Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Xzi, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. SG854

    SG854 ♪(๑ᴖ◡ᴖ๑)♪

    Member
    11
    Feb 17, 2017
    Egypt
    埃及
    To save himself from an investigation he believed should have never taken place that'll interfere and undermine his work running as President.
    You're only looking to seek dirt and not truth. You want anything you can to impeach Trump and when that fails you move onto the next thing until you can find something. You already have your mind made up with out supporting evidence. I highly doubt you would look at this from a Neutral Unbiased Position.



    And why do you care so much about Obstruction of Justice when there was no Collusion Crime Established? It's not like Mueller wasn't able to complete his investigation. The report is out. I'm sure a reasonable person will give leeway. Especially since Obstruction is hard to prove Malicious intent with no Collusion Crime.


    And are you willing to tell me 22 months, a huge team of top prosecutors, FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants couldn't have found enough relevant information because Trump? If there was Collusion then evidence should have been everywhere. Just how much of a smart criminal mastermind to cover up evidence you think a buffoon like Trump is? Are you giving him intelligence credit? You think Trump is smart?




    I wouldn't tread on the impeachment territory and should listen to the advice of Bernie Sanders if I were you. You're only going to piss off a lot of conservatives and empower Trump. Every attack on Trump empowers him because he's knows how to fight back. You're going to get Trump re-elected.
     
  2. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    "He broke the law, but it's okay because he thought the investigation was unfair." I seriously doubt you'd be this forgiving if Hillary was in this position instead.

    Err...it completed in spite of Trump's efforts, it certainly wasn't helped by them. Trump tried to have Mueller fired twice.

    I guess not since about an 1/8th of the report is still redacted due to ongoing grand jury investigation(s), and the FBI counter-intelligence report is also missing/not yet complete.

    I agree with Bernie that we can't spend all our time attacking Trump, but he hasn't weighed in on impeachment one way or another yet. Enforcement of US law and ethics standards is not the same thing as "attacking" Trump.

    Edit: correction, Bernie did say he's against impeachment during that town hall.
    And I can understand his point, but that's why I feel we just need to get on with it. Not talk about it for years and do nothing. We know it's gonna stall in the Senate regardless, so just get it done. Then when the findings of more investigations get presented to the public later, it continues to strengthen the Democrats' position while they focus on the issues.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Apr 23, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  3. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    We have different measures of success then. To quote a famous Conservative talking point, when it comes to healthcare, it can be affordable, universal or quality. You get to pick two out of those three, but you can't have all three. Universality is not a priority to me, I focus on the other two.

    This is going to be a long-winded post, but I like you, so I'll indulge you a bit and everyone will learn something new. The reason why you're so surprised about my views is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding between the left and the right-wing minded people that was never corrected and continues to errode relations between them. Liberals think that conservatives are heartless and conservatives think that liberals are amoral, or at the very least they're very generous with other people's money, especially when they can take it at the point of a gun. Those are both stereotypes, but people fall for them at all times. You have a certain preconceived notion about why I think what I think and you've never bothered to verify it.

    The reason I say that ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should be dismantled is the fact that, ideally, we shouldn't need them. In an ideal society anyone who is capable should be able to find employment and should be able to not only support themselves and their family, but also manage to save up for retirement. Those who are not capable would be supported by the charity of those who are. It's not that we don't care about the poor, we just don't want to "help" them by cutting everyone down to size. I prefer pockets of prosperity to equality in squallor.

    This difference in thinking is actually best described with the example of charity. Let's present the two polar opposites, we'll call them the Liberal and the Conservative approach.

    The Liberal ideal is that everyone has at least the bare minimum of resources to operate and, if their own capacity to generate resources is insufficient, the state must necessarily step in. That would be considered a moral society where the focus is the outcome. As such, the approach they take is to seize resources from the haves, process them through the government machine and distribute them to the have nots. The means to achieve this are taxation and social programmes. Fair so far?

    Conservatives have several problems with the ideal, the approach and the means to achieve the objective. For starters, your average Conservative believes that it is de facto amoral to penalise labour and the success it results in. Additionally, Conservatives believe that any outcome achieved through amoral means is amoral by default. Surprisingly, we have the same goal - prosperity. How do we achieve it then?

