Only now are politicians lining up to call the opioid crisis an actual crisis--where were they 5, 10, or 15 years ago, hm? Anyway, the thinking right now is that various State Attorneys General will move to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers but they are only part of the problem. They need to go after the doctors who were incorrectly prescribing these medications (of course, these doctors were sometimes given incentives to push as many pills as they could) and the pill mills, the pharmacies which were more than happy to fill orders (in one story I read one pharmacy in a small West Virginia town was filling enough orders to prescribe 34 pills to each person in the town every day). As of 2015, deaths due to drug overdose surpassed both "vehicle accident" and "gun-related" as a cause of death.
Trump's grand proclamation of the opioid emergency is his 2 cents on the crisis. Literally, Trump's action allocated two cents per addict.
And more than 900 people have died from gun violencesince the Las Vegas massacre. So it must be time to go after Hillary Clinton and ban abortion! #priorities
- whether there should be any requirement for political balance for those providing information to the general public (after all there are all sorts of laws about what businesses can and can't do when selling goods to the public such as prohibiting sales only to white people). Should information be treated so differently to physical goods?
Yes, they should be treated differently because they are two completely different things. If I sell you a tangible object there are laws set up which give you options for recourse should the product I sell you be defective and/or dangerous. On the other hand, if I present a compelling argument to you about some political topic, complete with statistics, charts, and quotes from experts in that field, then the only protection you have is "caveat emptor" because you need to fact-check me for yourself in case my argument is complete manure.
There was no purpose in putting in the second half of the post other than to note that it is a political topic now which is not related to Russia, Catalonia, or Puerto Rico. The role of the government in that topic for now should be trying to find out why so many doctors were overprescribing drugs they should not have been. So much for "do no harm", yes?
- whether there should be any requirement for political balance for those providing information to the general public (after all there are all sorts of laws about what businesses can and can't do when selling goods to the public such as prohibiting sales only to white people). Should information be treated so differently to physical goods?
Yes, they should be treated differently because they are two completely different things. If I sell you a tangible object there are laws set up which give you options for recourse should the product I sell you be defective and/or dangerous. On the other hand, if I present a compelling argument to you about some political topic, complete with statistics, charts, and quotes from experts in that field, then the only protection you have is "caveat emptor" because you need to fact-check me for yourself in case my argument is complete manure.
There was no purpose in putting in the second half of the post other than to note that it is a political topic now which is not related to Russia, Catalonia, or Puerto Rico. The role of the government in that topic for now should be trying to find out why so many doctors were overprescribing drugs they should not have been. So much for "do no harm", yes?
If you sell information which is defective or dangerous there are also laws providing recourse. However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
When you set yourself up to provide goods to the general public there are laws that govern not just the goods you're selling, but who you can sell to (and not sell to). While it's not the same I think the old requirement that the US had (and the UK still has) for political balance in a public broadcaster is analagous. I suspect that one reason for the increase in political tensions in the US is the removal of that requirement. Another is the growth in the use of partisan social media as the sole or main way for many people to get information and that's an issue that deserves more consideration I think.
As for the opiod issue I think there's a number of things government could reasonably be doing, e.g. - following the finances to see who's been benefiting. - reviewing existing studies on addiction and long-term dependency and disseminating information from those (and probably commissioning further work). - considering how best to help people get off unnecessary drugs (which are ultimately a cost to the country as well as the individuals).
Before we do anything about the "opioid crisis" how about we release all the people put in prison over the last 30 years for non-violent possession during the "war on drugs". This is another blantant example of systematic insitutional racism. Urban crack and heroin epidemic sets off massive wave of incarceration. Rural and suburban perscription med epidemic calls for tolerance and treatment. Which I'm all for. As soon as the victims of the previous cultural solution to drugs are made whole.
Before we do anything about the "opioid crisis" how about we release all the people put in prison over the last 30 years for non-violent possession during the "war on drugs". This is another blantant example of systematic insitutional racism. Urban crack and heroin epidemic sets off massive wave of incarceration. Rural and suburban perscription med epidemic calls for tolerance and treatment. Which I'm all for. As soon as the victims of the previous cultural solution to drugs are made whole.
That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The opioids were presumably legally prescribed, not manufactured in somebody's basement. It was never illegal to possess them. 'Illicit' selling of opioids has put many people in prison. The folks that need to be dealt with in the opioid crisis are the prescribers and the manufacturers in my opinion. They are pretty much the same as dealers...
It's going to be interesting to see how much opioid treatment takes place when the Republican Congress guts health care programs by 1.8 trillion dollars.
