.
Very true, and a very poor strategy by Democrats.
-
You guys are giving too much crefit to political strategists: mostly, they go from disaster management to disaster management. The whole sickening tribe, worldwide.
-
Yeah, I agree, Rob. The last presidential election is a classic example. But this hasn't anything to do with political strategists. It has to do with four completely unhinged girls. All I can do is watch and laugh. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
-
Yeah, I agree, Rob. The last presidential election is a classic example. But this hasn't anything to do with political strategists. It has to do with four completely unhinged girls. All I can do is watch and laugh. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Trump has said a lot of stuff that's controversial. But it seems to be forgotten. Maybe that's the new standard. If so, people will forget about AOC and the rest of the squad.
-
Suppose the "squad," with the same opinions and saying the same things, was a group of 4 white males. Would The Orange One be telling them to "go back where you came from?" Duh.
-
Suppose the "squad," with the same opinions and saying the same things, was a group of 4 white males. Would The Orange One be telling them to "go back where you came from?" Duh.
I'm sure he would tell them the same thing. Females, males, and anything between.
-
No Alan, they have the power of the press, and the press just loves writing about them.
Name me one wacko Republican that is getting as much air time as AOC or the others. There isn't any. I mean Hollywood even produced a documentary on AOC in her first year in congress. Because of their immense press coverage they have become the face of the party. Pelosi was trying to do the right thing last week calling them out, which was a move supported by polling of swing voters. But Trump's tweets pretty much stopped her in her tracks, and now she is defending them.
There were a number of Republican House members who were in the news until.................................................they lost the house last year. Remember Devin Nunes? He was in the news almost every day running back and forth to the White House with documents of one kind or another. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows are still in the news somewhat but they also have no power. Mitch McConnell is in the news and was asked yesterday about if his wife faced the same language that the President used what his reaction would be. Lindsey Graham called The Squad members communists the other day and he's always on TV.
My point still stands, these women will get in the news but have zero power in the House right now. Trump still maxes out at 40% of the electorate and his big hope is voter suppression and/or lack of interest from the majority of Americans who don't want to see him reelected. If the voter turnout approaches 70% of the electorate next year, the election will not even be close. Why do you think the Florida Legislature and Governor are working overtime to take the voting rights away from felons that the electorate gave to them last year? If those folks get to vote, Florida flips like a pancake on a hot skillet. If Florida flips, no chance for the President.
-
I think so. Females, males, anything between.
Show me one example if anyone telling Bernie Sanders to go back to where he came from. If these four were white, that language never would have been used, period.
-
Mexicans in Mexico agree with Trump. Now that's a switch. Wonder if we'll see this in the NYT or WP.
"More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/17/time-to-go-new-polling-shows-that-mexico-is-adopting-a-more-trumpian-outlook-on-n2550184 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/17/time-to-go-new-polling-shows-that-mexico-is-adopting-a-more-trumpian-outlook-on-n2550184)
-
Show me one example if anyone telling Bernie Sanders to go back to where he came from. If these four were white, that language never would have been used, period.
Show us an example where Bernie is saying any such nonsense like those four.
-
Mexicans in Mexico agree with Trump. Now that's a switch. Wonder if we'll see this in the NYT or WP.
"More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/17/time-to-go-new-polling-shows-that-mexico-is-adopting-a-more-trumpian-outlook-on-n2550184 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/17/time-to-go-new-polling-shows-that-mexico-is-adopting-a-more-trumpian-outlook-on-n2550184)
In the article you linked to, Town Hall cites the report as first appearing in the Washington Post and provides a link to it.
-
Show us an example where Bernie is saying any such nonsense like those four.
You serious?
-
My point still stands, these women will get in the news but have zero power in the House right now. Trump still maxes out at 40% of the electorate and his big hope is voter suppression and/or lack of interest from the majority of Americans who don't want to see him reelected. If the voter turnout approaches 70% of the electorate next year, the election will not even be close. Why do you think the Florida Legislature and Governor are working overtime to take the voting rights away from felons that the electorate gave to them last year? If those folks get to vote, Florida flips like a pancake on a hot skillet. If Florida flips, no chance for the President.
Republicans are committing the same blunder as Democrats by allowing a handful of climate deniers to spoil the Republican chances in the next election. Most young people would like to see a constructive and real efforts to reduce the emissions and pollution, and if the Republicans won't do anything in that direction, they will drive all young voters to Democrats.
-
You serious?
A very serious outsider.
-
Republicans are committing the same blunder as Democrats by allowing a handful of climate deniers to spoil the Republican chances in the next election. Most young people would like to see a constructive and real efforts to reduce the emissions and pollution, and if the Republicans won't do anything in that direction, they will drive all young voters to Democrats.
One of things Trump's supporters appreciate is that he sticks with his beliefs. If he starts changing his viewpoints and positions like Biden and others do, he'll lose a lot of those people. Having said that, his position on the Paris agreement is that if it could be changed and China and India included to really do something, he'd go back to the table. But he won;t do anything while they get a free ride. Of course, that position is never covered in the liberal press. So like most things about him, they hide anything that might be considered a good thing.
-
In Canada, the young voters just started to mobilize about this very point.
Several hundred Canadian millennials planned to rally in at least 30 cities across the country Wednesday, demanding a federal leaders' debate on climate change.
Emma Jackson, a field organizer with the group Our Time, said the science is clear that humanity only has 11 years to get a grip on greenhouse-gas emissions before global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible.
Youths have traditionally been less likely to vote than in federal elections older citizens but in 2015, a surge in turnout among voters under age 35 is believed to have helped propel the Liberals into office, in part because of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's environment platform. Jackson said Our Time is not supporting any one party, but is trying to ensure that the momentum of engagement and environmental activism from 2015 isn't lost. "Part of the Our Time movement is rooted in the understanding that this federal election people between the ages of 18 and 35 have the potential to be the single largest voting bloc," she said. "That generation can really determine the outcome of this federal election."
https://www.timescolonist.com/younger-voters-mobilizing-to-make-federal-election-about-climate-change-1.23888283
-
Trump attacked the Squad for being unpatriotic not because they are people of color. Of course, the democrats pull out the race card as they always do. After all, according to them, a white person is a racist in America if they disagree with a person of color regardless of the issue. It's really getting tiring.
-
In Canada, the young voters just started to mobilize about this very point.
https://www.timescolonist.com/younger-voters-mobilizing-to-make-federal-election-about-climate-change-1.23888283
Those millennials should picket the Chinese and Indians delegations at the U.N. to make their point known. They should insist those two countries start reducing CO2 emissions now rather do nothing until 2030 as allowed by the Paris Agreement. Hmmm, 2030 is 11 years from now. It will be too late by them. We'll be gone!!!
-
Those millennials should picket the Chinese and Indians delegations at the U.N. to make their point known. They should insist those two countries start reducing CO2 emissions now rather do nothing until 2030 as allowed by the Paris Agreement. Hmmm, 2030 is 11 years from now. It will be too late by them. We'll be gone!!!
And don't forget all pigs and chickens in China and cows in India, producing a lot of methane.
-
And don't forget all pigs and chickens in China and cows in India, producing a lot of methane.
I'm not giving up my spare ribs. Yum.
-
And don't forget all pigs and chickens in China and cows in India, producing a lot of methane.
Indeed, and Alan K. wants to deny them to develop themselves and prosper and have airconditioning, or even have electricity to charge their smartphones ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
There were a number of Republican House members who were in the news until.................................................they lost the house last year. Remember Devin Nunes? He was in the news almost every day running back and forth to the White House with documents of one kind or another. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows are still in the news somewhat but they also have no power. Mitch McConnell is in the news and was asked yesterday about if his wife faced the same language that the President used what his reaction would be. Lindsey Graham called The Squad members communists the other day and he's always on TV.
My point still stands, these women will get in the news but have zero power in the House right now. Trump still maxes out at 40% of the electorate and his big hope is voter suppression and/or lack of interest from the majority of Americans who don't want to see him reelected. If the voter turnout approaches 70% of the electorate next year, the election will not even be close. Why do you think the Florida Legislature and Governor are working overtime to take the voting rights away from felons that the electorate gave to them last year? If those folks get to vote, Florida flips like a pancake on a hot skillet. If Florida flips, no chance for the President.
I dont know if you're being contradictory on purpose or maybe I am misreading what you are saying.
Basically, I am reading this as you saying, "yes, radical Republicans can cause losses for the party at elections, but that cant happen with Democrats."
-
And don't forget all pigs and chickens in China and cows in India, producing a lot of methane.
And people too! It's just terrible.
-
And people too! It's just terrible.
Actually, many billions more than the pigs.
-
Trump attacked the Squad for being unpatriotic not because they are people of color. Of course, the democrats pull out the race card as they always do. After all, according to them, a white person is a racist in America if they disagree with a person of color regardless of the issue. It's really getting tiring.
What is also tiring is Trump calling people unpatriotic because they don't agree with him.
-
What is also tiring is Trump calling people unpatriotic because they don't agree with him.
Not the same. The race card has been used by Democrats for 50 years. Enough already.
-
One of things Trump's supporters appreciate is that he sticks with his beliefs. If he starts changing his viewpoints and positions like Biden and others do, he'll lose a lot of those people. Having said that, his position on the Paris agreement is that if it could be changed and China and India included to really do something, he'd go back to the table. But he won;t do anything while they get a free ride. Of course, that position is never covered in the liberal press. So like most things about him, they hide anything that might be considered a good thing.
That logic is beautifully tragic. Shakespeare would have been proud of you, Alan, and incorporated the plot into a new play. Or at least, a sonnet.
So, unless two guys can't yet stop pouring water into the wallowing boat, neither should you?
Gimme a friggin' break man; use what God put inside your head!
-
Show us an example where Bernie is saying any such nonsense like those four.
Medicare for All is the best example! Sanders has no clue what it would cost and has not addressed the vehement opposition from doctors and hospitals. Current Medicare needs a legislative fix every now and then because it never fully accounted for doctors fees.
-
Trump attacked the Squad for being unpatriotic not because they are people of color. Of course, the democrats pull out the race card as they always do. After all, according to them, a white person is a racist in America if they disagree with a person of color regardless of the issue. It's really getting tiring.
Why have some high profile Republicans stated that it was a racist comment? What in any of the statements is unpatriotic given that we have free speech in the US? Why should they be asked to go back to the countries of their origin? Why are statements such as those in these Tweets, and the response by people attending the President's campaign rallies ('send them back') acceptable discourse?
Answers please.
-
Medicare for All is the best example! Sanders has no clue what it would cost and has not addressed the vehement opposition from doctors and hospitals. Current Medicare needs a legislative fix every now and then because it never fully accounted for doctors fees.
The worst result, outside of bankrupting the nation, would be the loss of MD's. Who would be dumb enough to go through medical school, residency, and the whole shootin' match so he could work for government bureaucrats? Right. Those incompetents who stuck with the program would be the doctors you'd who'd be working on you.
-
The worst result, outside of bankrupting the nation, would be the loss of MD's. Who would be dumb enough to go through medical school, residency, and the whole shootin' match so he could work for government bureaucrats? Right. Those incompetents who stuck with the program would be the doctors you'd who'd be working on you.
Let me approach this one delicately, Russ; are you suggesting that the American medical system grants a licence to practise to those less than competent so to do?
Ann's first oncologist and my first stent were courtesy American-trained Spaniards; well, partly American-trained, that is. I say Spaniards, but here you never know: South America sends thousands of people to Spain and its islands. And thank goodnes for that! The Spaniards themselves are all in Britian! Come a bad Brexit, who we gonna call?
They seemed to know what they were doing... at least, as patients/victims/research specimens we thought they knew what they were about.
;-)
-
Cubans are also very good doctors, and they are paid pittance.
As to the doctors in Canada, the surgeons are first class.
However, when it comes to GP's, rheumatologists, neurologists and even cardiologists, they are good mainly in ordering the tests and filling out the prescriptions. Also they don't know much about the proper nutrition.
-
Why have some high profile Republicans stated that it was a racist comment? What in any of the statements is unpatriotic given that we have free speech in the US? Why should they be asked to go back to the countries of their origin? Why are statements such as those in these Tweets, and the response by people attending the President's campaign rallies ('send them back') acceptable discourse?
Answers please.
The reason Democrats have resorted to using the race card for 50 years is that it works. It shuts people up. No one wants to be called a racist. They vote and take positions to "prove" they're not racist. So when you say something, even if it isn't racist, and someone calls you a racist, your first reaction is to defend yourself and question whether what you said was racist. The race card has people reacting like Pavlov's dog.
It Trump calls a black congresswomen unpatriotic, that doesn;t make it racist. You're conflating the two. If you think it's unacceptable discourse, fine, call it that. We can have a conversation about whether she is patriotic or not. But don't immediately call comments racist just because the congresswomen is black.
-
US medical schools are operating at capacity right now and there still are not enough doctors to fill all the needs of the country. Rural areas are particularly under served. The current US healthcare system is doing nothing to address the closure of small bed hospitals in rural areas. Lots of medical students see the profession as a calling and are not preoccupied with making large amounts of money. We see in countries where there is universal coverage no shortage of doctors (who are paid less than their American counterparts) nor are medical school enrollments dropping. It's worth noting that there are a number of physicians groups other than the American Medical Association who have come out in favor of universal coverage. Such coverage does not have to be 'Medicare for All.' Most of those who post on various forums have little understanding about how healthcare functions in the rest of the world or how universal healthcare can be implemented in the United States. As I have often noted, TR Reid's fine book, 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' is an excellent place to start. Reid and his family experienced first hand a number of foreign healthcare systems when he was a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post a while back. He was able to get an appointment with one of the top orthopedic surgeons in Japan within 24 hours; try that in the US.
For those who want to dive deeper into one approach to universal healthcare, Fuchs and Emanuel proposed a universal voucher system (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1571/e2e0f1293faa2daafeca96977a6ded211e3e.pdf) relying on private delivery of healthcare using existing HMOs and insurance companies. It would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and corporate subsidized insurance.
-
The reason Democrats have resorted to using the race card for 50 years is that it works. It shuts people up. No one wants to be called a racist. They vote and take positions to "prove" they're not racist. So when you say something, even if it isn't racist, and someone calls you a racist, your first reaction is to defend yourself and question whether what you said was racist. The race card has people reacting like Pavlov's dog.
It Trump calls a black congresswomen unpatriotic, that doesn;t make it racist. You're conflating the two. If you think it's unacceptable discourse, fine, call it that. We can have a conversation about whether she is patriotic or not. But don't immediately call comments racist just because the congresswomen is black.
You answered only one question and seem not to be concerned that there are Republicans who were disturbed about what happened at the North Carolina rally. Some of them believe the statements were of racist intent. There is a long documented history of Trump's past actions that were construed by others of being racist. This is not a fantasy world.
-
Let me approach this one delicately, Russ; are you suggesting that the American medical system grants a licence to practise to those less than competent so to do?
Ann's first oncologist and my first stent were courtesy American-trained Spaniards; well, partly American-trained, that is. I say Spaniards, but here you never know: South America sends thousands of people to Spain and its islands. And thank goodnes for that! The Spaniards themselves are all in Britian! Come a bad Brexit, who we gonna call?
They seemed to know what they were doing... at least, as patients/victims/research specimens we thought they knew what they were about.
;-)
Rob, my primary care doc came up from South America, and he’s excellent. He and a partner started a practice, but eventually he and the partner had a falling out. The partner left, and Cesar eventually found it necessary to join a medical group associated with a local hospital. He’s a good example of the kind of guy who got caught in the gradual ingestion of the whole medical world by the government.
The very best doc I ever had was recommended to me by one of my two nurse daughters-in-law. He was really, really good, but as the government began gnawing its way into the profession, finally he said “screw it,” and retired.
There are plenty of docs who are in medicine because they want to help people, but I get an earful about Canadian health care from Canadian snowbirds who come to Florida in the winter. Surely, now that I’ve said that, there’ll be one or two Canadians who’ll jump in and tell me how great Canadian health care is. And I’m sure there are plenty of examples of that. But I also have a pretty clear idea of how long it takes to get, say, an MRI in Canada. Yet, if my doc calls ahead, I can walk into the local medical testing facility and get an MRI on the spot. Canadians down from Canada can too. In some cases it’s a life or death situation, so testing delays can be fatal.
I certainly sympathize with you over the problems you’re having as a result of brexit – or at least the inability of the UK government to get on with it and make a decision. If you check the history of the United States government you’ll realize the British government isn’t unique in that respect. I keep hoping things will work out for you in the end.
-
The reason Democrats have resorted to using the race card for 50 years is that it works. It shuts people up. No one wants to be called a racist. They vote and take positions to "prove" they're not racist. So when you say something, even if it isn't racist, and someone calls you a racist, your first reaction is to defend yourself and question whether what you said was racist. The race card has people reacting like Pavlov's dog.
It Trump calls a black congresswomen unpatriotic, that doesn;t make it racist. You're conflating the two. If you think it's unacceptable discourse, fine, call it that. We can have a conversation about whether she is patriotic or not. But don't immediately call comments racist just because the congresswomen is black.
I agree with you. I have a friend who lives in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in northern England. He, in turn, has an Asian friend who owns a couple of restaurants. He once asked him how he'd managed to get permision to open one of them where he did: the Asian gentleman laughed, and said it's easy: if they refuse to grant me a licence I play the race card! Honest, this is literally what my friend told me.
The entire race thing has become a double-sided ploy, just another technique to render the playing fields biased to individual advantages. That's on the upper levels of the financial space. On the lower levels, it's another story completely.
So yeah, even race has turned into just another lever of power.
Rob
-
Let me approach this one delicately, Russ; are you suggesting that the American medical system grants a licence to practise to those less than competent so to do?
Ann's first oncologist and my first stent were courtesy American-trained Spaniards; well, partly American-trained, that is. I say Spaniards, but here you never know: South America sends thousands of people to Spain and its islands. And thank goodnes for that! The Spaniards themselves are all in Britian! Come a bad Brexit, who we gonna call?
They seemed to know what they were doing... at least, as patients/victims/research specimens we thought they knew what they were about.
;-)
I'm glad your wife had good oncologists and hope she's doing well. I had cancer surgery 18 years ago. My insurance company picked up most of the hospital and surgeon costs. The surgeon was one of the tops in the field.
Medicare in America for those over 65 covers the cost of medicine. However, doctors are allowed to "opt out". That means they can charge higher fees than Medicare reimburses and their patients pay out-of-pocket. You cannot submit their bills to Medicare for reimbursement. You can't even get back the small portion they would have paid to other doctors who didn't opt out. A lot of the better doctors especially in cities like New York have opted out. The NY Hospital of Special Surgery, the finest orthopedic hospital in the country, has loads of doctors who have opted out. If you want their services, you better have deep pockets. Otherwise you have to accept less competent doctors. Fortunately when I had heart surgery in April in another NYC hospital, I had (I hope) one the best and Medicare picked up the costs. He hadn't opted out. He was Japanese.