    The Conservative approach is focused on the individual. Fiscal Conservatives believe that one's success or failure is a result of how they function in a market system. Ideally, individuals are incentivised to achieve success on their own merit and those unable to do so due to life circumstances that are beyond their control must be supported by charity, contributing to which is a duty of every successful individual. What are the means to achieve this without excessive taxation or market manipulation? Incentives, of course.

    We circle back to the issue of poverty. The Liberal solution is to take government funding and create a program that supplements the resources available to those who are poor. The Conservative solution is to create an environment where the wealthy will do that naturally and without coercion, for instance via a tax deduction. A deductible is a relatively simple concept - if you donate $100 of your earnings, you don't have to pay additional tax on that part of your income. It's an unwritten understanding between the individual and the state that this money has already been spent towards a charitable cause and the government doesn't get to usurp a slice of it. The result is the same - $100 went to someone in need, but the means to achieve the goal are very different and the efficiency of the process is increased.

    The same argument can be had about a number of issues - healthcare, the income tax, pensions, the list is almost endless. I will happily have that discussion with you if you wish. The critical mistake Liberals make when assessing Conservative solutions is the issue of assumed motives. We literally have the same goals, which is what we should focus on. I would like to think that the good solutions are somewhere in the middle, but the left has moved so far to the left in recent history that formerly moderate Democrats now find themselves branded Republicans, which is unfortunate. Ironically, Donald Trump is one such example - until 5 minutes ago in historical terms he would be considered a Liberal, or a Centrist at worst. Right now he's the leader of the Alt Right, or some such nonsense. The political compass is all out of whack in our current climate, so it's much better and more accurate to discuss individual policies and look past party affiliation.
     
    ChokingVictim87 and crypt1c like this.
  4. SG854

    SG854 ♪(๑ᴖ◡ᴖ๑)♪

    Member
    11
    Feb 17, 2017
    Egypt
    埃及
    Bernie Sanders is right. The Democratic platform has become hate Trump. Hate Trump is not a platform. Very little gets talked about Health Care, Taxes, or Climate Change. There is much to be debated on these but it's all ignored because lets hate Trump. So people don't know the best stance or nuance in them, and when its best to apply a certain system depending on circumstance. The 2016 election policies barely got talked about at all. News stations just became Hate Hillary and Hate Trump because scandals gets them more ratings then boring debates.



    People don't know what the Republican or Democratic Stance is. Especially since Republicans are mostly moderates slightly right when it comes to economics and Democrats are further left. Most Republicans think Medicare and Social Security is important. Like Bernie said most Americans support these things. Just at different degrees.
     
    Last edited by SG854, Apr 23, 2019
  5. KingVamp

    KingVamp Haaah-hahahaha!

    Member
    13
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    Netherworld
    In this case, what's to stop anyone under an investigation from using this excuse to mess with the law, innocent or not?
     
  6. SG854

    SG854 ♪(๑ᴖ◡ᴖ๑)♪

    Member
    11
    Feb 17, 2017
    Egypt
    埃及
    They shouldn't use that as an excuse. I never said Trump should be able to stop the investigation. I'm just giving reasons as to why Trump try to undermine it. Which had nothing to do with covering up evidence of collusion, which is needed for malicious intent. The investigation was still conducted.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    A big weakness of Conservatives is Facts Over Feelings. Even though facts rather then emotion can be seen as a strength, humans are emotional creatures and respond better to stories that they can relate. So conservatives appear cold and uncaring even if they are not. Lefties are much better a telling stories that connects on a emotional level so they are able to draw huge crowds from that.

    If Conservatives want to reach that same audience then they have to reframe things in a way shows they care about people and do things that'll also benefit them. Lefties are like the Caring Mother and Right is the Father that gives tough love but teaches things kids need to walk on their 2 feet alone. Both are needed for balance so things aren't shift to the extremes.
     