It's going to be interesting to see how much opioid treatment takes place when the Republican Congress guts health care programs by 1.8 trillion dollars.
Dana Boente was the US district attorney from which the subpoenas related to Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn were issued. Dana Boente’s office has been handling the investigation into WikiLeaks – and potentially charges associated with WikiLeaks and was the office where Special Counsel Robert Mueller first started using a grand jury.
Trump fired him last week.
This is the same president who’s taken the unprecedented step of meeting privately with prospective federal prosecutors before nominating them to posts where Trump may personally face legal jeopardy.
John Kelly is as much of a monster as his boss, which I've always known, but, here he is, talking about how the Civil War was due to an "inability to compromise". Another Confederate apologist at the top of the government:
Here's a history lesson about "compromise". It is literally in the goddamn historical title. Compromise with the South was MORE than tried. And I'm not the least bit surprised John Kelly thinks the lives of black slaves were up for debate or negotiation.
I seriously wonder if the Compromise of 1850 or the Kansas/Nebraska Act is even taught in public school history classes anymore. It was cursory even in the mid-90s when I was in attendance, but my guess is it has been completely erased. I'd venture to guess 90% of the population wouldn't know what either was.
What should have been compromised on?? How many more decades were slaves supposed to wait to be freed?? 20 more years, 30?? Thus delaying the implementation of segregation and Jim Crow however long that time period was?? If John Kelly had been there to "compromise", we might still be living in a country where we were debating separate drinking fountains in 2017.
And, I'll say it again just for the sake of posterity. The main effort to placate the South was literally called the goddamn COMPROMISE OF 1850!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna talk more "compromise". Let's go to the board, shall we??:
That's right ladies and gentleman (and racist idiots like John Kelly). That's the part of the original United States Constitution that held that black people were 3/5 of a human being. I'm so sick of this shit I could puke. Somehow this man became a General and White House Chief of Staff. It doesn't say anything good about the country.
But wait, what do we have for them, Johnny?? Is it a brand new car?? No, it's the Compromise of 1877, which ended Reconstruction and ushered in another 100 years of systematic state oppression:
What a load of utter nonsense. No compromise with the South. The history of the slavery and persecution of African-Americans in this country is NOTHING BUT compromises with the South:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
Those were some tough reads for me to get through, but some ideas came to mind that does not look like were tried as far as compromise, to avert civil war, in order to get rid of slavery in the south. Hard to say without living in that period compared to now but the several people that were having better luck as statesmen dying early did not help. North had tech, south had crops that needed to be harvested. Looks like a deal to move more industry, rail, etc would have been an option, deals to pay more for cotton for a time,(with paid labor by freemen). I don't know, I would have liked to have tried and talked to more folks then, knowing what I do know about talking to opposing sides that both want something.
Saying Kelly (can't really say, from that) is a racist because compromise failed does not exactly seem to say he is a racist. Perhaps OTHER deals (compromise= deal, solution, win-win for both) could have been reach to avert war and get rid of slavery. Maybe we good have had freedom for slaves and not the legacy of a civil war that still haunts this country today. Just would like to have tried using better techniques at reaching a deal (and reading, getting through to others than were known back then. I don't know, maybe war was the only way at the time for the minds at the time on all sides involved. Still sucks though as many have not gotten over that, or racial equality for that matter, by in large.
The most accurate way to describe the reason for the Civil War was that the Southern States were terrified of new states being admitted into the Union where slavery was abolished. So they attempted to dictate to the rest of the country what their position must be. Because they (correctly) knew they were going to lose power the more free states got admitted to the Union. So even back then, their notion of "State's rights" was BS. They meant the right of Southern states to dictate the laws and policy of the expanding territory of the United States. This same dynamic, by the way, is why we have the Electoral College. This original sin is so deeply rooted it's not even funny.
Beyond that, I learned something about Robert E. Lee today that should shatter any notion of nobility anyone has about him:
I don't really see what kind of compromise with the slave states would have been morally sound. Who among us, honestly, would support any compromise that allowed slavery to continue? And if we accept the premise that abolition was an absolute requirement for the United States to become a true democracy, what could the north possibly have offered the slave states to get them to free the slaves without a war?
Compromise is great, and we certainly need people to be more open to compromise today, but there are a few rare things that are just flat-out evil and need to be destroyed. The United States couldn't have compromised with slavers about slavery any more than we could have compromised with the Nazis about the Holocaust, the Soviets about the spread of communism, the North Koreans about the invasion of South Korea, or al Qaeda about 9/11.
What sort of compromise would have freed the slaves in the southern states?