If future law creates a Medicare for all, and eliminates "opting out", many brilliant people who would have become great doctors will find other professions. So the capability of our doctors will decline. Had I needed my cancer surgery after age 65, I could not have afforded to use the top qualified surgeon I did. He's one of those who have "opted out".
-
US medical schools are operating at capacity right now and there still are not enough doctors to fill all the needs of the country. Rural areas are particularly under served. The current US healthcare system is doing nothing to address the closure of small bed hospitals in rural areas. Lots of medical students see the profession as a calling and are not preoccupied with making large amounts of money. We see in countries where there is universal coverage no shortage of doctors (who are paid less than their American counterparts) nor are medical school enrollments dropping. It's worth noting that there are a number of physicians groups other than the American Medical Association who have come out in favor of universal coverage. Such coverage does not have to be 'Medicare for All.' Most of those who post on various forums have little understanding about how healthcare functions in the rest of the world or how universal healthcare can be implemented in the United States. As I have often noted, TR Reid's fine book, 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' is an excellent place to start. Reid and his family experienced first hand a number of foreign healthcare systems when he was a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post a while back. He was able to get an appointment with one of the top orthopedic surgeons in Japan within 24 hours; try that in the US.
For those who want to dive deeper into one approach to universal healthcare, Fuchs and Emanuel proposed a universal voucher system (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1571/e2e0f1293faa2daafeca96977a6ded211e3e.pdf) relying on private delivery of healthcare using existing HMOs and insurance companies. It would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and corporate subsidized insurance.
Good for you, Alan. You've made it abundantly clear where you stand.
-
US medical schools are operating at capacity right now and there still are not enough doctors to fill all the needs of the country. Rural areas are particularly under served. The current US healthcare system is doing nothing to address the closure of small bed hospitals in rural areas. Lots of medical students see the profession as a calling and are not preoccupied with making large amounts of money. We see in countries where there is universal coverage no shortage of doctors (who are paid less than their American counterparts) nor are medical school enrollments dropping. It's worth noting that there are a number of physicians groups other than the American Medical Association who have come out in favor of universal coverage. Such coverage does not have to be 'Medicare for All.' Most of those who post on various forums have little understanding about how healthcare functions in the rest of the world or how universal healthcare can be implemented in the United States. As I have often noted, TR Reid's fine book, 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' is an excellent place to start. Reid and his family experienced first hand a number of foreign healthcare systems when he was a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post a while back. He was able to get an appointment with one of the top orthopedic surgeons in Japan within 24 hours; try that in the US.
For those who want to dive deeper into one approach to universal healthcare, Fuchs and Emanuel proposed a universal voucher system (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1571/e2e0f1293faa2daafeca96977a6ded211e3e.pdf) relying on private delivery of healthcare using existing HMOs and insurance companies. It would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and corporate subsidized insurance.
A universal voucher system would also have to limit costs by setting doctor and other medical fee schedules. Otherwise, the costs would escalate tremendously just like university costs have skyrocketed due to the government providing college loans to anyone who wants it. Medicare paid about 1/3 the fees the hospital charged for my surgery in April. All of this will dumb down doctor care as some brilliant kids become engineers, or, God forbid, politicians and lawyers. :)
-
Cubans are also very good doctors, and they are paid pittance.
As to the doctors in Canada, the surgeons are first class.
However, when it comes to GP's, rheumatologists, neurologists and even cardiologists, they are good mainly in ordering the tests and filling out the prescriptions. Also they don't know much about the proper nutrition.
What do you mean? What's their problem?
-
You answered only one question and seem not to be concerned that there are Republicans who were disturbed about what happened at the North Carolina rally. Some of them believe the statements were of racist intent. There is a long documented history of Trump's past actions that were construed by others of being racist. This is not a fantasy world.
You created a straw man. We were talking about AOC and the squad being unpatriotic. Stick to the subject.
-
A universal voucher system would also have to limit costs by setting doctor and other medical fee schedules. Otherwise, the costs would escalate tremendously just like university costs have skyrocketed due to the government providing college loans to anyone who wants it. Medicare paid about 1/3 the fees the hospital charged for my surgery in April. All of this will dumb down doctor care as some brilliant kids become engineers, or, God forbid, politicians and lawyers. :)
Just to clarify. While Medicare paid 1/3 the hospital charges, no one paid the remaining 2/3's. That was washed away. The hospital didn't get that from anyone.
-
I'm glad your wife had good oncologists and hope she's doing well. I had cancer surgery 18 years ago. My insurance company picked up most of the hospital and surgeon costs. The surgeon was one of the tops in the field.
Medicare in America for those over 65 covers the cost of medicine. However, doctors are allowed to "opt out". That means they can charge higher fees than Medicare reimburses and their patients pay out-of-pocket. You cannot submit their bills to Medicare for reimbursement. You can't even get back the small portion they would have paid to other doctors who didn't opt out. A lot of the better doctors especially in cities like New York have opted out. The NY Hospital of Special Surgery, the finest orthopedic hospital in the country, has loads of doctors who have opted out. If you want their services, you better have deep pockets. Otherwise you have to accept less competent doctors. Fortunately when I had heart surgery in April in another NYC hospital, I had (I hope) one the best and Medicare picked up the costs. He hadn't opted out. He was Japanese.
If future law creates a Medicare for all, and eliminates "opting out", many brilliant people who would have become great doctors will find other professions. So the capability of our doctors will decline. Had I needed my cancer surgery after age 65, I could not have afforded to use the top qualified surgeon I did. He's one of those who have "opted out".
Alan - if my wife's doing well, she doing it in heaven! She found her lump one November, and four Novembers and umpteen surgeries later she lost the war.
The first few ops were on private insurance and they were excellent people with whom to deal (Mapfre). Six or seven months before she died she fell and broke her hip on the edge of a pavement. The pain forced her to elect to go to the National Health hospital which is only twenty-five or so minutes away, whereas the private one at least double that time. Once there, they discovered that the cancer had returned. The onco. said he did not want to wait more than ten days to get her into surgery. Within ten days she had both a new hip and the cancer operation. The guy who did the hip job was German. She walked out of that hospital without a limp, stick or crutches. She was perfect. Six months later she was gone: nothing more they could do for her.
She was so impressed with the National system that she questioned why we were spending so much every year on private health. I cancelled. Subsequently, I realised that excellent though the national system is, once you are in it, that's the problem: getting appointments for non-life-threatening work such as my cataracts.
Either way, I could not have afforded to keep paying what I was paying those eleven years ago; today's prices would have forced the issue anyway.
Rob
-
You created a straw man. We were talking about AOC and the squad being unpatriotic. Stick to the subject.
So, what's unpatriotic then? And what justifies Racism?
Cheers,
Bart
-
You created a straw man. We were talking about AOC and the squad being unpatriotic. Stick to the subject.
LOL. You gotta be kidding me. The only people focusing like a laser on AOC and her group being unpatriotic are the people on the right trying to completely ignore the "go back from the country they came from" part.
The question is,
1) is Trump so ignorant that he doesn't know that three of the four are natural-born American citizens and assumes that because they're not white, they must be foreign; or
2) Is he aware, but figures his base is so ignorant that he can say any brown person he disagrees with is, literally, unAmerican?
Before answering, consider his bullshit Obama birtherism, and his assertion that a Federal judge couldn't adjudicate fairly because of his ethnicity.
-
All of this will dumb down doctor care as some brilliant kids become engineers, or, God forbid, politicians and lawyers. :)
As I noted in my original post there is no proof that this will happen. It doesn't happen in any European country where there are a variety of approaches to universal health care.
-
Just to clarify. While Medicare paid 1/3 the hospital charges, no one paid the remaining 2/3's. That was washed away. The hospital didn't get that from anyone.
WRONG, they make up for the loss by charging a higher premium to private insurers.
-
You created a straw man. We were talking about AOC and the squad being unpatriotic. Stick to the subject.
In what way, their opposition to President Trump's policies? I guess that makes a lot of us unpatriotic.
-
Alan - if my wife's doing well, she doing it in heaven! She found her lump one November, and four Novembers and umpteen surgeries later she lost the war.
The first few ops were on private insurance and they were excellent people with whom to deal (Mapfre). Six or seven months before she died she fell and broke her hip on the edge of a pavement. The pain forced her to elect to go to the National Health hospital which is only twenty-five or so minutes away, whereas the private one at least double that time. Once there, they discovered that the cancer had returned. The onco. said he did not want to wait more than ten days to get her into surgery. Within ten days she had both a new hip and the cancer operation. The guy who did the hip job was German. She walked out of that hospital without a limp, stick or crutches. She was perfect. Six months later she was gone: nothing more they could do for her.
She was so impressed with the National system that she questioned why we were spending so much every year on private health. I cancelled. Subsequently, I realised that excellent though the national system is, once you are in it, that's the problem: getting appointments for non-life-threatening work such as my cataracts.
Either way, I could not have afforded to keep paying what I was paying those eleven years ago; today's prices would have forced the issue anyway.
Rob
I'm so sorry about your wife Rob. I didn't realize it. Please accept my condolences. Alan
-
I'm so sorry about your wife Rob. I didn't realize it. Please accept my condolences. Alan
Don't sweat it, Alan; there nothing in the post that would have led you to think otherwise; but thank you for your kind sentiment.
She's gone physically but still there all day, if you see what I mean. Love never goes away.
:-)
Rob
-
As to the doctors in Canada, the surgeons are first class.
However, when it comes to GP's, rheumatologists, neurologists and even cardiologists, they are good mainly in ordering the tests and filling out the prescriptions. Also they don't know much about the proper nutrition.
What do you mean? What's their problem?
Alan, they don't see any problem, the problem is in the system. If you want to know more details, PM me with the specific question you want to get answered.
For instance, when it comes to nutritional advice, most doctors and nutritionists draw on their limited and outdated education, and will advise you that milk and dairy products are good for you and your bones. Many new studies show fallacy of these recommendations, but dairy industry just pours more money in to continue propagation of the false and useless information. Not only dairy products do not help (unless you want to raise abandoned kittens or puppies), they are actually harmful. That's just one example.
-
She's gone physically but still there all day, if you see what I mean. Love never goes away.
:-)
Rob
Rob, that's exactly what my wife says. She's only 39, but just finished her third bout with cancer. Whenever one of us has doubts or frustrations, the stronger of us (on any given day) explains it the same way you just did. I believe it wholeheartedly, and I see it in you whenever you speak of her. :)
-
WRONG, they make up for the loss by charging a higher premium to private insurers.
That doesn't make any sense. They can't take my costs and add them to someone else's bill. And if I never went to them, they would get exactly the same high rate they charged the patient with private insurance. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is they get less from Medicare so they make less profit on Medicare patients. That's why 16% of doctors limit the number of Medicaid patient and 15% don;t accept them at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/10/15/government-policies-are-driving-doctors-to-quit-health-care/#582ca9832bf3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/10/15/government-policies-are-driving-doctors-to-quit-health-care/#582ca9832bf3)
-
People who boost private insurance are generally unclear on how much wastage that system has in it. Government systems are, in comparison, ingenious models of asceticism and simplicity.
When you get your tummy poked to see if you're constipated, there is probably at least one entire corporation buried somewhere in the chain that doesn't do a single thing except employ clerks to print out forms, and to re-type those same forms into another system, to pass information up or down the chain. It is simply mind boggling the sheer number of grifters and filing clerks that are employed by the current American private-insurance based medical systems. It's not the only source of wastage, but it is billions of dollars up in smoke annually (at least).
Even a small private practice, in general, has to employ a full time person simply to interact with the mass of garbage that is medical insurance.
This, by the way, is the single biggest issue with M4A: 10s (100s?) of 1000s of people will be instantly thrown out of work, and that's a massive problem. They're not doing anything useful, but an amazing number of modern jobs are useless and it's generally not the employee's fault.
-
People who boost private insurance are generally unclear on how much wastage that system has in it. Government systems are, in comparison, ingenious models of asceticism and simplicity.
When you get your tummy poked to see if you're constipated, there is probably at least one entire corporation buried somewhere in the chain that doesn't do a single thing except employ clerks to print out forms, and to re-type those same forms into another system, to pass information up or down the chain. It is simply mind boggling the sheer number of grifters and filing clerks that are employed by the current American private-insurance based medical systems. It's not the only source of wastage, but it is billions of dollars up in smoke annually (at least).
Even a small private practice, in general, has to employ a full time person simply to interact with the mass of garbage that is medical insurance.
This, by the way, is the single biggest issue with M4A: 10s (100s?) of 1000s of people will be instantly thrown out of work, and that's a massive problem. They're not doing anything useful, but an amazing number of modern jobs are useless and it's generally not the employee's fault.
Government regulations have added enormous paperwork requirements to doctor's. I can't get a medical report sent to me unless I complete a written form. Then they won;t email it to me. Government does not allow it. It has to be faxed or mailed. So now I have to buy a fax machine. Meanwhile, faxing documents is slower and takes more time for a doctor's office then emailing documents. Then when I get it, the clarity stinks. I have to scan it into my computer to email it. If the government allowed emailing, the document would be cleaner and ready to forward immediately without needing a hard copy. It's crazy. But it's government regulation causing this.
But why do you think government simplifies anything. Asceticism? You gotta be joking. Have you ever worked for the government? I have. Also have worked in private industry which is much more efficient. Somehow, 99% of industry in the country is run without the government. But you're convinced that for medicine, the government can run it cheaper and more efficiently. That's great political hype but not true at all.
-
That doesn't make any sense. They can't take my costs and add them to someone else's bill. And if I never went to them, they would get exactly the same high rate they charged the patient with private insurance. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is they get less from Medicare so they make less profit on Medicare patients. That's why 16% of doctors limit the number of Medicaid patient and 15% don;t accept them at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/10/15/government-policies-are-driving-doctors-to-quit-health-care/#582ca9832bf3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/10/15/government-policies-are-driving-doctors-to-quit-health-care/#582ca9832bf3)
Guess what - the charity care, or unbillable amounts go to overheads. Guess where the overheads get covered ? Private insurance care patients.
-
Guess what - the charity care, or unbillable amounts go to overheads. Guess where the overheads get covered ? Private insurance care patients.
Maybe you can explain how that works?
-
a) I did not just fall off a turnip truck, stop assuming that I have no experience with anything.
b) your personal experiences, like everyone else's, are irrelevant. they are extremely limited and biased, like everyone's.
c) whenever anyone actually runs the numbers, it turns out that the US government delivers excellent service very cheaply in almost all areas...
d) ... except the DoD, which is the one department that right wing ideologues consider untouchable.
-
a) I did not just fall off a turnip truck, stop assuming that I have no experience with anything.
b) your personal experiences, like everyone else's, are irrelevant. they are extremely limited and biased, like everyone's.
c) whenever anyone actually runs the numbers, it turns out that the US government delivers excellent service very cheaply in almost all areas...
d) ... except the DoD, which is the one department that right wing ideologues consider untouchable.
I guess we have differing opinions of the government. I worked for the NYC School Construction Authority for 14 years. I came up with this great idea how we could save money on a procedure. So I went to see my boss about it. He looked me straight in the eye and said, " Alan, what do you care what it costs?"
Maybe your experience with government was different.
-
I've seen 100s of millions of dollars spent in my career, and in my line of work I have to say that I cannot state with certainty that one cent of it was spent for any useful purpose. I mean, maybe? That's government and industry both. The DoD and various spook shops were excellent sources of fistfulls of cash, with which they bought things that.. well, they worked. But was the work they were put to useful? Not that I could see.
But that's just one person's experience, one point of view. It sure looks like all large scale bureaucratic enterprises waste money hand over fist, and to figure out who's wasting more you really have to examine the books.
And even the "waste" is employing people, so there's that. The US military may or may not be doing a single damn thing that's worthwhile, based on your point of view, but one thing is for damn sure: they're transferring a crapload of taxpayer money to some of the poorest regions, neighborhoods, and families in the USA, and thereby feeding a hell of a lot of people who would otherwise go hungry.
So, that's good, right?
-
I've seen 100s of millions of dollars spent in my career, and in my line of work I have to say that I cannot state with certainty that one cent of it was spent for any useful purpose. I mean, maybe? That's government and industry both. The DoD and various spook shops were excellent sources of fistfulls of cash, with which they bought things that.. well, they worked. But was the work they were put to useful? Not that I could see.
But that's just one person's experience, one point of view. It sure looks like all large scale bureaucratic enterprises waste money hand over fist, and to figure out who's wasting more you really have to examine the books.
And even the "waste" is employing people, so there's that. The US military may or may not be doing a single damn thing that's worthwhile, based on your point of view, but one thing is for damn sure: they're transferring a crapload of taxpayer money to some of the poorest regions, neighborhoods, and families in the USA, and thereby feeding a hell of a lot of people who would otherwise go hungry.
So, that's good, right?
As an ex-USAF airman, I set up a tour of Mcguire AFB for a group of my fellow 55+ retirees where I live in NJ. A civilian escort took us around to see military dogs, their fire department and a tour of a C17 Globemaster jet. It can carry a 60 ton tank and about 150 people. Although we weren''t flown, we did get a tour of the plane and had the crewmembers explain the whole process of what they do. I was proud to be there and felt good about the 30 or so C17's and other refueler type jets lined up on the runway. Made me feel great about our military.
But the truth is, the average American doesn't need to fly in a refueler or tank carry cargo plane. Nor does he need to drive a M1A1 Abrams tank as impressive as it is. While we need a military to defend the nation, the money would better be spent on civilian use. Cars, medicine, civilian planes, etc. Those people who work for the defence department directly or indirectly would just have other civilian jobs if we didn't spend all that money on defence, which was around $750 billion, just passed a couple of days ago. They wouldn't be out of work.
-
PS: The picture above shows one of our old guys getting on the back of the C17 with his walker. They were very accommodating to us.
-
I've seen 100s of millions of dollars spent in my career, and in my line of work I have to say that I cannot state with certainty that one cent of it was spent for any useful purpose. I mean, maybe? That's government and industry both. The DoD and various spook shops were excellent sources of fistfulls of cash, with which they bought things that.. well, they worked. But was the work they were put to useful? Not that I could see.
But that's just one person's experience, one point of view. It sure looks like all large scale bureaucratic enterprises waste money hand over fist, and to figure out who's wasting more you really have to examine the books.
And even the "waste" is employing people, so there's that. The US military may or may not be doing a single damn thing that's worthwhile, based on your point of view, but one thing is for damn sure: they're transferring a crapload of taxpayer money to some of the poorest regions, neighborhoods, and families in the USA, and thereby feeding a hell of a lot of people who would otherwise go hungry.
So, that's good, right?
For clarity sake, please state your line of work.
I'm a photographer; there, you cant claim I did not state mine.