    Last edited by SG854, Apr 23, 2019
  7. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    Supply-side economics do precisely what they are meant to do. Following the 1981 Tax Reform the marginal tax rate was decreased from 70% to 50%, but the overall tax receipts increased from 7.94% to 10%. In other words, the government was taxing people less, and yet received more return in taxes, which can only be explained by increased prosperity which propelled people into higher tax brackets due to a more enlivened economy. As a result of the cuts, the top 10% of earners were paying in 57% of the total tax, up from 48%, and the low wage earners contributed 5.7% to the pool as opposed to 7.5%, which means the poorest in society ended up with more money in their pockets. The real GDP growth increased from 2.9% to 3.5% and the inflation fell from 13.5% to a staggering 4.5%, meaning the dollar had significantly more buying power compared to previous years. In addition, unemployment also decreased, by 1.7%, so the tax cuts certainly contributed to an improvement of the job market. You can point out anecdotes all you want, but the Reagan presidency is considered one of the periods of the largest peace-time economic expansion in American history. Seems to be working fine to me, having the numbers right in front of me.

    Modern conservatives have a hard time selling people on the ideology, which is bizarre because the core concept is "we want to take less of your money", which should be the easiest sell in the world. I feel that many have lost their way and stopped focusing on policy, opting instead to focus on hot button controversies or moralising. I personally don't care what people do in their private lives - what I do care about is allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labour without undue interference of the state, which isn't too much to ask for.
     
    Shadowfied likes this.
  8. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Again you can't be serious. We're still dealing with the fallout from the "greed is good" Reagan years. Why on Earth do you think we have so many mentally ill people in this country and no sufficient method of treating them? Most of them end up on the street, assuming good ol' Ronny didn't put them there himself, and some of them are of course veterans.

    For that matter, why do you think so much of the country has crumbling buildings/infrastructure which haven't been updated since the late 70s/early 80s? Trickle down definitely manages to accomplish its goal every time, you're simply not being honest about what that goal is. Bernie Sanders is honest about it, and that's why his message resonates across the political divide.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Apr 23, 2019
    IncredulousP and KingVamp like this.
  9. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    Again, I'll have to disagree on all counts. The reason why medical care is sub par in the public sector is primarily because it's in the public sector and secondarily because of its funding mechanism. Contrary to what most people think, healthcare in the U.S. is as far removed from free market capitalism as humanly possible. It is a constant struggle between the insurance companies which are attempting to cover as little of the costs as possible and the hospitals which ultimately have to cover the costs. The reason why a routine procedure costs thousands of dollars isn't because it actually costs that much to perform, but because the insurance company only covers a percentage of the procedure. The insurance business itself isn't free market either, because the government, in its infinite wisdom, mandated that insurance coverage is not up to the individual, as it should be, but up to the employer. The idea was that via collective bargaining a corporation will be able to negotiate better terms than the individual, but the opposite is true. The system currently in place established a cabal of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers who do nothing but fix prices all day while employers, doing what employers do, seek cheapest coverage, leaving gaps in the plans. The ultimate result us that if you don't have insurance, you have to pay out the wazoo for basic drugs and procedures and if you are covered, the insurance company has absolutely nothing to lose because it's contracted with a group of employees, not with you, and even though they only cover a fraction of the cost, they can just increase premiums for everybody to make the checkbook look dandy. This is not how any Conservative would want this to work and saying otherwise is disingenuous - the fault is on both sides of the aisle and there is no fixing it, it has to be completely dismantled.

    Insurance should be a calculated risk. An individual should be given the option to buy coverage, and providers should compete with each other over the customer by consistently improving their plans. They're the ones who should do the negotiating, not employers. Insurance is effectively gambling - the insurance company makes a bet with you that whatever you would pay for your coverage, they are going to cost you less in the long run, and you can take that bet or you can leave the table. The same kind of competitive environment applies to every area of business. Healthcare doesn't suck because of the hospitals, it doesn't suck because of big pharma, it sucks because of insurance companies which were given the carte blanche to skin you alive without you even knowing that it's happening. And why wouldn't they? They can't lose your custom, you're de facto signed up by the virtue of being employed - they have no reason to care and no reason to give you quality service. That insurance plan your company is paying for? That's paid with *your money*. When the company hired you as an employee, your total cost, including the payroll tax, the insurance and other associated costs was priced in. People *think* that the companies are paying for their insurance, but they are not - you are paying for your insurance, it's just the element of choice that was removed, and thus eliminated any form of healthy free market competition.