-
Rob, that's exactly what my wife says. She's only 39, but just finished her third bout with cancer. Whenever one of us has doubts or frustrations, the stronger of us (on any given day) explains it the same way you just did. I believe it wholeheartedly, and I see it in you whenever you speak of her. :)
James I'm so sorry to hear your wife has been touched by this thing too, and at only 39, for heaven's sake.
I was around 65 when my first heart attack came - along with the pension, though whether the shock of the figures had anything to do with it I can't swear; my wife was the same age when she found her lump: 65. Not a brilliant number.
It seems that there are so many different varieties of cancer that it is almost impossible for a layman to know what he's talkiing about on that topic, and there is a danger in, and of extrapolating one person's experiences as being relevant to those of another. For example: my wife's began as breast cancer, yet I know several women who have survived that for as long as I've known them, decades, and the question always comes to this: were they lucky; did they find the problem earlier than others; were the types completely different?
Again, there is the pesonality of the patient: Ann kept it all bottled up, and the only time she complained was during the hour's drive back home from a chemo session, when she remarked once that she didn't think she could keep doing it. I told her it was her only chance, which of course she knew, but apart from that, she never mentioned it in the way of complaint. She always read a helluva lot; I believe that partly provided the mental escape she needed. I believe her reluctance to go into it vocally was for my benefit: I don't think she thought I could hack it. As pretty much always, I think she was right, if that was indeed her thought.
I wish you both the very best; all that I can offer is that medical experience grows all the time and so do treatments change and improve. The grimness of being hit young also brings with it the fact that young people are stronger and more resilient.
Rob
-
I just find it laughable that any one could actually claim that the government make efficient systems.
I have an ongoing project with a rather large government agency. I enjoy the work and it is a great project photographically, but it takes them 90 to 120 days to pay my invoices once submitted. I have never had anyone else even come close to that payment term.
A lot of architects I know that work with the government have the same issue, and some have gone a year before getting paid. Many architects choose not to work with government agencies just due to this.
Another great example is the post office. How long did UPS and FEDEX have online tracking before the USPS implemented it. On top of that, they cant make any changes, like raising the cost of a stamp or utilizing more efficient sorting machines, without congressional approval, which means everything becomes political. It's a mess.
Sorry, but I don't want my healthcare dictated by political talking heads.
To justify these systems by saying it keeps people employed is also ludicrous. It's actions like that which stagnate innovation. Government is always the last one to implement any kind of new technology. I know you could still find government offices printing with continuous stationary, the kind with the little holes on the side. That was outdated in the 90s, but 25 years later you still see government offices using it. Same thing with carbon paper. I would not be surprised if some architect somewhere still had to made real blueprints for a government project.
-
I cannot imagine how my line of work could possibly bear on anything, but as it is not a secret, I will mention that it was various things in IT security.
a) the USPS is a corporation.
b) it delivers letters for 50 cents, somewhat lower than the lowest rates available from FedEx or UPS.
etc etc, I could rebut all day, and you could rebut back all day and nothing would change.
-
I just find it laughable that any one could actually claim that the government make efficient systems.
I have an ongoing project with a rather large government agency. I enjoy the work and it is a great project photographically, but it takes them 90 to 120 days to pay my invoices once submitted. I have never had anyone else even come close to that payment term.
A lot of architects I know that work with the government have the same issue, and some have gone a year before getting paid. Many architects choose not to work with government agencies just due to this.
Another great example is the post office. How long did UPS and FEDEX have online tracking before the USPS implemented it. On top of that, they cant make any changes, like raising the cost of a stamp or utilizing more efficient sorting machines, without congressional approval, which means everything becomes political. It's a mess.
Sorry, but I don't want my healthcare dictated by political talking heads.
To justify these systems by saying it keeps people employed is also ludicrous. It's actions like that which stagnate innovation. Government is always the last one to implement any kind of new technology. I know you could still find government offices printing with continuous stationary, the kind with the little holes on the side. That was outdated in the 90s, but 25 years later you still see government offices using it. Same thing with carbon paper. I would not be surprised if some architect somewhere still had to made real blueprints for a government project.
When I had my own firm, the NYC Comptroller held up all City payments to contractors until every invoice could be reviewed in detail by her office. She was trying to make political points. Her action delayed my payments for over 9 months. I lost my company's credit line with the bank because of that as I couldn't make payments to them I promised. That hurt us a lot because construction contracting is already a big cash flow problem. You need a credit line to help stay afloat. It's bad enough to have to put up with private developers like Trump who are lousy payers. :)
-
Bad news, Alan. For a short while after I retired from the Air Force I sold sterilizer controls produced by my brother in law. (Diack Controls) I soon got to the point where I demanded payment in advance before I’d ship anything to New York hospitals.
-
Bad news, Alan. For a short while after I retired from the Air Force I sold sterilizer controls produced by my brother in law. (Diack Controls) I soon got to the point where I demanded payment in advance before I’d ship anything to New York hospitals.
Were those NYC government-run hospitals under NYC Health and Hospital Corp, a government agency, or private NY non-profit hospitals? Probably the latter. Private has more flexibility and can be more accomodating, one of the advantages working for private. With NYC government, all payments regardless of the city department you're working for have to go through the Comptroller's office who issues the checks. With private, all bills are paid by each hospital so you can deal directly with their accounting office.
I had a customer, The American Bible Society who had a 12 story office building on Broadway in Manhattan. Great customer. I had sent them a proposal to update their fire alarm system. They had this one floor that had part of the original Gutenberg printer and manuscripts hundreds of years old. The work required 1/3 payment up front. Two weeks later, I still hadn't sent the first invoice for that payment. So I got a call out of the blue from the building manager, a hell of a nice guy. He was asking me for the invoice so he can pay the 1/3 payment. Now that's the kind of customer you want. Can you imagine trying to do that with a government contract?
-
It seems that there are so many different varieties of cancer that it is almost impossible for a layman to know what he's talkiing about on that topic, and there is a danger in, and of extrapolating one person's experiences as being relevant to those of another. For example: my wife's began as breast cancer, yet I know several women who have survived that for as long as I've known them, decades, and the question always comes to this: were they lucky; did they find the problem earlier than others; were the types completely different?
Rob, there are very many varieties of cancer, and many different types of cancer can affect particular organs. Breast can be aggressive or relatively indolent.
Jeremy
-
You guys ever have a private client go bad on you, leaving you to foot the loss. I have. Ever have a govt. client turn tits up, bust, on you?
At least the govt. is reasonably solid - not that I worked for it other than once before the fashion thing became absolute - and hey, I never had an advertising agency pay quicker than three months: standard in all their deals. Had a fashion manufacturer pay me in dribs and drabs over a year, leaving me to foot the tab for a massive colour lab bill; l didn't do colour processing once I went freelance - that was always paid for on a monthly basis, as was the norm with labs.
I never met a photographer didn't have a litany of complaints about getting paid.
-
I cannot imagine how my line of work could possibly bear on anything, but as it is not a secret, I will mention that it was various things in IT security.
a) the USPS is a corporation.
b) it delivers letters for 50 cents, somewhat lower than the lowest rates available from FedEx or UPS.
etc etc, I could rebut all day, and you could rebut back all day and nothing would change.
You referenced your line of work, so it just makes sense that you tell use what it is. If you feel it does not matter, dont bring it up and dont act as if your line of work gives you some incite into the issue.
Insofar as the USPS, how financially sound is that corporation right now? I believe that the post master general has been trying to automate things to make it more efficient and save money, which would of course cost people their jobs. But since congress needs to approve it first, and no congress person wants to vote away peoples jobs, it is not getting implemented.
A independent business would have made the decision already and became a better more efficient company.
On top of that a 50 cent stamp only gets you an ounce and it needs to be a flat standard or business envelope using white paper. As soon as it become larger then an envelope, and/or heavier then a ounce, and/or material made from non-white paper, the price goes up and is comparable to UPS and FedEx.
-
At least the govt. is reasonably solid. . .
Of course it is, Rob. It can extract what's necessary from you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. People keep talking about "federal funds." There are no "federal funds." They're all taxpayer funds.
-
My reference to my line of work was no appeal to authority, it was simply a way of saying "in my job" to distinguish it from the other elements of my life.
Your effort to make it relevant is the usual trick of trying to constantly bring up new topics, force the conversation in new and arbitrary directions, so that nobody need actually work through anything to an answer. There's always new things to nitpick and argue about. As soon as a topic gets iffy, you simply drop it and pick up a new thread
It doesn't matter whether it's progressives, conservatives, libertarians, religious zealots, whatever. The basket of techniques to simply exhaust the other guy is the same. It in no way resembles discourse, it's just a way to consume time pointlessly.
I don't play that game.
-
Of course it is, Rob. It can extract what's necessary from you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. People keep talking about "federal funds." There are no "federal funds." They're all taxpayer funds.
True, but in the greater scheme of things, as long as they honour their debts to the little guy, not a lot wrong with that.
If the taxpayer expects services he has to expect to pay for them in one way or the other. Personally, I suspect the entrepreneurial spirit quite a lot; seen both sides of it, and they are not always beautiful and uplifting. Not many people manage to retain youthful enthusiasm as well as even a little bit of gentleness after a year or two of fighting for their daily bread. Total commitment to self often sets in and things become anything but pleasant.
Of course, that's not to say that state employees are any better: I remember in the 80s having to turn up in Palma to get residency permits renewed: the queue stretched right down the steps of the building and along the pavement. Inside, when I'd managed to get into the building, staff were painting their nails and having coffee whilst folks waited at the window, paperwork in hand. Not nice to be ignored, unseen, by a bunch of clerks. At least with the European deal, that ended, and once you got your permit that was that.
I wonder what happens next for those who may have been taken our of the system without even a vote?
Our probable next PM is talking about not honouring the UK debt to the EU on leaving; great applause from the scoundrel side, but not a thought to the dangers that reneging on legal responsibilities can create.
-
Of course it is, Rob. It can extract what's necessary from you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. People keep talking about "federal funds." There are no "federal funds." They're all taxpayer funds.
Federal funds derived from federal taxes, as distinguished from state and local funds derived from state and local taxes.
-
Right, Fab, though in a lot of cases "local" funds are from federal "grants." But, yeah. If you're a Californian, you're going to be ripped off by the state to the maximum extent possible. Which is exactly why Colorado has become Californicated. The people who move there from Cal are too dumb to realize that it was their own votes that brought about the conditions that made them move. Now they're doing the same thing to Colorado they did to California.
-
Right, Fab, though in a lot of cases "local" funds are from federal "grants." But, yeah. If you're a Californian, you're going to be ripped off by the state to the maximum extent possible. Which is exactly why Colorado has become Californicated. The people who move there from Cal are too dumb to realize that it was their own votes that brought about the conditions that made them move. Now they're doing the same thing to Colorado they did to California.
In my 55+ community in New Jersey, a lot of the retirees are"snow birds". They spend 3 per 4 months in Florida during the cold winter. A few of them make sure they stay there for 6 months and a day. That way they claim Florida residence. Unlike New Jersey that has a 6% state income tax, Florida has no income taxes at all. It's why Florida is growing in population and New Jersey is shrinking.
-
My reference to my line of work was no appeal to authority, it was simply a way of saying "in my job" to distinguish it from the other elements of my life.
Your effort to make it relevant is the usual trick of trying to constantly bring up new topics, force the conversation in new and arbitrary directions, so that nobody need actually work through anything to an answer. There's always new things to nitpick and argue about. As soon as a topic gets iffy, you simply drop it and pick up a new thread
It doesn't matter whether it's progressives, conservatives, libertarians, religious zealots, whatever. The basket of techniques to simply exhaust the other guy is the same. It in no way resembles discourse, it's just a way to consume time pointlessly.
I don't play that game.
Then don’t bring it up next time. You saying “in my line of work” opens the door for the reader to wonder what the line of work is. It’s just natural to think that. If it of no importance, don’t mention it next time.
-
Good effort at dragging me off into the weeds! But, the answer is still no.
-
Good effort at dragging me off into the weeds! But, the answer is still no.
I was not trying to drag you into the weeds; merely pointing out the contradictory natural of your comments. You bringing up your experience makes the reader wonder what the experience is. If it is of no importance, then don’t talk from it. This is writing 101 here.
-
It is painfully clear that you wish to draw me into a pointless metadiscussion about the meaning and appropriateness of a single clause in some remarks I made quite some time ago, but since you seem to be doing fine by yourself, I will let you proceed.
Carry on!
-
It is painfully clear that you wish to draw me into a pointless metadiscussion about the meaning and appropriateness of a single clause in some remarks I made quite some time ago, but since you seem to be doing fine by yourself, I will let you proceed. Carry on!
Consider it a victory. He is quibbling about the form but not the content of your remarks.
-
I was not trying to drag you into the weeds; merely pointing out the contradictory natural of your comments. You bringing up your experience makes the reader wonder what the experience is. If it is of no importance, then don’t talk from it. This is writing 101 here.
You're way overthinking this :)
-
You're way overthinking this :)
Maybe you're right, actually I think you're right. I'll stop now.
-
You guys ever have a private client go bad on you, leaving you to foot the loss. I have. Ever have a govt. client turn tits up, bust, on you?
At least the govt. is reasonably solid - not that I worked for it other than once before the fashion thing became absolute - and hey, I never had an advertising agency pay quicker than three months: standard in all their deals. Had a fashion manufacturer pay me in dribs and drabs over a year, leaving me to foot the tab for a massive colour lab bill; l didn't do colour processing once I went freelance - that was always paid for on a monthly basis, as was the norm with labs.
I never met a photographer didn't have a litany of complaints about getting paid.
Every businessman has complaints about payments. it's part of the turf. I mentioned in another post how I lost my credit line because of government political games. So there's that. Also, not every contractor works directly for government. Most of my work when I worked on government projects, I was a subcontractor. So my payments did not come directly from the government. It came from the general contractor many of whom were bastards. Sometimes you can get support from the government when things like that happen and you don;t get paid. Often you can't. For example, you can;t lien a government building like you can if your work is in a private building.
A lot depends on the circumstances, government agency, etc. One game the general contractor would do is tell you he'll pay you now at let's say 50-60% of what the balance he owes you. Or if you want to wait ten months until the government pays him, then you'll get the full amount. So you're stuck needing cash so you agree to the first offer and he keeps part of your profits. The government doesn't care.
-
Apropos nothing and everything:
-
Slobodan, how the hell do you do it? You never fail to come up with a most appropriate cartoon or photo.
This one's a cracker!
Rob
-
Trump attacked the Squad for being unpatriotic not because they are people of color. Of course, the democrats pull out the race card as they always do. After all, according to them, a white person is a racist in America if they disagree with a person of color regardless of the issue. It's really getting tiring.
The problem is the hijab. That is equally inappropriate as if Donald Trump, celebrating his German roots, wore lederhosen in White House.
-
The problem is the hijab. That is equally inappropriate as if Donald Trump, celebrating his German roots, wore lederhosen in White House.
Indeed, and why I think all male politicos should be obliged to wear ties.
Wearing religious head stuff always makes a point, and that point distracts from the business of the day, unless for the wearer, that is always the business of the day.
-
The problem is the hijab. That is equally inappropriate as if Donald Trump, celebrating his German roots, wore lederhosen in White House.
So long as he doesn't wear a dirndl, I think he would be fine.
-
So long as he doesn't wear a dirndl, I think he would be fine.
He's the kind of guy who'd skimp on the underskirts.
:-)
-
He's the kind of guy who'd skimp on the underskirts.
:-)
;D ;D ;D
I guess I should have said, "we would be fine."
-
So long as he doesn't wear a dirndl, I think he would be fine.
;D
-
Someone stole my idea:
-
Someone stole my idea:
So what do you envision, separate the children from their parents and shoot them first ???
-
The children, being lighter, will travel farther. The separation is not policy, but merely an unanticipated side effect of the completely standard and humane methods used.
-
Someone stole my idea:
Seems more the new migration technique, once this prison wall is built.
But you can also use a boat of coarse..
-
Someone stole my idea:
It should clear the top of the wall.
-
Seems more the new migration technique, once this prison wall is built.
But you can also use a boat of coarse..
A flying boat?
-
What would you make of the Flying Nun's headgear?
-
The children, being lighter, will travel farther. The separation is not policy, but merely an unanticipated side effect of the completely standard and humane methods used.
+1
P.S. One of the rare occasions that I agree with Andrew as of lately. Of course, I took the liberty of reading the above in its literal meaning, not sarcastic, as it was intended ;)
-
Finally someone speaking truth to power:
-
Someone stole my idea:
If you have TSA pre-check, do you move to the front of the line?
-
Finally someone speaking truth to power:
Good photography and splendid processing.
-
On immigration:
-
Good photography and splendid processing.
But what has the Jihad to do with anything?
-
On immigration:
What, no Toll Booth? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU)
-
But what has the Jihad to do with anything?
No clue!
I haven't start analyzing the text yet, just looked at the graphics. Would make a good movie poster.
-
... Would make a good movie poster.
It is based on a movie poster. As for jihad, it is obvious.
-
It is based on a movie poster. As for jihad, it is obvious.
Which says more about you than others...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... As for jihad, it is obvious.
Thats for fiction
The reality is opposite; a crusade is going on.
Look at Pompeo, Pence and Trump what they are doing with the Israel- Palestine situation.
The US under Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved their embassy to it.
They also approved the building of settlements in Palestinian territory with even a settlement named after Trump.
also
They 'gave' the Golan hights to israel...
en then Iran...
all religiously based actions...
some facts:
17 of june 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/minefields-and-ruins-israeli-settlement-called-trump-built-on-conquered-land
'Trump Heights': Israeli settlement in Golan named after US president
22 of march 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717
Pompeo says God may have sent Trump to save Israel from Iran
-
Good for Pompeo, Pence and Trump!
-
not good for...
-
... a crusade is going on...
Yes!!! Finally! What took it so long?
-
Congrats to Democrats for being hellbent on sabotaging Trump’s electoral promise of a better relationship with Russia. This is the result:
https://apple.news/AW9Pd40mJRb6u4co_XBxXwQ
“First Russian-Chinese air patrol in Asia-Pacific”
-
...
Look at Pompeo, Pence and Trump what they are doing with the Israel- Palestine situation.
The US under Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved their embassy to it.
They also approved the builing of settlements in Palestinian territory with even a settlement named after Trump.
also
They 'gave' the Golan hights to israel...
en then Iran...
all religiously based actions...
...
Trump didn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The US Congress did in 1995 and called for the relocation of the US embassy by 1999. The Senate voted 93-5 and the House 374-37 to pass the law. Trump finally ordered it moved in 2018.
"The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the post-Republican Revolution 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.
The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. Its purpose was to set aside funds for the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from its location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, by May 31, 1999."
-
US Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
-
On leaving the country:
-
It is the enduring tragedy of leftists that, with a few notable exceptions, the right has proved far better at propaganda.
It turns out that all the reason and intellect in the world won't help you if the other guys can make really punchy posters.
-
It is the enduring tragedy of leftists that, with a few notable exceptions, the right has proved far better at propaganda.
It turns out that all the reason and intellect in the world won't help you if the other guys can make really punchy posters.
It's the way to go; that's why money is so important: buys the best agencies. Buys everything.
;-)
-
... It turns out that all the reason and intellect in the world won't help you if the other guys can make really punchy posters.
When "all that reason and intellect" is capable only of three punchy words ("racist," "sexist," "bigot"), one has to question "all that reason and intellect."
-
When "all that reason and intellect" is capable only of three punchy words ("racist," "sexist," "bigot"), one has to question "all that reason and intellect."
Slobodan, as the man said, it's all they can hire to make their publicity material.
;-)
-
Slobodan is being disingenuous, of course.
The progressive left has written millions of words of material representing many many hours of careful thought and research, and somewhat more hours of less careful thought and research, as he well knows. He may well have heard of Marx's books, of Piketty's book. He may be aware that Elizabeth Warren has a plan for every conceivable thing under the sun, the list goes on and on.
The right, of course, has their own collection of books.
Neither library matters a damn, because what matters is the posters, the catch phrases, the visual moments, and the right has been distinctly, consistently, better at this than the left. Triumph of the Will is a hell of a movie.
Both sides use rental crowds at political rallies, as well as planted provocateurs, question-askers, and protesters. The right does a better job with the signs, the "spontaneous" chants and thrown remarks, and so on. They're simply better at this kind of theater, because they know that it matters more than "Well, I have a plan for whatever the hell your issue is."
This is highly salient to a photography forum, by the way, because the basis of all of this is the visuals. It is all about constructing visuals, and contextualizing them, which is ultimately what photography is about.
-
... may well have heard of Marx's books, of Piketty's book. He may be aware that Elizabeth Warren has a plan for every conceivable thing under the sun...
I am glad you included Marx in the contemporary Left's theoretical underpinnings. Couldn't agree more. Not only I heard of his books, but I studied them and passed college exams, as I stated at some point in the past.
As for Warren's "intellectual" plans, all I can offer is my edit of the Groucho Marx' (this one I like better) quote. Yes, I know, the visuals.
-
Trump didn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The US Congress did in 1995...(The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995)
That fact is true, of coarse, but at that time the president of the US, Bill Clinton and even the prime minister of Israel Rabin was against this Jerusalem Embassy Act.
For 23 years the act was not carried out by presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama for it would make the peace process between the Palestines and Israel even more difficult.
With Trumps decision to go ahead with the act and the other actions I mentioned it gives a clear signal to the Palestines that the US is chosing the side of Nethanyahu.
-
...gives a clear signal to the Palestines that the US is chosing the side of Nethanyahu.
Of course, why wouldn't we? Should we side with the ones dancing on the streets on 9/11?
-
That fact is true, of coarse, but at that time the president of the US, Bill Clinton and even the prime minister of Israel Rabin was against this Jerusalem Embassy Act.
For 23 years the act was not carried out by presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama for it would make the peace process between the Palestines and Israel even more difficult.
With Trumps decision to go ahead with the act and the other actions I mentioned it gives a clear signal to the Palestines that the US is chosing the side of Nethanyahu.
How shameful to unreservedly decimate the immeasurable, almost limitless, progress made by three different presidents over 23 years with peace talks by implementing an act of congress.
I shudder to think that we came so close to ending conflict, but instead chose to throw it all away by recognizing the actual capital of Israel.
Oh well, back to extending my golf shafts by 5/8 inch and putting on new grips.
-
Slobodan is being disingenuous, of course.
The progressive left has written millions of words of material representing many many hours of careful thought and research, and somewhat more hours of less careful thought and research, as he well knows. He may well have heard of Marx's books, of Piketty's book. He may be aware that Elizabeth Warren has a plan for every conceivable thing under the sun, the list goes on and on.
The right, of course, has their own collection of books.
Neither library matters a damn, because what matters is the posters, the catch phrases, the visual moments, and the right has been distinctly, consistently, better at this than the left. Triumph of the Will is a hell of a movie.
Both sides use rental crowds at political rallies, as well as planted provocateurs, question-askers, and protesters. The right does a better job with the signs, the "spontaneous" chants and thrown remarks, and so on. They're simply better at this kind of theater, because they know that it matters more than "Well, I have a plan for whatever the hell your issue is."
This is highly salient to a photography forum, by the way, because the basis of all of this is the visuals. It is all about constructing visuals, and contextualizing them, which is ultimately what photography is about.
The Democrats invented the visual video political ad with this one used against the Republican candidate implying he would start WWIII and destroy the world. They're still accusing Republicans with going to start that war forgetting it was Trump who was against the wars Democrats started like Vietnam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/lbjs-daisy-ad/2014/09/08/717b86c6-3767-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/lbjs-daisy-ad/2014/09/08/717b86c6-3767-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html)
-
That fact is true, of coarse, but at that time the president of the US, Bill Clinton and even the prime minister of Israel Rabin was against this Jerusalem Embassy Act.
For 23 years the act was not carried out by presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama for it would make the peace process between the Palestines and Israel even more difficult.
With Trumps decision to go ahead with the act and the other actions I mentioned it gives a clear signal to the Palestines that the US is chosing the side of Nethanyahu.
Of course, Trump is playing to Jews and pro-Israel Evangelicals in America who vote for him. Well, maybe not so much the first as they mostly voted against him. In any case, what president is the Palestinians waiting for that will make a deal more favorable to their side? It's not going to happen. After all, it's been 70 years. Both sides have to sit down with each other and make a deal between them. Third parties can only provide a table. But they have to hammer out the deal. The longer they wait, the harder to make that deal. Moving the American embassy should remind the Palestinians that they have more to lose the longer they wait. So what's holding them up? Do they expect Israelis to pack their bags and move back to Europe and Russia. What about the native born Israelis? Other Arabs care a lot less now that Iran is a headache. Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined forces (quietly) to counter Iran, a common foe. There are more important fish to fry. Time's moved on.
-
The Democrats invented the visual video political ad with this one used against the Republican candidate implying he would start WWIII and destroy the world. They're still accusing Republicans with going to start that war forgetting it was Trump who was against the wars Democrats started like Vietnam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/lbjs-daisy-ad/2014/09/08/717b86c6-3767-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/lbjs-daisy-ad/2014/09/08/717b86c6-3767-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html)
Whichever way you look at it, you're all effed up exactly the same as the rest of us. Knock it to the left then bounce it to the right, over and over, and nothing much changes.
The Palestinians weren't best delighted to be kicked out of their homes and lands, but the Jews were delighted to look after them for them, so that was all right then, wasn't it? Don't move? Decide to remain? Gotta deal for ya: here's a permanent ticket to second-class!
Your holy city is my holy city, let's link arms and celebrate togetherness. Or dance in the streets. Land borders? Might is right, right? What? You want to play that game too? Shame on you! Put those catapults right back where you found them you rascals! Here's an accurate little explosion, delivered by aircraft courtesy your impartial mediators! Nice? Fair do's don't you think?
You see the mess? Blindness of the sports fan: just pick your team and scream and shout and sing its songs..
-
Whichever way you look at it, you're all effed up exactly the same as the rest of us. Knock it to the left then bounce it to the right, over and over, and nothing much changes.
The Palestinians weren't best delighted to be kicked out of their homes and lands, but the Jews were delighted to look after them for them, so that was all right then, wasn't it? Don't move? Decide to remain? Gotta deal for ya: here's a permanent ticket to second-class!
Your holy city is my holy city, let's link arms and celebrate togetherness. Or dance in the streets. Land borders? Might is right, right? What? You want to play that game too? Shame on you! Put those catapults right back where you found them you rascals! Here's an accurate little explosion, delivered by aircraft courtesy your impartial mediators! Nice? Fair do's don't you think?
You see the mess? Blindness of the sports fan: just pick your team and scream and shout and sing its songs..
Yup. Blame the Americans. It's all our fault. Especially Trump. He caused it all. Considering it was the British who helped split up the Middle East into irrational territories after their colonial period that still causes problems throughout that region, isn't it sanctimonious to play the holy one? Lawrence was British wasn't he? I'm being unfair. The entire European colonial era was shameful and a disaster for the people there. England wasn't the only guilty ones.
-
... You see the mess?..
Wasn't it you Brits who started that mess, not Americans?
-
Of course, Trump is playing to Jews and pro-Israel Evangelicals in America who vote for him. Well, maybe not so much the first as they mostly voted against him. In any case, what president is the Palestinians waiting for that will make a deal more favorable to their side? It's not going to happen. After all, it's been 70 years. Both sides have to sit down with each other and make a deal between them. Third parties can only provide a table. But they have to hammer out the deal. The longer they wait, the harder to make that deal. Moving the American embassy should remind the Palestinians that they have more to lose the longer they wait. So what's holding them up? Do they expect Israelis to pack their bags and move back to Europe and Russia. What about the native born Israelis? Other Arabs care a lot less now that Iran is a headache. Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined forces (quietly) to counter Iran, a common foe. There are more important fish to fry. Time's moved on.
Heysoos, Alam, you have a sense of humour!
So what's holding them up? Are you serious? Negotiate with the squatters who hold the guns and probably the nukes; make a deal to get what back? You gonna give us the houses you built on our internationally-agreed lands?
But yeah, along with humour you have a good idea: send the squatters back to Russia and Europe, but I note that you didn't include those out of the States. Why? Too crowded with migrants already? No desire to have them back? Too radicalised for your tastes today? Tut tut!
You should write tv scripts.
-
Heysoos, Alam, you have a sense of humour!
So what's holding them up? Are you serious? Negotiate with the squatters who hold the guns and probably the nukes; make a deal to get what back? You gonna give us the houses you built on our internationally-agreed lands?
But yeah, along with humour you have a good idea: send the squatters back to Russia and Europe, but I note that you didn't include those out of the States. Why? Too crowded with migrants already? No desire to have them back? Too radicalised for your tastes today? Tut tut!
You should write tv scripts.
Both states were formed when the Brits threw up their hands having ruled that area for decades. Then they turned the issue over to the UN. The two sides immediately started to war with each other. So now the territory has been decided with subsequent changes due to subsequent wars over territory. It's an intractable issue.
What practical suggestion do you have?
-
Yup. Blame the Americans. It's all our fault. Especially Trump. He caused it all. Considering it was the British who helped split up the Middle East into irrational territories after their colonial period that still causes problems throughout that region, isn't it sanctimonious to play the holy one? Lawrence was British wasn't he? I'm being unfair. The entire European colonial era was shameful and a disaster for the people there. England wasn't the only guilty ones.
The entire situation was - and still is - a disgrace. Colonialism was ever a double-sided sword. That's how Europe created America. That's why you have colour problems; that's also how we spread the concept of legal systems and democracy; that's how the biggest sub-continent in the world has the most lengthy and most used rail system; pity it can't seem to afford to keep it in great condition. The same can make its own nukes but allow child labour and prostitution and rape on public transport to run wild; religious nationalism now holds political power; so much for the heritage of democracy, schools and legal processes bestowed by its "conquerors"!
Play the holy one? Moi? Far from it: I just write the messages on the wall for you to read and perhaps see realities from different angles rather than just your local prescribed one. Sanctimonious? I told you you had a sense of humour!
-
Wasn't it you Brits who started that mess, not Americans?
No argument from me; my concern here is with how to fix what got broken.
:-)
-
The entire situation was - and still is - a disgrace. Colonialism was ever a double-sided sword. That's how Europe created America. That's why you have colour problems; that's also how we spread the concept of legal systems and democracy; that's how the biggest sub-continent in the world has the most lengthy and most used rail system; pity it can't seem to afford to keep it in great condition. The same can make its own nukes but allow child labour and prostitution and rape on public transport to run wild; religious nationalism now holds political power; so much for the heritage of democracy, schools and legal processes bestowed by its "conquerors"!
Play the holy one? Moi? Far from it: I just write the messages on the wall for you to read and perhaps see realities from different angles rather than just your local prescribed one. Sanctimonious? I told you you had a sense of humour!
OK. So we all play a part. None of us have clean hands. But what practical solution do you see to the Palestinian-Israeli situation?
-
Both states were formed when the Brits threw up their hands having ruled that area for decades. Then they turned the issue over to the UN. The two sides immediately started to war with each other. So now the territory has been decided with subsequent changes due to subsequent wars over territory. It's an intractable issue.
What practical suggestion do you have?
Practical suggestions? You made a good one yourself. Kick 'em back out and do what your Mr T suggests: repatriate. You see? There's ever a bright side to everyone!
:-)
-
Practical suggestions? You made a good one yourself. Kick 'em back out and do what your Mr T suggests: repatriate. You see? There's ever a bright side to everyone!
:-)
There were native born Israelis there in 1948, about 1/3 the number of Palestinians. Plus, there are mostly native born today. Where would you send those? Even the rest, where would they be sent? Russia? Europe? Who's going to agree to take them. I asked you for a practical solution. I don't think that's the one.
-
OK. So we all play a part. None of us have clean hands. But what practical solution do you see to the Palestinian-Israeli situation?
Apart from the one you suggested, all that's left is a modern version of a pox on both your houses. Or, perhaps Uncle Sam could do with Israel what you suggest he do with NATO and Europe: wash his hands of them. But he can't: the political money would vanish and his daughter probably lose a hubby. Heysoos! His resorts might become empty! No. Way.
:-)
-
There were native born Israelis there in 1948, about 1/3 the number of Palestinians. Plus, there are mostly native born today. Where would you send those? Even the rest, where would they be sent? Russia? Europe? Who's going to agree to take them. I asked you for a practical solution. I don't think that's the one.
There you go, defeated before you begin! It's what Iran is banking on.
-
PS: "Kick 'em out" was tried about 4 times by the Arabs. Each time they lost more territory. This reminds be of the Spratly and other South China Sea islands that the Chinese now occupy although about 5 other countries claim it's theirs. Good luck. I don't see anyone arguing in the UN about it. In any case, what are you doing with the Falklands 8000 miles (13,000km) away from the British Isles? What is American doing with California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Didn't they belong to Mexico?
What's the practical solution to Palestine and Israel?
-
PS: "Kick 'em out" was tried about 4 times by the Arabs. Each time they lost more territory. This reminds be of the Spratly and other South China Sea islands that the Chinese now occupy although about 5 other countries claim it's theirs. Good luck. I don't see anyone arguing in the UN about it. In any case, what are you doing with the Falklands 8000 miles (13,000km) away from the British Isles? What is American doing with California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Didn't they belong to Mexico?
What's the practical solution to Palestine and Israel?
There is no solution that is acceptable to both the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is why there is no agreement, and no impetus to reach one.
-
Of course, Trump is playing to Jews and pro-Israel Evangelicals in America who vote for him. ... Time's moved on.
Time has moved on, but both parties look 2000 years back as a reference point for their actions. (As does Pompeo)
The Palestines look also 70 years back for they lived in a country that other nations gave away to the Yewish people.
The solution must come from both Israel and the Palestines. The playfield however is not very even...
Palestines are killed by 100:1 Isreali
When there was a change for peace the hardliners in Israel found a solution in killing their PM Rabin.
At the moment with Nethanyahu on one side and a weak divided Palestine government on the other side the chance for peace is about ZERO. With the extra support of the US Nethanyahu feels free to do whatever he likes.
-
Time has moved on, but both parties look 2000 years back as a reference point for their actions. (As does Pompeo)
The Palestines look also 70 years back for they lived in a country that other nations gave away to the Yewish people.
The solution must come from both Israel and the Palestines. The playfield however is not very even...
Palestines are killed by 100:1 Isreali
When there was a change for peace the hardliners in Israel found a solution in killing their PM Rabin.
At the moment with Nethanyahu on one side and a weak divided Palestine government on the other side the chance for peace is about ZERO. With the extra support of the US Nethanyahu feels free to do whatever he likes.
Also, the muscle is leagues apart, with or without the US.
It reveals again the futility of the nuke as a useable weapon, especially in the case of Israel: her enemies are too close to home. It can only figure, in this instance, as victory by suicide. I don't think Israel is quite that daft.
-
Ahmmm... another catchy visual about hypocrisy:
-
Congrats to Democrats for being hellbent on sabotaging Trump’s electoral promise of a better relationship with Russia. This is the result:
https://apple.news/AW9Pd40mJRb6u4co_XBxXwQ
“First Russian-Chinese air patrol in Asia-Pacific”
I've been saying this for two years. Now it's happening. It is natural for the US to get into good relations with Russia so they could be a bulwark against China. Unfortunately, as you said, Democrat politics is weakening our country.
-
Another T-shirt sign:
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67317685_10162195821570525_6289024133682429952_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQnBf5rV97FVnFJxM0PD4_jMW6jW3V9bf5Q1WdLeRYalezmTkuN3bnZggbFBWKGZwWk&_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.xx&oh=079d50c5be9f1af57182a742452df8c4&oe=5DA9D215)
-
Another T-shirt sign:
Les, that would be great!
160 million American snowflakes showing up at the Canadian border in Tesla and Prius caravans and demanding asylum, toothbrushes, soaps, multi-bedroom, fully furnished, individual apartments with HVAC, wi-fi, iPads, iPhones, 50-inch flat-screens, gym membership and French (kiss) lessons.
Canada politely obliges.
The remaining true Americans would be truly delighted.
-
No problem. All they have to do is to wear the following T-shirt:
(https://img.shein.com/images/shein.com/201705/40/14952564427450523680_thumbnail_600x799.jpg)
-
Les, that would be great!
160 million American snowflakes showing up at the Canadian border in Tesla and Prius caravans and demanding asylum, toothbrushes, soaps, multi-bedroom, fully furnished, individual apartments with HVAC, wi-fi, iPads, iPhones, 50-inch flat-screens, gym membership and French (kiss) lessons.
Canada politely obliges.
The remaining true Americans would be truly delighted.
Is there a forum contest going on about how many dumb clichés you can cram into one posting?
Would you have kicked out Alan Turing?
That's what I enjoy the most about so-called "right-wing conservatives", they're all for "freedom" but insist on sticking their noses into how other people live as if it was any of their business.
-
... about so-called "right-wing conservatives"...
Hmmm... about them. Would you be so kind to introduce me to a female left-wing conservative, please? We would still have something in common, plus the added advantage of “opposites attract.”
-
...plus the added advantage of “opposites attract.”
We're staying at our in-law's place for the summer as we renovate our home - the mail is fascinating. Today we received HIS junk mail from Rand Paul, and HER junk mail from Amnesty International.
;D
-
For those who claim Republicans/conservatives are racists (he is also a, gasp, Democrat):
-
only racists are racist...
-
only racists are racist...