    As far as infrastructure is concerned, it's funny to hear you say that when cities that were under Democrat rule for decades are literally falling apart. Detroit comes to mind, Cleveland is a close second, and then there's Seattle with its homeless tents and San Francisco with pavements covered in excrement. Democratic mayors are the most effective way to completely obliterate a city, bar none.
     
    the_leg, Shadowfied and crypt1c like this.
  10. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Healthcare coverage should be a right, regardless of healthcare insurance's role (or lack of a role) in a more ideal system. It's one of those things that's uniquely American, and not in a good way.

    This is kind of reinforcing my point. The problem is on a national level. Obama pushed for more infrastructure spending, but I don't see Trump doing the same. First cuts to be made in Republican budgets are always to services essential to the middle and working classes.
     
    IncredulousP and KingVamp like this.
  11. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    You are not entitled to anyone's labour, not even a doctor's. Any compromise is equivalent to indentured servitude - you have an amendment that prohibits it, and rightfully so.
    Obama wasn't exactly an efficient spender, that much is certain given the total cost of his presidency. His stimulus package was a gigantic flop that was costly and contributed very little to actual economic recovery compared to a predicted natural recovery curve. Not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them until it sticks. Infrastructure spending is definitely important, but the gross majority of it should be covered by state governments, not at a federal level. The federal government should be as small and efficient as humanly possible and they should focus on interstate arteries. That's neither here nor there though, this isn't a thread about infrastructure.

    EDIT: By the way, since you're mentioning Trump, he did propose a new infrastructure plan with spending in excess of a trillion dollars. Unfortunately, he's been preoccupied with proving that he isn't a Russian stooge recently, so it will have to wait.
     
    Last edited by Foxi4, Apr 23, 2019
    Shadowfied likes this.
  12. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Doctors still get paid in countries with guaranteed healthcare, you know. What a disingenuous argument.

    Yet amazingly, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy didn't have to wait on anything else happening. I wonder if perhaps it's because that was actually a priority for him, and infrastructure spending isn't. :unsure:
     
    IncredulousP, heavyd2244 and KingVamp like this.
  13. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    That doesn't make it not forced labour. You can't force an individual to provide you with goods or services against their will, this is a non-negotiable position for Conservatives. The Conservative stance on healthcare is to ensure that it is high quality and easily available due to the open and free market system enabling a multitude of providers that can operate freely across state lines, we tackle the affordability part of the equation by ensuring people get to hold on to their earnings by lowering taxes, improving the economy to increase their earnings and incentivising providers to compete and improve their service over time. The affordability issue is, in a sense, separate. Healthcare doesn't have to be universal to be good, we just don't get to implement our vision of it because healthcare bills are designed by committee. A camel, for instance, is a horse designed by committee - not much of a horse, but hey.
    They also had an immediate effect of, wait for it, increased tax receipts and decreased unemployment. Where have we seen that before? It's almost as if supply-side economics were doing their thing and the results were repeatable.
     
    Shadowfied likes this.
  14. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Nobody suggested forcing them at gunpoint, I'm not sure I see your point. If some doctors want to quit being doctors because coverage is made more widely available, I have no issue with that. Kinda counter-intuitive to the whole becoming a doctor thing to not care about the well-being of American citizens, though.

    The results are indeed repeatable, and we are due for the next economic crash. The Republican brew of increased spending, large-scale de-regulation, and massive tax cuts for the oligarchs always ends up putting us at the tipping point.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  15. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Guru

    Member
    16
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    Tax cuts for the wealthy generally don't help an economy very much, and there hasn't been much of a change in certain trends, like the number of new jobs, since before President Obama left office.

    As for healthcare, suggesting that merely cutting taxes will allow healthcare to be affordable is pretty idealistic. Healthcare costs are higher now than before Trump took office. For various reasons, suggesting "free market competition" also doesn't work when they're all coordinating around the same inflated healthcare prices.
     
    KingVamp and Xzi like this.
  16. KingVamp

    KingVamp Haaah-hahahaha!

    Member
    13
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    Netherworld
    Other places, with universal healthcare, have clearly strike a better balance than us. Meanwhile, it getting increasingly harder even for the people who are working to afford and obtain it, and yet people still want to cut services without a real alternative. You are right, I don't call that success.

    Even if this ideal society was happening, which is not, technology is more and more removing the need for everyone to work besides busywork. Unless this ideal society doesn't advance either.