Indeed, and here's Trump's track-record:
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, I hear that Kamala Harris’ Indian (Asian) mother decided to raise her in the African-American tradition (!?), cleverly forseeing that one day, when her daughter runs for president, such a race card might come handy.
To which Elizabeth Warren responded:
-
Indeed, and here's Trump's track-record...
Bart, when in a hole, stop digging ;)
-
What goes around comes around as liberal Sanders complains about liberal cable station MSNBC. They're biased. How about that?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-war-between-bernie-sanders-and-msnbc-reaches-a-new-peak
-
Bart, when in a hole, stop digging ;)
Hole?
ROTFL, I'm not the one sinking to new lows of Racism and Discrimination.
One can't get much lower than that, but I'm not holding my breath that it won't happen.
After all, after the Mueller Hearing, a new diversion is needed, maybe even a war or a state of emergency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfvYpuPxCcY
Trump probably won't be impeached (because that would give Mike Pence a chance), but he might be indicted when no longer president ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... he might be indicted when no longer president ...
Keep holding your breath. I am amazed by your freediving abilities: holding your breath for two years for the Mueller report, several months for the Mueller hearing, six more years till Trump is not longer president. Oh, my! Herbert Nitsch has nothing on you.
-
On racism (emphasis mine):
In a resurfaced interview from 2018, anti-Trump Democrat Ilhan Omar responded to a question about the "quote-unquote legitimate fears" some people have of "jihadist terrorism," by saying Americans should be "more fearful of white men."
In the interview, Al Jazeera host Medhi Hasan said some Americans feel justified in fearing Islam, not out of hate but for their own safety, before listing a number of radical Islamic terror attacks. Omar dismissed this suggestion immediately and laid the blame on white males instead, calling for the profiling and monitoring of caucasian men.
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," she replied.
"And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe -- Americans safe inside of this country -- we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ilhan-omar-interview-2018-fearful-white-men-islam
-
Hole?
ROTFL, I'm not the one sinking to new lows of Racism and Discrimination.
One can't get much lower than that, but I'm not holding my breath that it won't happen.
After all, after the Mueller Hearing, a new diversion is needed, maybe even a war or a state of emergency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfvYpuPxCcY
Trump probably won't be impeached (because that would give Mike Pence a chance), but he might be indicted when no longer president ...
Cheers,
Bart
“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion,’” Mueller said in his correction.
“That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
You see BArt, Mueller does not declare people innocent. People are assumed innocent in our country. So Mueller cannot exonerated because that implies a person as being guilty beforehand. The point is the OLC rule that prevents sitting president from being indicted precluded further investigation on Mueller's part to even reach a conclusion that Trump did something wrong. He cannot find that a president or any other person for that matter is innocent, just not guilty of committing a crime. Even then, it's only an opinion. A person has to be tried to be found actually guilty. The point is for two year or longer, the Democrats have declared Ztrum guilty of collusion. Mueller said that never happened. Of course, now the Democrats are saying he "cooperated" with the Russians figuring the stupid public will now believe that. The whole thing is politics about the 2020 election. Meanwhile Russia is flying bombers with Chinese bombers testing South Korea defenses. Iran is seizing ships on the high seas. And America is distracted with this nonsense.
-
... Mueller does not declare people innocent. People are assumed innocent in our country. So Mueller cannot exonerated because that implies a person as being guilty beforehand. ....
BBc:
Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.
The Justice department works independently from the political arena. That is the ideal situation and a fundament of the how the country ( and mine) operates.
The problem arises when these areas meet, as in this case.
Trump has tried to fire mr Mueller-( a republican BTW) - That is an attempt to interfere with the justice system.
That is serious. Certainly in the light of the conclusion that Russia interfered with the election to benefit Trump.
Also Trump did not fully cooporate with the investigation of Mueller.
(Mr Mueller said that the special counsel's office repeatedly requested an interview with the president but was refused, eventually securing some written answers from the president.)
-
BBc:
Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.
The Justice department works independently from the political arena. That is the ideal situation and a fundament of the how the country ( and mine) operates.
The problem arises when these areas meet, as in this case.
Trump has tried to fire mr Mueller-( a republican BTW) - That is an attempt to interfere with the justice system.
That is serious. Certainly in the light of the conclusion that Russia interfered with the election to benefit Trump.
Also Trump did not fully cooporate with the investigation of Mueller.
(Mr Mueller said that the special counsel's office repeatedly requested an interview with the president but was refused, eventually securing some written answers from the president.)
The Democrats did not make the case today against the president. Nor did Mueller.
-
The best ever commentary on the Mueller debacle ;D ;D ;D
-
It started soooo promising ;D ;D ;D
-
More on “racism” and hypocrisy:
-
The best ever commentary on the Mueller debacle ;D ;D ;D
Mueller told them how he was going to respond if he was called to testify. He did exactly that, saying nothing, refusing to corroborate what his own report said. The Democrats didn't take him at his word. But the fact is, there was no case. But the main thing that I believe is the Democrats on his team who did all the work, left the obstruction "issue" in there to give ammunition to the Democrats to continue the charges against Trump until the 2020 election. Of course, Mueller's performance weakens any arguments they will present. I suspect many of the Democrat presidential nominees will continue to call for impeachment and the Democrat run House committees will continue their witch hunt of Trump as well. Just what most American don't care about due to other more important issues. Pelosi must be furious.
-
More on “racism” and hypocrisy:
Don't you think that what
' the President of the United States' says
has a different status than any other politician...?
In the Netherlands our PM would not have survived a day
-
Mueller told them how he was going to respond if he was called to testify. He did exactly that, saying nothing, refusing to corroborate what his own report said. The Democrats didn't take him at his word. But the fact is, there was no case. But the main thing that I believe is the Democrats on his team who did all the work, left the obstruction "issue" in there to give ammunition to the Democrats to continue the charges against Trump until the 2020 election. Of course, Mueller's performance weakens any arguments they will present. I suspect many of the Democrat presidential nominees will continue to call for impeachment and the Democrat run House committees will continue their witch hunt of Trump as well. Just what most American don't care about due to other more important issues. Pelosi must be furious.
I think Mr Mueller is trying to safeguard the American Constitution and is not interested in Party politics.
There is some similarity between the politics in the UK and the US; Politicians are too much busy with the game of party politics and forget about the essence; Doing what is right for the future of their country.
-
Don't you think that what
' the President of the United States' says
has a different status than any other politician...?
In the Netherlands our PM would not have survived a day
Presidents are elected for a term of 4 years and can be re-elected for one additional term only. In a parliamentary system, it can end quicker. But in America, only impeachment and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors, or resignation or death ends a president's term. Unfortunately, the Democrats just can't get over the fact Trump won and Hillary lost. So they are trying mightily to use impeachment to get rid of him rather than using an election where the people decide, a better and more acceptable route.
-
I think Mr Mueller is trying to safeguard the American Constitution and is not interested in Party politics.
There is some similarity between the politics in the UK and the US; Politicians are too much busy with the game of party politics and forget about the essence; Doing what is right for the future of their country.
I agree. Mueller didn't want to get drawn into the politics of the situation or effect it other than what the reports says. But that's what he said a few weeks ago if the Congress decided to call him to testify. Democrats didn't take him at his word, called him anyway to testify proving Trump right and being a victim, and now will suffer the consequences of looking stupid as well.
-
Further surprisingly relevant material here.
We're seeing how removing or altering context can alter meaning, as well as how the preconceptions of the viewer likewise alter meaning.
And some people think they can just stick a photo on a wall, by itself!
-
Further surprisingly relevant material here.
We're seeing how removing or altering context can alter meaning, as well as how the preconceptions of the viewer likewise alter meaning.
And some people think they can just stick a photo on a wall, by itself!
You don't need Photoshop to change a photo's meaning. Editors spin a photo's meaning all the time with a phony caption or essay.
-
Don't you think that what
' the President of the United States' says
has a different status than any other politician...?
In the Netherlands our PM would not have survived a day
By this time it is a miracle that people do not get it that Trump is not like any other president, or any other politician, for that matter. Any other politician would pander to the public he speaks to, to the point of adjusting accent to better blend in (like AOC suddenly switching to a ghetto black, when addressing a black crowd, of Hillary's faked southern drawl) or Bill inventing empathizing stories. Trump is a guy who says what he thinks, as if he is sitting at your kitchen table. Many people like that level of honesty. If you ever watched Dr. House (a TV series), you'd know how someone universally described as a major jerk is, at the same time, universally beloved and popular.
As for "sitting at the kitchen table"... A personal experience. My ex-wife is Russian, so we had a lot of Russian friends we would be sitting with around our (or their) kitchen table. There would inevitably be one or two who would start with "America this" or "America that" with a strongly negative connotation. Inevitably, most of us sitting around would respond with: "Heck, Vasya, if it is that bad, why don't you go back?" It is a natural human reaction, nothing racist about it.
-
By this time it is a miracle that people do not get it that Trump is not like any other president, or any other politician, for that matter. Any other politician would pander to the public he speaks to, to the point of adjusting accent to better blend in (like AOC suddenly switching to a ghetto black, when addressing a black crowd, of Hillary's faked southern drawl) or Bill inventing empathizing stories. Trump is a guy who says what he thinks, as if he is sitting at your kitchen table. Many people like that level of honesty. If you ever watched Dr. House (a TV series), you'd know how someone universally described as a major jerk is, at the same time, universally beloved and popular.
As for "sitting at the kitchen table"... A personal experience. My ex-wife is Russian, so we had a lot of Russian friends we would be sitting with around our (or their) kitchen table. There would inevitably be one or two who would start with "America this" or "America that" with a strongly negative connotation. Inevitably, most of us sitting around would respond with: "Heck, Vasya, if it is that bad, why don't you go back?" It is a natural human reaction, nothing racist about it.
A related story, not exactly the same. My grandmother on my mother's side came over from Europe as a child around 1900. She never became a citizen and spoke little English to her dying days. Her husband became a naturalized American citizen. He used to file her alien papers; a requirement at that time. When my grandfather died, my father would file the papers for her as he worked in the US Post Office and had easy access to the forms. Every year, right before the papers would have to be re-filed, my grandmother would telephone every day and start pestering my dad to hurry up and file the papers. "Hurry up," she would yell him in Yiddish, "before they send me back." She was still worried after being here for 75 years. By that time of course, the little town she grew up in in Eastern Poland or Russia, (depends on what century we're talking about), had long disappeared over the course of time. They wouldn't know where to send her in any case. Today, she's buried in New York as is my grandfather, both Americans forever.
-
PS: Slobo. That was a nice story about your family. I can see that conversation very easily.
-
...
-
CNN: Impeachment fizzles
Wow. Never thought I'd hear that from CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/trump-impeachment-house-democrats/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/trump-impeachment-house-democrats/index.html)
-
They should call a referendum: "Do you want to stick with the devil you know or would you prefer Mike Pence?"
-
They should call a referendum: "Do you want to stick with the devil you know or would you prefer Mike Pence?"
It would never come to Pence as it would never pass the Senate. Just like Clinton.
-
Except that we know Clinton actually did the stuff he was accused of.
-
Except that we know Clinton actually did the stuff he was accused of.
Which was?
-
Except that we know Clinton actually did the stuff he was accused of.
But Clinton was an angel compared to the aforementioned devil.
-
Which was?
Golly, Robert, I guess the term "sheltered" would be inadequate to describe your world. I can't go into the Clinton debacle on a family web.
-
Which was?
Lying under oath about extramarital sex; obstruction of justice. He lost his license to practice law as a result. Back then, lying was frowned upon. Now it is an every day occurrence.
-
Russ can't actually remember what Clinton was impeached for, Robert. The GOP was flinging an astonishing array of stuff at him, after all. Like all modern presidents, he was a kind of skeezy guy. You have to be rich to run, and you don't get rich by being a good guy.
As usual, it was not any actual crime, they impeached him for lying and covering other things which may or may not have been crimes.
-
Well, Andrew’s right about one thing: the Republicans threw too much crap into the impeachment move, and they paid a serious price as a result. Both Clintons are more sleazy than the average sleazy president, but in spite of Andrew’s pronouncement, lying under oath is a crime. Bottom line though, grounds for impeachment are described in the Constitution as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which covers an awful lot of ground; probably even blow jobs in the Oval Office.
-
Russ can't actually remember what Clinton was impeached for, Robert. The GOP was flinging an astonishing array of stuff at him, after all. Like all modern presidents, he was a kind of skeezy guy. You have to be rich to run, and you don't get rich by being a good guy.
As usual, it was not any actual crime, they impeached him for lying and covering other things which may or may not have been crimes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Starr Report, which was a bi-partisan investigation, say specifically that Clinton was guilty on 11 different occasions?
Pretty different from the Mueller report, which did not state Trump was guilty of anything.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Starr Report, which was a bi-partisan investigation, say specifically that Clinton was guilty on 11 different occasions?
Pretty different from the Mueller report, which did not state Trump was guilty of anything.
Not exactly. Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment. The majority of them were related to lying under oath. Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath. (I think we all know what would have happened).
Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia): (emphasis mine)
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it? And incidentally, if we're going with the argument that the Starr investigation was bipartisan, we can certainly dispense with the "12 angry democrats are on a witch hunt" nonsense. :)
-
Not exactly. Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment. The majority of them were related to lying under oath. Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath. (I think we all know what would have happened).
James, you don't tell us where you are -- it might be revealing to learn why -- but in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty. We don't convict on innuendo, which is what you're trying to do and what Mueller is trying to do.
Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia): (emphasis mine)
That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it?
Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.
-
Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.
Rabbit hole alert.
-
Not exactly. Like Mueller, Starr listed a variety of allegations with supporting evidence that were referred for the possibility of impeachment. The majority of them were related to lying under oath. Trump, of course, refused to testify under oath. (I think we all know what would have happened).
Muller listed a number of incidents that could meet a three-part test for obstruction, and there's an interesting parallel in the 11th assertion that Starr made, specifically regarding what constitutes actionable obstruction (from Wikipedia): (emphasis mine)
That sounds awfully similar to Trump's actions, doesn't it? And incidentally, if we're going with the argument that the Starr investigation was bipartisan, we can certainly dispense with the "12 angry democrats are on a witch hunt" nonsense. :)
Thanks for the info, although I am not sure I agree with your last statement.
Starr had both Dems and Reps on his team.
Mueller only hired Dems, many of whom worked with the Clintons. Now, one could argue that since Mueller was a Republican and had high integrity, that he kept his investigation fair and honest, up until this past Wednesday that is. Wednesday's hearing showed that Mueller was merely a figure head of his own investigation and that it was actually overseen (regardless of why) by his subordinates, all of who were Dems. This was further verified by the piece in the NY Times yesterday that showed Mueller took a back seat in the investigation.
What I find most annoying is that for two years we were told that Mueller, a highly respected official with much integrity, would oversee this investigation, keeping it on track, to find out now that not only was this not true but that most likely a few reporters knew of this all along and did not report it.
And the Press wonders why people are loosing their trust in them.
-
Thanks for the info, although I am not sure I agree with your last statement.
Starr had both Dems and Reps on his team.
Mueller only hired Dems, many of whom worked with the Clintons.
That's not correct. Politifact breaks it down. (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/21/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/). About 2/3 of the investigators were registered democrats, but does that matter? Are we to assume that it's impossible for them to be impartial? If so, what basis do we have for believing *Barr* or any other Republican to be impartial?
Now, one could argue that since Mueller was a Republican and had high integrity, that he kept his investigation fair and honest, up until this past Wednesday that is. Wednesday's hearing showed that Mueller was merely a figure head of his own investigation and that it was actually overseen (regardless of why) by his subordinates, all of who were Dems. This was further verified by the piece in the NY Times yesterday that showed Mueller took a back seat in the investigation.
All were NOT Dems - see above. Hell, Trump, himself donated a bunch of money to Clinton in the past - more than all but one (I think) of the investigative team. I'll go read the NYT article though - I missed that - thanks for the heads up!
What I find most annoying is that for two years we were told that Mueller, a highly respected official with much integrity, would oversee this investigation, keeping it on track, to find out now that not only was this not true but that most likely a few reporters knew of this all along and did not report it.
And the Press wonders why people are loosing their trust in them.
You're assuming a lot here with regard to the press. One theme that was consistent was a distinct relative lack of leaks and very very few accurate leaks. I doubt there was a large group of reporters who actually knew this all along.
-
James, you don't tell us where you are -- it might be revealing to learn why...
Huh?
-- but in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty. We don't convict on innuendo, which is what you're trying to do and what Mueller is trying to do.
Please specify which actions you think are equivalent to Clinton's, and tell us why you think they're equivalent.
I can't even tell if you're serious - it's all in bold for easy reading in my previous post. Ken Starr, not me, asserted that Clinton obstructed justice and abused authority by, among other things:
1) Lying to the public
2) Refusing to testify
3) Invoking Executive Privilege
There's no innuendo needed. All three of those actions are obviously and clearly in evidence in Trump's actions. *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.
-
... *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.
James, I agree with your first sentence. As for the comparison, I'd simplify it: it was a witch hunt then, as it was recently.
-
Huh?
I can't even tell if you're serious - it's all in bold for easy reading in my previous post. Ken Starr, not me, asserted that Clinton obstructed justice and abused authority by, among other things:
1) Lying to the public
2) Refusing to testify
3) Invoking Executive Privilege
There's no innuendo needed. All three of those actions are obviously and clearly in evidence in Trump's actions. *I* don't happen to think that, generally, those are impeachable or criminal offenses, but if they were "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" In 1998, I'd imagine they still are today.
So, you're trying to tell me these three "crimes" were the basis of Clinton's impeachment? You need to go back and review the evidence. Since you're not telling us your age, I'll have to assume everything you know about Clinton's impeachment comes from the "news" media. Of course, the news media certainly wouldn't tell a falsehood. Would they? I was there. I watched the vote on Clinton's impeachment. I also remember pretty precise descriptions of what went on in the Oval Office.
-
I never thought Clinton should have been impeached as it related to hiding a sexual affair. You expect people to lie about things like that. Congress should not have been involved. However, he stupidly testified and did lie to a grand jury and for that his license to practice law was revoked. Trump on the other hand never lied under oath. Refusing to testify is not a crime. The 5th Amendment allows us not to testify against ourselves. However, he did testify in the end and provided sworn statements regarding the collusion portion, the main thrust of the whole investigation for which there was no evidence of conspiracy. Invoking executive privilege is not a crime. Presidents do it all the time.
Regarding so called obstruction, they never had the evidence to prove that, so said Mueller, regardless of the OLR rules about not indicting a sitting president. The president or anyone else doesn;t have to prove themselves innocent. The government has to prove someone committed a crime. They never had the proof. In any case, what does anyone expect the president to do when he's accused of treason, of conspiring to work with a foreign power, for which the death penalty is allowed? Of course Trump fought back. They were phony charges. He never did it so said Mueller. What would you do of you were falsely accused of being a traitor? Lie on the floor and allow people to stump you to death? He had a right to defend himself. He never did anything wrong in the first place.
Bottom line is the Democrats did not prove their claims. Nor did Mueller.
-
The CNN one is brilliant!
-
So, you're trying to tell me these three "crimes" were the basis of Clinton's impeachment?
No, I'm telling you that Ken Starr laid out 11 potential impeachable offenses. Some version of lying under oath comprised the majority of these things, and the others dealt with the issues I outlined regarding what Starr called abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Starr did NOT assert (at least in his report) that Clintons person, private behavior, however reprehensible though it might have been, was cause for impeachment.
You need to go back and review the evidence.
You're projecting.
Since you're not telling us your age, I'll have to assume everything you know about Clinton's impeachment comes from the "news" media.
You need to get off this kick. It's insulting and condescending. Nobody here questions your competence or knowledge on the basis of advanced age, and there's no logic in assuming that someone who disagrees with you is uneducated or ignorant. In short, knock it off.
-
I never thought Clinton should have been impeached as it related to hiding a sexual affair. You expect people to lie about things like that. Congress should not have been involved. However, he stupidly testified and did lie to a grand jury and for that his license to practice law was revoked. Trump on the other hand never lied under oath. Refusing to testify is not a crime. The 5th Amendment allows us not to testify against ourselves. However, he did testify in the end and provided sworn statements regarding the collusion portion, the main thrust of the whole investigation for which there was no evidence of conspiracy. Invoking executive privilege is not a crime. Presidents do it all the time.
I agree, generally. That said, "Executive Privilege" isn't a "get out of jail free" card (no pun or point intended by use of that phrase), and as I mentioned earlier, Ken Starr asserted that claiming executive privilege was tantamount to obstructing justice or abuse of power, at least in some cases. There's a real, and larger question here about whether the President is above the law. Barr argues, essentially, that "if the President does it, it's not illegal." I have a problem with that, though I acknowledge the inherent problems, political and practical, of bringing a prosecution against a sitting president. I doubt there's an easy answer.
Regarding so called obstruction, they never had the evidence to prove that, so said Mueller, regardless of the OLR rules about not indicting a sitting president.
But remember that Mueller's job wasn't to prosecute Donald Trump, nor was it to prosecute or prove obstruction. Mueller's charge was to investigate Russian tampering, and in that process he laid out 10 instances where there was evidence of obstruction. The guidelines say you cannot indict the President, so, literally, no one who COULD prove obstruction with the evodebce provided is allowed to do so. So yes, no one "proved" Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, but that is *possibly* because no one is permitted to make that case.
-
...So yes, no one "proved" Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, but that is *possibly* because no one is permitted to make that case.
No (though I appreciate the "possibly" part).
No one prohibited Mueller from proving providing sufficient evidence of the obstruction and making the case. He just couldn't formally indict, but he could have said to the Congress "I proved it provided sufficient evidence, you impeach."
-
More of the PC nonsense:
Officials at Colorado State University are urging students to avoid terms it labels offensive, like “America” and “American.” According to Colorado State University’s “Inclusive Language Guide,” students are advised to avoid the words “America” and “American.” Why exactly has the university deemed these words offensive? The guide argues that these words erase “other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.” The guide, which was highlighted this week by Campus Reform, asks students to replace “America” and “American” with “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” The guide contains a number of bizarre conclusions about language. For example, it advises students against using the label “straight” as a synonym for heterosexual because it allegedly implies that those who are not straight are instead “not normal” or “crooked.” Despite the attempt to manipulate the language chosen by students, the university ironically claims in their “Inclusive Language Guide” that their aim is not to embolden political correctness.
What is next? Changing the official name from the U.S.A. to just the U.S. ? ? ? Have the morons not noticed that the official name is the United States of America!?
-
I can't imagine a Mexican wanting to be called an American instead of a Mexican.
-
I can't imagine a Mexican wanting to be called an American instead of a Mexican.
?
-
No (though I appreciate the "possibly" part).
No one prohibited Mueller from proving providing sufficient evidence of the obstruction and making the case. He just couldn't formally indict, but he could have said to the Congress "I proved it provided sufficient evidence, you impeach."
But isn't that basically what he did? He clearly and distinctly laid out multiple instances that meet all three statutory requirements for obstruction of justice. (https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map), and he specifically framed them as such. He couldn't indict, and it wasn't within his range of options (as I understand it) to make any specific recommendation to Congress.
Take Trump out of it - assume any given president is subject to an investigation in which the investigator is legally prohibited from bringing an indictment, and doesn't have standing to refer the alleged crime to the body which CAN bring the matter to trial. What is the investigator supposed to do in that case aside from lay out specific evidence that meets the threshold in a manner that says exactly that? Are we then back to, "If the President does it, it's not illegal?"
-
But isn't that basically what he did? He clearly and distinctly...
If that is so "clear and distinct," then it would be no problem to impeach him, no? Even if ultimately rejected by the Senate, Dems would have a moral upper hand in clearly proving the crimes, which would come handy at election time. The problem, of course, is that not everything that a prosecutor alleges can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court (or Senate). And both you and I agreed that none of those instances represent impeachable offenses (of course, you and I are not lawyers and our opinion doesn't matter at all, but still...)
-
If that is so "clear and distinct," then it would be no problem to impeach him, no? Even if ultimately rejected by the Senate, Dems would have a moral upper hand in clearly proving the crimes, which would come handy at election time. The problem, of course, is that not everything that a prosecutor alleges can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court (or Senate). And both you and I agreed that none of those instances represent impeachable offenses (of course, you and I are not lawyers and our opinion doesn't matter at all, but still...)
We agree that things like asserting executive privilege, lying to the press, and refusing to testify are not criminal, yes. But I'm referring here specifically to instances where Mueller asserts that Trump's actions *did* meet the statutory threshold for obstruction of justice, but he (Mueller) had no actual recourse beyond documenting those actions.
Should that give the Democrats a moral upper hand? Hard to say - some people simply aren't aware of the specificity with which Mueller laid out these alleged violations. Some people will simply believe that Mueller is making them up, and others would hear of them in an impeachment and think that Democrats were making them up. Still others would hear about them, acknowledge them, and still not favor impeachment because they don't really care if Trump breaks the law as long as he's making liberals and/or Democrats angry, or because they truly feel that Trump is doing great things for the country, and a statutory crime is just not serious enough to warrant disturbing that success.
Point being, let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that it's a simple as "If Trump broke the law, he'd be held accountable. Therefore because he's not being held accountable, he must not have broken the law."
-
You need to get off this kick. It's insulting and condescending. Nobody here questions your competence or knowledge on the basis of advanced age, and there's no logic in assuming that someone who disagrees with you is uneducated or ignorant. In short, knock it off.
No way, Jose. If somebody is going to pontificate on a web site the way you do, I expect him to identify at least his location and age. Preferably what he does for a living as well. If he doesn't do that, I have to assume he has something to hide.
-
No way, Jose. If somebody is going to pontificate on a web site the way you do, I expect him to identify at least his location and age. Preferably what he does for a living as well. If he doesn't do that, I have to assume he has something to hide.
That's weird.
-
Yes it is. If you're gonna pontificate you need to come clean or you can expect doubts based on your sneaky profile.
-
Russ, if anyone would be unjustifiably accused of “sneaky” profile, that would be James. He posts under his real name and in his other, photography-related posts, it is pretty clear he is not a kid. I happen to know where he lives, but it is not mine to disclose. Would you take my word that he is a fine, reasonable, and mature individual with whom we just have an intellectual difference of opinion? I would be grateful if you would.
-
We agree that things like asserting executive privilege, lying to the press, and refusing to testify are not criminal, yes. But I'm referring here specifically to instances where Mueller asserts that Trump's actions *did* meet the statutory threshold for obstruction of justice, but he (Mueller) had no actual recourse beyond documenting those actions.
Should that give the Democrats a moral upper hand? Hard to say - some people simply aren't aware of the specificity with which Mueller laid out these alleged violations. Some people will simply believe that Mueller is making them up, and others would hear of them in an impeachment and think that Democrats were making them up. Still others would hear about them, acknowledge them, and still not favor impeachment because they don't really care if Trump breaks the law as long as he's making liberals and/or Democrats angry, or because they truly feel that Trump is doing great things for the country, and a statutory crime is just not serious enough to warrant disturbing that success.
Point being, let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that it's a simple as "If Trump broke the law, he'd be held accountable. Therefore because he's not being held accountable, he must not have broken the law."
Trump was set up by Democrats, Hillary and the Obama administration, with the false charges of treasonously conspiring with Russia. So now the very Democrats who failed at proving this, in fact it was disproved by Mueller, now want to hang him on the charge of obstruction because Trump defended himself against these false charges. He should have just rolled-over and bit the bullet.
Leaving aside whether there was obstruction or not, the unfairness of the whole episode of the original accusation is criminal and political, not Trump's defense of himself. For two years, democrats have been calling Trump a traitor. A fair-minded and reasonable person who is not on one side or the other would see it in this light. Now add to it the fact that there have been no charges of obstruction, nor has it been proved. Well, I just wonder what the independents think about the whole affair?
If the Senate, the DOJ, the Inspector General, and others start an open investigation of what started this whole thing, and it points to Democrat chicanery, it will be in the news all the time at just the right time before the presidential election. The chicken will come home to roost against the Democrats. Then the whole game will be up and Trump will be re-elected on sympathy. Independents won;t appreciate learning that a palace coup against Trump was started by the Democrats before he even took office in 2017.
-
Russ, if anyone would be unjustifiably accused of “sneaky” profile, that would be James. He posts under his real name and in his other, photography-related posts, it is pretty clear he is not a kid. I happen to know where he lives, but it is not mine to disclose. Would you take my word that he is a fine, reasonable, and mature individual with whom we just have an intellectual difference of opinion? I would be grateful if you would.
I appreciate that - thank you.
To be crystal clear, I actually post under my married name (yes, I'm male, yes, it's changed, yes there are some slightly odd family circumstances that make it sensible - none of which involve hiding or deception - it's more of a courtesy - and none of which would have any bearing on anything I post here), and no, I don't have any fear of disclosing location (Texas) , age (47), career (entrepreneurial/advertising/marketing) etc. - in fact I've done so in other posts where it's relevant, and if people pay attention, it's pretty easy to draw context clues about my general background.
The thing is, you see those things, and they don't really tell you much, which is why I find the drawing of conclusions based on them to be suspect. Now we know I live in Texas, but you don't know how long I've been here, or where else I've lived. You know my age, but you don't know how many years I've lived in any given place, when or where I got my education, or how much time I've spent in any given phase of my career. You know that my "profession" is entrepreneurial and that I'm on the marketing side, but you don't know if I'm creative or account services, you don't know if I start oil companies or solar companies (neither), or that I've also spent time as a professional high-performance driving instructor (that part's true).
Point being, now that someone knows I'm a 47 year-old guy in Texas, what does that really get you? Certainly not enough to judge the context of my posts. That takes a longer period of time to understand. ;)
-
I give my name and where I live. I appreciate when others do the same as some important criteria is released. We get into discussions where nationality and where you live helps define a person's post. Issues about shipping products become apparent as do issues on currency. Male or female, age, etc all help. There's also the matter that in a way we are friends, despite the often tough positions we may take against each other. Writing a post to an avatar with no name, not knowing where that avatar lives, etc. is just weird to me. I'd like to look you in the eye so to speak and know who you are. It's also easier to be nasty to an avatar, not so much to a real person with a picture and everything. (Yeah, add your picture. Why not?)
-
I give my name and where I live. I appreciate when others do the same as some important criteria is released. We get into discussions where nationality and where you live helps define a person's post. Issues about shipping products become apparent as do issues on currency. Male or female, age, etc all help. There's also the matter that in a way we are friends, despite the often tough positions we may take against each other. Writing a post to an avatar with no name, not knowing where that avatar lives, etc. is just weird to me. I'd like to look you in the eye so to speak and know who you are. It's also easier to be nasty to an avatar, not so much to a real person with a picture and everything. (Yeah, add your picture. Why not?)
Sure, and I appreciate what you're saying. But what I really know about you and what it means - your beliefs, your history, your experience working the NYC building environment for example - comes from reading and paying attention to what you say over time. Knowing that you're Alan Klein in New Jersey? That's sort of meaningless, and for me to assert that just because I can't see your age and location at a glance in your profile, despite having other ongoing conversations with you on a wide range of topics, means that you are not to be trusted or are hiding something is sort of offensive, not to mention unconvincing as a means of debate :)
-
Sure, and I appreciate what you're saying. But what I really know about you and what it means - your beliefs, your history, your experience working the NYC building environment for example - comes from reading and paying attention to what you say over time. Knowing that you're Alan Klein in New Jersey? That's sort of meaningless, and for me to assert that just because I can't see your age and location at a glance in your profile, despite having other ongoing conversations with you on a wide range of topics, means that you are not to be trusted or are hiding something is sort of offensive, not to mention unconvincing as a means of debate :)
I didn't mean to leave the impression that I find the person dishonest if they provide little info about themselves. That was not the intent of my post. I was just trying to get across that it makes conversing more personable. It also helps to some degree in understanding where people are coming from in interpreting their posts. For example, if someone starts talking about Brexit, wouldn't it be helpful knowing if they're from Great Britain or Europe or from America? It helps understand their point of view and make sense of it.
-
I didn't mean to leave the impression that I find the person dishonest if they provide little info about themselves. That was not the intent of my post. I was just trying to get across that it makes conversing more personable. It also helps to some degree in understanding where people are coming from in interpreting their posts. For example, if someone starts talking about Brexit, wouldn't it be helpful knowing if they're from Great Britain or Europe or from America? It helps understand their point of view and make sense of it.
Yeah, we're on the same page :). I'm really speaking more to the idea that if someone doesn't list those things on their profile that they're somehow being disingenuous. Using your Brexit example, I know Rob is a British expat, so I understand that he has a vested interest in Brexit. I've never looked at his profile, but I know it simply through talking to him. That's all :) Didn't mean to sidetrack this way - the original issue was that I have no objection to having my opinions questioned - I welcome it. I take a dimmer view of my opinions being disregarded on the basis of a technicality ;)
-
Yeah, we're on the same page :) . I really speaking more to the idea that if someone doesn't list those things on their profile that they're somehow bing disingenuous. Using your Brexit example, I know Rob is a British Expat, so I understand that he has a vested interest in Brexit. I've never looked at his profile, but I know it simply through talking to him. That's all :) Didn't;t mean to sidetrack this way - the original issue was that I have no objection to having my opinions questioned - I welcome it. I take a dimmer view of my opinions being disregarded on the basis of a technicality ;)
I'm glad we agree. One other thing about learning about people. Often I forget backgrounds. Maybe it's age. :) So seeing a portrait, a real name, and a place where they live makes it easier for me to associate that person with what I remember about other facts of who he or she is. While I'm at it, another hope of mine is to encourage people to add some of their pictures. This is a photo web site after all. It helps when discussing styles we like, practices we do, etc. For example, if someone suggests I try a special HDR program that he uses, it would be helpful for me to see some of his examples. He may be the best in his field. But maybe I don;t like the style he creates. So by seeing some samples, I wouldn't waste time trying his suggestion. Not because his pictures are bad but rather they're not what I'm trying to do. Without those pictures, I wouldn't necessarily spend time trying his suggestion. Life is too short to try everyone's suggestions without seeing examples first. So pictures are helpful also in defining a photographer's post. It gives meaning to his photo comments.
Not sure if this is a Republican or Democrat thing. :)
-
Racist:
-
Not everyone is comfortable with allowing random people on the internet to call SWAT to their house and so, in fora where people might get hot under the collar, hide a few details of their identity.
This is normal, and reasonable.
Demanding someone's personal identifying information, on the other hand, is both weird and a large red flag. Are you planning to SWAT me? Or do you merely wish to enable others to?
(My life is an open book - if you cannot locate my home address in five minutes, you're just bad at Google, but I am more bold, or foolish, than many)
-
Russ, if anyone would be unjustifiably accused of “sneaky” profile, that would be James. He posts under his real name and in his other, photography-related posts, it is pretty clear he is not a kid. I happen to know where he lives, but it is not mine to disclose. Would you take my word that he is a fine, reasonable, and mature individual with whom we just have an intellectual difference of opinion? I would be grateful if you would.
Fair enough, Slobodan. As long as you vouch for him, James is okay.
-
Not everyone is comfortable with allowing random people on the internet to call SWAT to their house and so, in fora where people might get hot under the collar, hide a few details of their identity.
This is normal, and reasonable.
Demanding someone's personal identifying information, on the other hand, is both weird and a large red flag. Are you planning to SWAT me? Or do you merely wish to enable others to?
(My life is an open book - if you cannot locate my home address in five minutes, you're just bad at Google, but I am more bold, or foolish, than many)
I'm not asking for such private information. How about a first name and a last initial instead of "photobug" or "HOTSHOT" . I don;t need your address. How about West Coast or The South or France. I promise not to send SWAT after you unless you give me a hard time. :)
-
Time to move on from Mueller. What will the Democratic nominees debate on? Impeachment? Obstruction? I think they'll still talk about Russians.
Meanwhile, the President keeps moving on doing stuff.
Trump wins on building the wall
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html
Trump wins on blocking illegals from Guatemala.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/trump-reaches-landmark-immigration-deal-with-guatemala/
-
Oh, I forgot.
Trump targets China in call for WTO to reform 'developing' country status
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-wto/trump-targets-china-in-call-for-wto-to-reform-developing-country-status-idUSKCN1UL2G6
-
A shocking collusion:
-
Racist:
Mesogynist!
-
Here we go again with Democrats using the race card. Why can't you say a person is doing a lousy job without being called a racist, misogynist, etc?
"Trump’s ‘rat-infested’ attack on lawmaker was racist, says Pelosi"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49141521 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49141521)
-
Here we go again with Democrats using the race card. Why can't you say a person is doing a lousy job without being called a racist, misogynist, etc?
Maybe it is the Presidents kind words and warm tweets ? :o
BTW speaking of Warm Letters... Mr Trumps friend in North Korea is shooting rockets again...
If Iran did that we would have a war by now... NKorea has a long history of violating agreements... unlike Iran...
I hope that there will be some favourable outcome of the meeting today In Vienna. China, Europe, Russia ...
-
Maybe it is the Presidents kind words and warm tweets ? :o
BTW speaking of Warm Letters... Mr Trumps friend in North Korea is shooting rockets again...
If Iran did that we would have a war by now... NKorea has a long history of violating agreements... unlike Iran...
I hope that there will be some favourable outcome of the meeting today In Vienna. China, Europe, Russia ...
The race card predates Trump. It's a way of exploiting an advantage by splitting off votes for elections and getting legislation approved as people roll over to not appear being racist. It's a way of shutting other people up from discussing issues you don't want them talking about. The left, Democrats, and liberals have been using it continuously for decades to gain an advantage even if race is not part of the question. Frankly, it splits the races up and creates tension that were not there before.