    So charity isn't "cutting everyone down to size", but better and working services is? Making our services better, like others have done, is surely going make the whole society live in "squallor". As if people aren't facing squallor while working, but that's OK because pockets of people are living in prosperity. Totally moral.

    So, charities with "incentives" is moral, but providing direct services for the people that need it isn't? Also, is it moral to cuts and hurt services when charities aren't enough?

    It has clearly been shown that the right programs are much more efficient than any charity. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    And what does "far left" mean? Does wanting our programs to be as efficient as other 1st world countries and not just cut them for the sake of it, far left?

    I'm curious, what do you think about inheritance?
     
    Last edited by KingVamp, Apr 23, 2019
    IncredulousP and Xzi like this.
  17. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    Using the government *is* force, they're the ones with the biggest guns, the military, the police and the jails. If you take the government and force me to provide you a service for a price that I wouldn't have accepted otherwise, congratulations, you've just arrived at forced labour. "They can quit" is not a reasonable alternative, they shouldn't have to choose between keeping their profession and keeping their dignity. As for the impending market crash, oooh, spooky, the evil crash is coming. Perhaps it has something to do with how the last one was poorly handled. Who knows, right?
    Stop calling it "tax cuts for the wealthy", that's a disingenuous line of arguing your point. The tax cuts lowered taxes across the board. They're also not the only thing I suggested as a solution for the healthcare issue, I explicitly stated that the current system is unfixable and needs to be completely dismantled before we see any measurable change. I've explored this earlier, in detail, and explained precisely why there's a problem with "coordinating providers" - the government has removed competition from the equation through a series of policy prescriptions that are asinine to the average fiscal conservative. There can be no competition when the consumer has no choice.
    Where are those other places? So far I've lived under two universal healthcare systems, NFZ and NHS, and they both suck. There's tremendous waste, staff works unreasonable hours, everything is rationed and waiting times are so long that you may as well go private, which the doctors themselves will happily suggest.
    This sounds a lot like the plight of a farmer at the beginning of the industrial era. Mechanisation is putting the poor farmhands out of their jobs, what will they ever do? Here, have a torch, burn a tractor.
    And fair. You're forgetting about fair, it's also that. You don't get to decide what to do with my money unless I give it to you with consent. You had a whole war about this, remember?
    It's not "direct help", it's death by a million cuts. The government has no money - in order for them to spend a dollar, they must take two away, from *you*, one to operate and one to give to someone. I'll do what I want with my two dollars, thank you. If the government makes it worth my time to give them two dollars, I can do that too.
    Time and time again it's been shown that the wealthiest in our society are also the most charitable. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation effectively eradicated Polio in India, and he's still considered "bourgeois". Besides, we're not talking about the complete eradication of any and all programs - individual states can run whatever programs their citizens deem appropriate.
    If it's at the cost of freedom then yes. Gulags were efficient too.
    What I do with my money after I die is my business, if I want to give it to my children then they get 100% of it. If I have failed to put my things in order, my spouse, children or next of kin get it, in that order. The state has stolen enough of my money when I was alive, they don't get to have any more after I die. The last thing I need the state doing is graverobbing.
     
    crypt1c and Shadowfied like this.
  18. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    What are you talking about? The doctors would get paid essentially the same, the insurers would have to be the ones to deal with lower profits in order to compete with universal Medicade coverage. And you're not going to get me to cry a river over some fucking healthcare insurance CFO's bottom line.

    No, it's entirely new bubbles in entirely new sectors about to pop, being aided along by the Trump administration's de-regulation and moronic use of tariffs.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  19. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    Global Moderator
    27
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    ...and you get to keep your old doctor too! Yeah, I heard that old whopper before. No, the system is corrupt and needs to be dismantled. You can only patch an old boat so many times before you need a new boat.
    I don't know how to respond to that given the plummeting unemployment rate. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with statistics.
     
  20. Xzi
    OP

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    "The system" is composed almost entirely of privatized hospitals and privatized insurance companies as it stands now. So I suppose in that sense we agree, we need to do something new.

    And? I know you know better than to believe debt can't possibly go up simply because unemployment is down. People who are taking in plenty of money still manage to put themselves in debt all the time.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
Loading...