It would be like a Dutchman in your country being called a racist if he complained about high crime in Arab immigrant neighborhoods.
-
Here we go again with Democrats using the race card. Why can't you say a person is doing a lousy job without being called a racist, misogynist, etc?
"Trump’s ‘rat-infested’ attack on lawmaker was racist, says Pelosi"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49141521 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49141521)
“Bernie Sanders blasted Baltimore as ‘Third World country’ and ‘disgrace’ in past comments”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-blasted-baltimore-as-third-world-country-and-disgrace-in-past-comments
-
“Racism”... i.e., just more Democrats’ hypocrisy:
-
The race card predates Trump. It's a way of exploiting an advantage by splitting off votes for elections and getting legislation approved as people roll over to not appear being racist. It's a way of shutting other people up from discussing issues you don't want them talking about. The left, Democrats, and liberals have been using it continuously for decades to gain an advantage even if race is not part of the question. Frankly, it splits the races up and creates tension that were not there before.
It would be like a Dutchman in your country being called a racist if he complained about high crime in Arab immigrant neighborhoods.
"Creates tensions that were not there before."
You mean, killing or giving blacks a bum deal is something new, and in the good old days they all resided happily beside us in our little houses with white picket fences and flower borders?
So Whites Only notices must have been fiction: left-over props from movies about radical, tree-hugging, nature-nurturing, fun-loving good old boys with ropes, and gun-racks on their veehickles, cotton plantations staffed by happy, unionised workers in crisp, white protective clothing, singing happy songs celebrating idyllic plantation life!
I must have been reading the wrong reports. Guess we all have our firey crosses to bear.
:-)
-
"Creates tensions that were not there before."
You mean, killing or giving blacks a bum deal is something new, and in the good old days they all resided happily beside us in our little houses with white picket fences and flower borders?
So Whites Only notices must have been fiction: left-over props from movies about radical, tree-hugging, nature-nurturing, fun-loving good old boys with ropes, and gun-racks on their veehickles, cotton plantations staffed by happy, unionised workers in crisp, white protective clothing, singing happy songs celebrating idyllic plantation life!
I must have been reading the wrong reports. Guess we all have our firey crosses to bear.
:-)
The Civil War ended in 1865. There are laws against discrimination based on color creed gender etc. You're bringing up stuff that no longer exists except for the few leftovers on both sides of the issue. Most of America has moved on. White people elected a black president twice. There are black Governors, Congressmen and COngresswomen, Senators, and state legislators of color. I thought when Obama was elected, it would be the final nail in the race issue coffin. Even though I didn't vote for him, I was excited that he won But frankly, Obama and the Democrats continued to use the race card. It's worked for them before so they want to keep using it. That's created tension, new tensions, that could be avoided. So now, you have a counter reaction which is making the situation worse. Most white people are not racists yet Democrats call them racist. It's insulting. The democrats use the race card instinctively, a knee-jerk reaction whenever a white person says anything bad about a person of color or their activities. It's part of the quill of political arrows they use on opponents. It keep us divided.
-
... You're bringing up stuff that no longer exists except for the few leftovers on both sides of the issue. ...
I fear your explanation is wishful thinking, there are far more than just a few. Laws alone don't change people's minds. It takes generations, sadly, too many.
-
I fear your explanation is wishful thinking, there are far more than just a few. Laws alone don't change people's minds. It takes generations, sadly, too many.
Calling a person a racist to make political points even though they're not a racist is wrong. Calling a person a racist to shut down their speech even though their words are not racist is wrong too. When everything becomes a racist slur, then nothing will be a racist slur. All that happens is that innocent people get antagonized being called racist when they're not. Then, like the dog who cried wolf, nobody will care any longer even when there is actual racism.
-
Calling a person a racist to make political points even though they're not a racist is wrong.
I agree with your first sentence. But I fear the current President loves to provoke, spread hatred, is constantly testing the (political) system and is by no means an individual "without a racist bone in his body". His speech and actions are most revealing. I find the silence from a majority of the GOP deafening.
-
I agree with your first sentence. But I fear the current President loves to provoke, spread hatred, is constantly testing the (political) system and is by no means an individual "without a racist bone in his body". His speech and actions are most revealing. I find the silence from a majority of the GOP deafening.
Why is it OK for Congressmen to call the President of the US a traitor for conspiring with the Russians, all which was disproved by Mueller? I haven't heard any apologies for their contemptible and erroneous charges that went on for over two years. In fact, they still call for impeachment and denigrate TRump for keeping filthy "prisons" on our southern border locking up mothers and children. Yet, you get upset when the president defends himself against these raw and unfounded charges by reminding these congressmen that they ought to clean up their own districts. It appears they can dish it out but can't take it.
Of course, none of this has to do with race. It just so happens, Cummings is black but Trump has fought back with similar complaints about white Democrats. This is all about the 2020 elections and the race card. Democrats immediately say its racism to paint their enemies as racists. It's also easier to claim racism then address the original complaint that Baltimore is a basket case and its representatives should clean it up before accusing others of malfeasance. Just because the recipient of complaint is black, doesn't make the accuser a racist. Bernie Sanders, a Democrat, once called Baltimore "a third world country". Is he a racist?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/28/bernie-sanders-baltimore-third-world-country/ (https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/28/bernie-sanders-baltimore-third-world-country/)
-
I fear your explanation is wishful thinking, there are far more than just a few...
There is no racism in America, if defined by deeds. The rest is freedom of speech and freedom of mind. But of course, if Democrats let that one go, they are running out of its major victimhood to peddle. It only leaves them with freaks to represent, which is about 2% of the population, not good enough to gain 51% of votes.
-
There is no racism in America, if defined by deeds. The rest is freedom of speech and freedom of mind.
Are you serious?
-
Are you serious?
+1
-
Are you serious?
Absolutely.
If you are a loony left (a.k.a. Democrat), everything is racism. Which means nothing is.
-
Pretending that the fringe left IS the left is as silly as pretending that the fringe right IS the right. Hilariously, the left is accused simultaneously of being too radical and too centrist.
There's plenty of actual racism in the USA, albeit less and generally (though not universally) of a milder character than in years past.
The center has lots of people in it, they just don't shout about it. You wouldn't know it from the internet, though, you gotta actually go hang out with real people.
-
... the left is accused ... too centrist...
Wait, what!? Too centrist!? Now you must be kidding.
-
Yes, large swathes of the left-establishment sit either center or slightly to the right of average American opinion on several important issues, facts well known outside the fringe-right echo chamber.
They are rightly criticized for excess centrism on those issues. After all, the left is supposed to be, you know, left.
For obvious reasons, the fringe-left echo chamber is all too aware of this.
I have decided recently that I should not spend much time critiquing the fringes. They serve a necessary function, bracketing the discourse we that we actually need on both sides, maintaining the overton window.
What disappoints me is that the discourse we need is all too frequently drowned out by the howling fringes. But howl they must.
-
The problem is that the media has taken up sides because it affects their ratings. So their discourse supports positions rather than news. That influences what everyone hears. So rather than discussing real issues in a reasonable way, all we hear are fringe ideas. Most people reject fringes at both ends. They would like to hear debates on both sides of issues rather than the cherry picking that goes on that's got nothing to do with truth or reasonableness.
-
Yes, large swathes of the left-establishment sit either center or slightly to the right of average American opinion on several important issues...
All* 20+ presidential candidates are for open borders and health care for illegals. Is that the center or to the right of the American public? So, who’s left to represent the “large swathes of the left-establishment”? Who are they?
* Well, maybe Biden isn’t... yet. There is still plenty of time for him to apologize for not falling in line with the real leaders of the party (The Squad, in case you wonder).
-
When a politician says “let me be very clear” ;D (emphasis mine):
I'm not in favor of decriminalizing or not having consequence for, let me be very clear, we have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying that we're not going to treat people who are undocumented cross the border as criminals, that is correct, that is correct,"
- Kamala Harris
-
As someone once said: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The Dems haven't gotten the message. Keep digging Kamala and AOC.
-
When a politician says “let me be very clear” ;D (emphasis mine):
Quote
"I'm not in favor of decriminalizing or not having consequence for, let me be very clear, we have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying that we're not going to treat people who are undocumented cross the border as criminals, that is correct, that is correct,"- Kamala Harris
Typical for most politicians, they split the baby to satisfy everyone. Harris is not for decriminalizing the border but the illegals will not be treated as criminals. Can't they ever take a stand? It would be so refreshing.
-
Trump Lashes Out at Al Sharpton, Saying He ‘Hates Whites’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/us/politics/trump-al-sharpton.html#commentsContainer
It's getting personal. Trump's helped Sharpton over the years. So now Sharpton attacks the president for personal gain and Trump does what he always does - he attacks disloyal people who attack him. Why shouldn't he? Trump is not the kind of man that rolls over when someone punches him. He punches back. Just what we need in the Chief Executive of the United States. Let our adversaries know they can't get away with abusing or taking advantage of us.
-
Here is an opinion column from Macleans magazine comparing Reagan's vision to Trump's vision, https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/ (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/).
There are several ideas expressed in it and it's not long, so it would pointless for me to try to summarize it. If I summarize someone else's opinion, then it's no longer their opinion. If this isn't good enough for you Alan, that's ok, you don't have to read it. :)
-
Here is an opinion column from Macleans magazine comparing Reagan's vision to Trump's vision, https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/ (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/).
There are several ideas expressed in it and it's not long, so it would pointless for me to try to summarize it. If I summarize someone else's opinion, then it's no longer their opinion. If this isn't good enough for you Alan, that's ok, you don't have to read it. :)
That's an excellent article, Robert! Thanks for the link.
-
Here is an opinion column from Macleans magazine comparing Reagan's vision to Trump's vision, https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/ (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/losing-the-leadership-of-the-free-world/).
There are several ideas expressed in it and it's not long, so it would pointless for me to try to summarize it. If I summarize someone else's opinion, then it's no longer their opinion. If this isn't good enough for you Alan, that's ok, you don't have to read it. :)
I read it Let me summarize it for you. Another anti Trump diatribe by someone who isn't even American. Maybe he doesn't like our president because Trump renegotiated NAFTA and he's making less money.
-
That's an excellent article...
What a load of crap*.
Just one example:
The new consensus on the right is that “Americans” are white and born there.
What!? Are you serious!?
* That refers to the article, not your comment, Mike. "You" is also rhetorical.
-
I read it Let me summarize it for you. Another anti Trump diatribe by someone who isn't even American.
Is there a rule that only Americans can criticize Trump? You've done a good job these last few weeks criticizing people in the rest of the world. Hell, you're even ok with that butcher in Saudi Arabia because, as you stated, 'he's OUR thug' (or something like that).
-
What!? Are you serious!?
I'm confused. Are you saying it was ok for Conway to ask the journalist about their ethnic background? That dog whistle was so loud, it practically deafened every hound in the kennel.
Oh wait, was that free speech?
-
Is there a rule that only Americans can criticize Trump? You've done a good job these last few weeks criticizing people in the rest of the world. Hell, you're even ok with that butcher in Saudi Arabia because, as you stated, 'he's OUR thug' (or something like that).
Sure, he can criticize Trump all he wants. But he may have an axe to grind being a Canadian. I was just pointing out that a non-American may be against our president's policies. After all, an American president represents America, not Canada. So his policies, such as the renegotiated trade agreement with Canada, gave America additional advantages over Canada that weren't there before. So he might not like our president for policies an American would like him for. Trump butters our bread not his.
Let me add that I like Canadians and Canada. They are good friends of ours, allies in peace and war, and valuable trading partners. My wife and I spent a lot of money up there on our 20th anniversary visiting Niagara Falls and Toronto. But that doesn;t mean we shouldn't make the best deal we can when regarding trade. When I was in business, I negotiated price with customers all the time. That's part of relationships. Both sides make the best deal they can for themselves and move on. They shake hands and continue to do business. So I'm not knocking Canadians; just the opposite.
-
Is there a rule that only Americans can criticize Trump? You've done a good job these last few weeks criticizing people in the rest of the world. Hell, you're even ok with that butcher in Saudi Arabia because, as you stated, 'he's OUR thug' (or something like that).
Oh, about the butcher in Saudi Arabia. I think I called him our bastard but I never said he was a nice person. We deal with all kinds of tyrants in the world. Xi is one yet we talk to him and China's one of our biggest trading partners. Should we stop trading with them because he kills adversaries or throws them in jail? Doesn't Canada deal with tyrants too? Why do you think your country is so holy?
-
... Hell, you're even ok with that butcher in Saudi Arabia...
Robert, this is really kindergarten level.
-
Robert, this is really kindergarten level.
Thanks for the best laugh of the week.
-
The discussion must be kept to the subject, or some reasonably close approximation thereto. Personal attacks demonstrate paucity of argument and will not be tolerated.
Jeremy
-
The discussion must be kept to the subject, or some reasonably close approximation thereto. Personal attacks demonstrate paucity of argument and will not be tolerated.
Jeremy
yes... i agree... personal attacks - are not the way to go...
- we leave them for the President of the USA.... he is a specialist.
-
All* 20+ presidential candidates are for open borders and health care for illegals.
Are they? Or is this more fake 'news'?
Or are you incorrectly conflating Asylum seekers with Illegals, which seems to be the same to xenophobes/racists, or some Republicans?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Asylum seekers are illegals, Bart, until they've been granted asylum.
-
Asylum seekers are illegals, Bart, until they've been granted asylum.
During their asylum procedure???
Cheers,
Bart
-
Depends on how they came in. If they came in through a portal they're probably okay. If they came in across the river, they're not. Don't try to understand it. The Congress has refused to modify the law to fit the circumstances. It's an incredible mess.
-
Asylum seekers are illegals, Bart, until they've been granted asylum.
Actually, an alien seeking asylum in the United States typically arrives at a designated port of entry and makes a request for asylum to a U.S. immigration inspector. If the request is plausible on its face (i.e., if the alien has asserted a claim which, if true, would justify a grant of asylum under U.S. law), the case is referred for adjudication. This is not considered an illegal entry.
The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.
To be granted asylum, aliens must credibly demonstrate that they have experienced or face persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum).
-
Oh, about the butcher in Saudi Arabia. I think I called him our bastard but I never said he was a nice person. We deal with all kinds of tyrants in the world. Xi is one yet we talk to him and China's one of our biggest trading partners. Should we stop trading with them because he kills adversaries or throws them in jail? Doesn't Canada deal with tyrants too? Why do you think your country is so holy?
Who asserted that Canada was holy? I didn't.
-
Sure, he can criticize Trump all he wants. But he may have an axe to grind being a Canadian. I was just pointing out that a non-American may be against our president's policies. After all, an American president represents America, not Canada. So his policies, such as the renegotiated trade agreement with Canada, gave America additional advantages over Canada that weren't there before. So he might not like our president for policies an American would like him for. Trump butters our bread not his.
Let me add that I like Canadians and Canada. They are good friends of ours, allies in peace and war, and valuable trading partners. My wife and I spent a lot of money up there on our 20th anniversary visiting Niagara Falls and Toronto. But that doesn;t mean we shouldn't make the best deal we can when regarding trade. When I was in business, I negotiated price with customers all the time. That's part of relationships. Both sides make the best deal they can for themselves and move on. They shake hands and continue to do business. So I'm not knocking Canadians; just the opposite.
You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.
The entire sideshow was media hype. It just introduced some unneeded and unwarranted destabilization in some industry sectors that hurts everyone involved. Manufacturing in the US is and always was healthy, it never needed Trump's help. It maybe did need intervention to help Americans who were displaced by robots, which is NOT what Trump is doing. That is something that the US is not historically very good at because you don't like government intervening in business.
-
You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.
There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It is just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.
-
Actually, an alien seeking asylum in the United States typically arrives at a designated port of entry and makes a request for asylum to a U.S. immigration inspector. If the request is plausible on its face (i.e., if the alien has asserted a claim which, if true, would justify a grant of asylum under U.S. law), the case is referred for adjudication. This is not considered an illegal entry.
The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.
To be granted asylum, aliens must credibly demonstrate that they have experienced or face persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum).
Exactly, Chris. Then, since thanks to Congress's inaction there's no way to secure the tsunami of asylum seekers while they're awaiting their hearings, they're turned loose into the country. In most cases they never show up for their hearings. Between the person's initial hearing with an immigration inspector and his scheduled day in court his status is, at best, iffy. If he fails to show up for his court date, he becomes clearly illegal again. Trump is trying to make arrangements for those awaiting their court date to be moved back across the border and detained there, but the sentiment in Congress isn't "Let's solve the problem." It's "Let's get Trump." This crap is going to continue until the next election. Then, Trump will be reelected (unless he suddenly decides he's had enough), and the Republicans will hold the Senate and re-take the House. "The Squad" is working overtime to make sure my prediction is accurate.
-
In most cases they never show up for their hearings.
Actually, about 70% show up for their hearings.
-
In many cases they don't show up for their hearings. I'm not sure where Fab is getting his information, but I think the failure rate is more than 30%. Then we have the problem that if asylum isn't granted there's no real guarantee we'll get the applicant back to his native land. The whole process is what, in the military, we used to call a "cluster f..."
-
... The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum...
Yes, they all learned that trick. Cross the birder illegally... if not caught, good... if caught, say the magic word and you are good again.
-
Are they? Or is this more fake 'news'?
Or are you incorrectly conflating Asylum seekers with Illegals, which seems to be the same to xenophobes/racists, or some Republicans?
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, you're always criticizing the US but never look at your own country. If you're caught in the Netherlands as an illegal, they put you in jail. Frankly, that's reasonable, Why shouldn't America act similarly?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-The-Netherlands-handle-illegal-immigration
-
There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It has just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.
Yes, quite right. I kind of lost track of the process and just saw that its passing may be pushed until after the US election.
-
You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.
The entire sideshow was media hype. It just introduced some unneeded and unwarranted destabilization in some industry sectors that hurts everyone involved. Manufacturing in the US is and always was healthy, it never needed Trump's help. It maybe did need intervention to help Americans who were displaced by robots, which is NOT what Trump is doing. That is something that the US is not historically very good at because you don't like government intervening in business.
First off, only government can negotiate trade agreements. So government is not interfering in business. Its job is to provide better results for American companies just as Canada's and Mexico's governments try to do that for their companies.
Secondly, the new agreement is not the same as the old. It adds significant improvement to the US economy. It increases GDP by about 1/3 of 1% or $68 billion and adds 175,000 jobs. Hopefully we can work out something similar with China and Europe and others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/business/economy/trump-nafta-trade.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/business/economy/trump-nafta-trade.html)
-
Who asserted that Canada was holy? I didn't.
As a Canadian, you were pointing critical fingers at America. I was pointing out that Canada has relations with some pretty nasty regimes as well. What's the expression, if you live in a glass house, don;t throw stones.
-
As a Canadian, you were pointing critical fingers at America. I was pointing out that Canada has relations with some pretty nasty regimes as well. What's the expression, if you live in a glass house, don;t throw stones.
Then no one should ever say anything?
Sorry, this makes no sense. The thread exists solely for the purpose of expressing opinions.
-
The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.
Yes, they all learned that trick. Cross the birder illegally... if not caught, good... if caught, say the magic word and you are good again.
It's not that simple. An alien in this situation is already "in proceedings" before an immigration judge. This is an adversarial setting. The defendant or his lawyer introduces the claim of eligibility for asylum as an "affirmative defense (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense)" after the government has shown that the alien is subject to removal. It's a last-ditch attempt to avoid being forced to leave the United States.
-
Then no one should ever say anything?
Sorry, this makes no sense. The thread exists solely for the purpose of expressing opinions.
Just pointing out that others do what America does. Non-Americans have a knee jerk negative response to anything we do. Rather than condemning us, and yourself for similar actions, how about adding to the conversation by recommending what we should do with tyrants we all have to deal with? Then we can have a discussion about policies that affect both our countries. Wouldn't that be a better approach?
-
It's not that simple. An alien in this situation is already "in proceedings" before an immigration judge. This is an adversarial setting. The defendant or his lawyer introduces the claim of eligibility for asylum as an "affirmative defense (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense)" after the government has shown that the alien is subject to removal. It's a last-ditch attempt to avoid being forced to leave the United States.
So what should be done to prevent the illegal influx of so many? It's burdening our resources especially in locations where these people wind up.
-
There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It has just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.
If Elizabeth Warren gets elected president, get ready for new negotiations. She has a different idea of what should be in these trade agreements, mainly to protect consumers, not the businesses themselves. You'll be be wishing Trump had won. She's going to want even more wampum from you than Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-rewrite-the-rules-on-negotiating-trade-deals.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-rewrite-the-rules-on-negotiating-trade-deals.html)
-
Bart, you're always criticizing the US but never look at your own country.
Alan, this thread is about the lack of understanding between Republicans and Democrats. You should welcome a fresh look from someone who looks in from the outside and wonders what the peculiarities are and what the difference is with their reference system.
I am not saying that my country is perfect in everything, but we do have a system of governance that is clearly different from yours. Firstly, we are a democracy, which I have been told by some forum members the US is not. That alone makes a big difference. Maybe you should try it, maybe you like it...
If you're caught in the Netherlands as an illegal, they put you in jail.
As a United Nations member and modern society, we have a reasonably decent and morally justifiable procedure in place.
The link you supplied gives a reasonable description of how foreigners are handled and that proper identification/documentation is required.
There is always a chance that people try to illegally enter via the European borders. Without the proper permits or an application for asylum, they are illegal and stand to be deported (and maybe arrested until they are properly identified), to be sent back to their home country.
Permits to stay can have an expiration period from several months to years (depending on the type of permit), or people can apply for citizenship (which is not automatically granted). Children that are born during the stay of the parent(s), acquire the nationality of (one of) the parents. So they too need a permit to stay which will expire.
Of course there are the exceptions which confirm the rule, and those will be attempted to be dealt with in a case-by-case humane manner.
These 'foreigners' will be treated as human beings (within the possibilities of temporary housing which may be less than ideal, basic medical care, and if an asylum procedure takes a long period then children may get education), just like a civilized country should.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually, an alien seeking asylum in the United States typically arrives at a designated port of entry and makes a request for asylum to a U.S. immigration inspector. If the request is plausible on its face (i.e., if the alien has asserted a claim which, if true, would justify a grant of asylum under U.S. law), the case is referred for adjudication. This is not considered an illegal entry.
The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.
To be granted asylum, aliens must credibly demonstrate that they have experienced or face persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum).
Thanks Chris, this looks like an excellent description of the actual situation (not fake news at all), and succinctly worded. Maybe it's even educational to some forum posters from the USA, since it contradicts their initial reactions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Maybe it's even educational to some forum posters from the USA, since it contradicts their initial reactions.
Contradicts how?
-
Contradicts how?
Apparently it still needs to be spelled out: e.g. their legal status.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently it still needs to be spelled out: e.g. their legal status.
Instead of trying that condescending tone, how about you explain what is contradictory in what I said?
-
Thanks Chris, this looks like an excellent description of the actual situation (not fake news at all), and succinctly worded. Maybe it's even educational to some forum posters from the USA, since it contradicts their initial reactions.
Cheers,
Bart
Chris's statement is an accurate and balanced description of the law, Bart, but it leaves out part of the story. Once an alien has been determined by an immigration inspector to have enough of a case to be scheduled for a hearing before a judge, the alien's supposed to be kept in custody until the hearing. With the masses of people applying for asylum there simply aren't enough facilities to keep them in custody. The get turned loose to wander at will until their hearing dates. Congress won't address the problem, so it isn't going to go away any time soon. The intention by the Democrats in refusing to address the problem is to add as many future Democrat voters as possible.
-
If Elizabeth Warren gets elected president, get ready for new negotiations. She has a different idea of what should be in these trade agreements, mainly to protect consumers, not the businesses themselves. You'll be be wishing Trump had won. She's going to want even more wampum from you than Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-rewrite-the-rules-on-negotiating-trade-deals.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-rewrite-the-rules-on-negotiating-trade-deals.html)
Why should government protect businesses and not consumers? Aren't consumers citizens?
-
Alan, this thread is about the lack of understanding between Republicans and Democrats. You should welcome a fresh look from someone who looks in from the outside and wonders what the peculiarities are and what the difference is with their reference system.
I am not saying that my country is perfect in everything, but we do have a system of governance that is clearly different from yours. Firstly, we are a democracy, which I have been told by some forum members the US is not. That alone makes a big difference. Maybe you should try it, maybe you like it...
As a United Nations member and modern society, we have a reasonably decent and morally justifiable procedure in place.
The link you supplied gives a reasonable description of how foreigners are handled and that proper identification/documentation is required.
There is always a chance that people try to illegally enter via the European borders. Without the proper permits or an application for asylum, they are illegal and stand to be deported (and maybe arrested until they are properly identified), to be sent back to their home country.
Permits to stay can have an expiration period from several months to years (depending on the type of permit), or people can apply for citizenship (which is not automatically granted). Children that are born during the stay of the parent(s), acquire the nationality of (one of) the parents. So they too need a permit to stay which will expire.
Of course there are the exceptions which confirm the rule, and those will be attempted to be dealt with in a case-by-case humane manner.
These 'foreigners' will be treated as human beings (within the possibilities of temporary housing which may be less than ideal, basic medical care, and if an asylum procedure takes a long period then children may get education), just like a civilized country should.
Cheers,
Bart
You're not a true democracy. Neither are we. The Netherlands and the US are representative democracies. Parliamentarians represents the Dutch people and Congressmen and Senators represent Americans. Additionally, you still have a monarch. Don't you think your ought to give that up? It's rather passe.
You didn't deny that The Netherlands puts you in jail if you are caught as an illegal any less than what we do in America. So you're no better or worse than we are. Additional, it's harder to enter legally and become a citizen in the Netherlands than in America. We take in 1,000,000 legal immigrants a year.
-
Thanks Chris, this looks like an excellent description of the actual situation (not fake news at all), and succinctly worded.
It was not intended to be comprehensive, however. Aliens who enter the United States with a valid visa or under the visa-waiver program may also apply for asylum. Applicants may also file requests at a U.S. diplomatic mission in another country; in that situation, U.S. law refers to them as refugees. The current political controversy here is over people who are requesting asylum at a port-of-entry. In many cases—probably the overwhelming majority—their real motivation is economic, and their applications for asylum will be denied.
-
Why should government protect businesses and not consumers? Aren't consumers citizens?
I never said government shouldn't protect consumers. I was just making a point that if Warren gets elected as President, the whole NAFTA agreement now called USMCA will have to be renegotiated again and people will be wishing that Trump was still there. I'm not sure how she intends to add consumers to international trade negotiations that affects how businesses sell their goods to other countries. But whatever she has in mind, will throw a kink in the whole deal. Sort of what happened to the Iran deal that had not gotten Senate approval. It was thrown out by a subsequent president.
-
Additionally, you still have a monarch. Don't you think your ought to give that up? It's rather passe.
Canada and UK are also headed by a monarch. It is passé, of course, but I heard a good argument a couple of weeks ago for the benefits of a monarch. Having one means that, figuratively at least, the head of state is not a crass lying loud-mouthed ambitious politician who can't be trusted, but rather it is someone with an historical attachment to the country.
It doesn't negate the silliness of an inherited title, but I like the idea that the highest placed politician has to report to someone, more frequently than once every 3 or 4 years I mean. Might help to keep them humble. It might be advantageous to devise a system that retains the best of both these worlds, that is, institute a high office of some dignity but not have it depend on carnal heredity. Won't happen but fun to speculate.
-
Another angry anti-Trump deal by Democrats. frankly, it's voter suppression. California voted to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns to run in their state. It adds requirements to run for president that isn't listed in the Constitution which only requires that you be a native born citizen and 35 years or older. I don't see how it's going to pass muster in the Supreme Court. Chris, what do you think?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-30/trump-tax-returns-california-ballot-gavin-newsom-law (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-30/trump-tax-returns-california-ballot-gavin-newsom-law)
-
Canada and UK are also headed by a monarch. It is passé, of course, but I heard a good argument a couple of weeks ago for the benefits of a monarch. Having one means that, figuratively at least, the head of state is not a crass lying loud-mouthed ambitious politician who can't be trusted, but rather it is someone with an historical attachment to the country.
It doesn't negate the silliness of an inherited title, but I like the idea that the highest placed politician has to report to someone, more frequently than once every 3 or 4 years I mean. Might help to keep them humble. It might be advantageous to devise a system that retains the best of both these worlds, that is, institute a high office of some dignity but not have it depend on carnal heredity. Won't happen but fun to speculate.
Well, my wife loves the British royals. She follows the kids mainly and their children. Sometimes I think I married an Englishwoman.
-
Well, my wife loves the British royals. She follows the kids mainly and their children. Sometimes I think I married an Englishwoman.
Why would only Democrats want to know a potential President's financial obligations? I don't see why this is a partisan issue, although I'm sure that it is the current Trump tax impasse that prompted this move. But these kinds of changes are almost always responses to something that is always going to appear partisan. In the long run, it isn't.
-
Why would only Democrats want to know a potential President's financial obligations? I don't see why this is a partisan issue, although I'm sure that it is the current Trump tax impasse that prompted this move. But these kinds of changes are almost always responses to something that is always going to appear partisan. In the long run, it isn't.
Well, California, run by Democrats, want to get at Trump's tax returns. That's partisan. But it's a bad law regardless. What's to stop any state from requiring a candidates' medical records? After all, knowing how well a president may be in office seems like a pretty important bit of knowledge for voters as well. Where will the new requirements stop? That why I think it's unconstitutional.
-
California voted to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns to run in their state. It adds requirements to run for president that isn't listed in the Constitution which only requires that you be a native born citizen and 35 years or older. I don't see how it's going to pass muster in the Supreme Court. Chris, what do you think?
Assuming there actually is a federal question here—whether there is would be a threshold issue to be adjudicated—until a lawsuit challenging the statute* has been filed and briefed, and decided at the trial court level, and appealed to a higher court and briefed, I think it would be reckless for anyone except a partisan (or maybe a lawyer for one of the parties speaking for public relations purposes) to predict the outcome of such a case.
____
*As far as I can tell, the enacted law has not yet officially been published, but the bill that passed the California legislature is available here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27).
-
Assuming there actually is a federal question here—whether there is would be a threshold issue to be adjudicated—until a lawsuit challenging the statute* has been filed and briefed, and decided at the trial court level, and appealed to a higher court and briefed, I think it would be reckless for anyone except a partisan (or maybe a lawyer for one of the parties speaking for public relations purposes) to predict the outcome of such a case.
____
*As far as I can tell, the enacted law has not yet officially been published, but the bill that passed the California legislature is available here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27).
This is a forum where people give their opinions all the time. Even reckless opinions. :)
Let's assume the law will say how the bill reads. Then, a candidate sues the state of California for impeding his right to run for office unless he releases his tax returns to the Secretary of State who will release tax details to the public about the person's income, taxes, deductions, contributions, etc. Do you think that's constitutional?
-
You're not a true democracy. Neither are we. The Netherlands and the US are representative democracies. Parliamentarians represents the Dutch people and Congressmen and Senators represent Americans. Additionally, you still have a monarch. Don't you think your ought to give that up? It's rather passe.
Not really, and I hesitate to explain, because I think our cultures are different to enough not understand each other without serious effort.
As usual, I'm willing to make an effort. I have followed a cross-cultural training course at my own request, when I was asked by my then employer to take on the role of Business Controller of a commercial division (in Professional Photography) for several countries (Belgium, France, the Netherlands). That proved to me to be a bit of an eye-opener, in addition to the functional differences that are created (and expected) in Multi-National enterprises (where countries tend to defend their own position, but not necessarily the position of the international conglomerate).
You didn't deny that The Netherlands puts you in jail if you are caught as an illegal any less than what we do in America.
No, because 'we' do. HOWEVER(!), we do NOT employ the political tactic (it's only political 'because' it is not effective), of trying to scare away people by inhumane treatment, because it only achieves INHUMANE TREATMENT, and not really solves anything, There are better (not easier, but better) ways to pursue, like taking away the reasons why these people have to flee their country of birth (I know, it's radical, but only if you follow the hollow mantra of America first, at the expense of others).
Free advise, looking in from the outside, although it requires a less racially motivated President who even gives a fig about his country (when do you guys/gals wake up?), and not only about himself. Abandon the America first mantra in the way Trump promotes it. Turn it around to something that REALLY takes the wellbeing of the entire American people at heart, and not of just the Trump organization and its financiers to favor personal re-election goals.
So you're no better or worse than we are.
It's not about "better" or "worse" (which is an American cultural hangup, you think you can only become 'better' at the expense of someone else getting 'worse'). Instead, it's about doing the right thing, humanly speaking, for all affected.
Additional, it's harder to enter legally and become a citizen in the Netherlands than in America. We take in 1,000,000 legal immigrants a year.
Hand-picked immigrants, who are part of the American business model (not really for compassion, humanitarian reasons, or otherwise). You say that it is more difficult to become a legal citizen in the Netherlands (than is the case in the US, I have to assume). Are there reliable sources that suggest that this is the case, or attempted by the government (e.g. to ensure an adequate work force for certain job-levels?), or even true, for that explanation (I assume you did your homework before you had anti-peristaltic functions taking over from your brain)?
I would appreciate an honest answer.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It was not intended to be comprehensive, however. Aliens who enter the United States with a valid visa or under the visa-waiver program may also apply for asylum. Applicants may also file requests at a U.S. diplomatic mission in another country; in that situation, U.S. law refers to them as refugees. The current political controversy here is over people who are requesting asylum at a port-of-entry. In many cases—probably the overwhelming majority—their real motivation is economic, and their applications for asylum will be denied.
Thanks for adding that. It is the case in Europe, that we tend to honor true asylum seekers' requests, before those of economical fortune-seekers. These true refugees often also prefer to return to their homeland, when it is safe to do so.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Canada and UK are also headed by a monarch. It is passé, of course, but I heard a good argument a couple of weeks ago for the benefits of a monarch. Having one means that, figuratively at least, the head of state is not a crass lying loud-mouthed ambitious politician who can't be trusted, but rather it is someone with an historical attachment to the country.
It doesn't negate the silliness of an inherited title, but I like the idea that the highest placed politician has to report to someone, more frequently than once every 3 or 4 years I mean. Might help to keep them humble. It might be advantageous to devise a system that retains the best of both these worlds, that is, institute a high office of some dignity but not have it depend on carnal heredity. Won't happen but fun to speculate.
+1
BTW, our King Willem-Alexander and Prime Minister Mark Rutte meet every Monday. What exactly these two discuss is confidential. The Prime Minister informs the King about the current government policy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not really, and I hesitate to explain, because I think our cultures are different to enough not understand each other without serious effort.
As usual, I'm willing to make an effort. I have followed a cross-cultural training course at my own request, when I was asked by my then employer to take on the role of Business Controller of a commercial division (in Professional Photography) for several countries (Belgium, France, the Netherlands). That proved to me to be a bit of an eye-opener, in addition to the functional differences that are created (and expected) in Multi-National enterprises (where countries tend to defend their own position, but not necessarily the position of the international conglomerate).
No, because 'we' do. HOWEVER(!), we do NOT employ the political tactic (it's only political 'because' it is not effective), of trying to scare away people by inhumane treatment, because it only achieves INHUMANE TREATMENT, and not really solves anything, There are better (not easier, but better) ways to pursue, like taking away the reasons why these people have to flee their country of birth (I know, it's radical, but only if you follow the hollow mantra of America first, at the expense of others).
Free advise, looking in from the outside, although it requires a less racially motivated President who even gives a fig about his country (when do you guys/gals wake up?), and not only about himself. Abandon the America first mantra in the way Trump promotes it. Turn it around to something that REALLY takes the wellbeing of the entire American people at heart, and not of just the Trump organization and its financiers to favor personal re-election goals.
It's not about "better" or "worse" (which is an American cultural hangup, you think you can only become 'better' at the expense of someone else getting 'worse'). Instead, it's about doing the right thing, humanly speaking, for all affected.
Hand-picked immigrants, who are part of the American business model (not really for compassion, humanitarian reasons, or otherwise). You say that it is more difficult to become a legal citizen in the Netherlands (than is the case in the US, I have to assume). Are there reliable sources that suggest that this is the case, or attempted by the government (e.g. to ensure an adequate work force for certain job-levels?), or even true, for that explanation (I assume you did your homework before you had anti-peristaltic functions taking over from your brain)?
I would appreciate an honest answer.
Cheers,
Bart
You really don't know America but seem to hate it a lot.
-
... (I assume you did your homework before you had anti-peristaltic functions taking over from your brain)?
Given my admittedly limited medical knowledge, this sounds like a particularly nasty personal attack? You are basically saying Alan’s brain was replaced by diarrhea or vomiting?
Again, I am not a medical expert and maybe I am reading it all wrong, but luckily our moderator is.
-
You really don't know America but seem to hate it a lot.
Doesn't look to me as hate, rather as outsider's view.
-
Doesn't look to me as hate, rather as outsider's view.
Let’s compromise: a hateful outsider.
-
Enough. This thread is generating an enormous amount of heat and almost no light; and personal abuse masquerading as argument has become too prevalent. Until now, my experiment in re-allowing political debate has, I think, been at least moderately successful but recent posts are undermining that view.
I have marked the cards of those whose behaviour has led to this thread's being closed and I will have a substantially lowered threshold for banning them if they overstep the mark again.
Jeremy