(91 posts since my last one just a few days ago, this thread goes fast sometimes)
"Russian linked" accounts retweeted Clinton almost twice as much as Trump, all Russian linked content is less than 1% of election based Twitter content at the time and had low impressions, but most importantly in my mind, Twitter was targeting and silencing tweets under the #PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak hashtags. Half of the #DNCLeak tweets were silenced. They estimate that 0.84-4% of the hashtag tweets were Russian related. Interesting stuff coming out today. The political agendas of social media companies are more pernicious than the political agendas of the media in my opinion. We expect it when "journalists" vow to defend Democrat appointees or give veto power on stories to powerful Democrat figures or are described by Democrats as mouthpieces for pro-Democrat messages to be pushed. We don't expect this kind of underhanded tribalism from private social media companies. Or, at least, there was a time when we didn't.
(91 posts since my last one just a few days ago, this thread goes fast sometimes)
"Russian linked" accounts retweeted Clinton almost twice as much as Trump, all Russian linked content is less than 1% of election based Twitter content at the time and had low impressions, but most importantly in my mind, Twitter was targeting and silencing tweets under the #PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak hashtags. Half of the #DNCLeak tweets were silenced. They estimate that 0.84-4% of the hashtag tweets were Russian related. Interesting stuff coming out today. The political agendas of social media companies are more pernicious than the political agendas of the media in my opinion. We expect it when "journalists" vow to defend Democrat appointees or give veto power on stories to powerful Democrat figures or are described by Democrats as mouthpieces for pro-Democrat messages to be pushed. We don't expect this kind of underhanded tribalism from private social media companies. Or, at least, there was a time when we didn't.
What right does anyone have to dictate what political agendas private companies like Youtube or Twitter choose to implement?? Much like I abide by the rules of this forum to continue to be able to post, people can either use Twitter and Youtube and deal with their rules, or they can start their own social media platforms. Isn't this the very BASICS of conservative thought, private markets dictating things how they see fit?? When was there a "time" we expected anything of social media companies?? The entire concept is less than a decade old.....
It is true that private companies can censor whatever they want, but it is interesting to note that the only time you will hear the left stand up for the right of private companies to do what they wish is when what they are doing is actively silencing the right or information favorable to the right. Otherwise it's "bake the cake" and diversity quotas.
"Russian linked" accounts retweeted Clinton almost twice as much as Trump, all Russian linked content is less than 1% of election based Twitter content at the time and had low impressions
The figures in the testimony you linked show that automated Russian accounts were retweeting Trump vastly more than Clinton (Trump 416,632 retweets of 851 tweets, Clinton 32,254 of 1,625 tweets - I think the comparison you were making relates to the number of original tweets, not the number of retweets by automated Russian accounts). Note also that the figures refer to automated Russian accounts. The non-automated accounts written by Russians would seem to me of more concern.
I've never actually heard anyone say, left or right, that the heads of private companies do not have the right to voice their own opinions. The only debate I've heard is whether private companies have the right to discriminate against their own employees, or discriminate against their customers. I don't think they should discriminate, but I'm not sure if the government should have the power to stop them from doing so.
The fake news on Facebook is bad. Politicians push fake news too. Like the ridiculous lying Trump is doing about his tax cuts for the rich being for the middle class and his fact-free baseless acussations against Obama and Hillary.
Here is why it's such good satire: Trump and everyone around him is now claiming that Papa was basically someone who fetched the coffee. You can believe that, but you then have to dismiss your own ears if you listen to the audio of what he told the Washington Post in March, where, bragging about his foreign policy team, he said of him (and I quote) "He's an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy". In the same month, an official photo was released by the campaign showing a meeting of the entire foreign policy team. He is sitting in the middle of the table two spots from both Sessions and Trump. We have audio of him saying the first, and we have a picture of the later. Not that that matters in American in 2017, because reality has been subverted into whatever the hell we are living through now.
Now, the article is mostly spoofing Manafort, and that is even more beyond ridiculous. He came on in March, and was the Campaign Chair through August. The only reason he had to leave the campaign at all was because this Ukraine business was coming out in the press. He was instrumental in wrangling delegates to make sure the Republican Convention went smoothly. But, more importantly, once people like Manafort, Papa, and Carter Page joined the team, Donald Trump's language and position on Russia's incursions into Ukraine completely shifted, as did the entire Republican platform.
We can also sit here and ignore the fact that the Administration is just flat-out REFUSING to implement the sanctions on Russia that were passed by Congress and signed by Trump at was essentially gunpoint because they were totally veto-proof. But it's no wonder he signed them, because he never had any intention of carrying out the law he himself signed.
Trump's campaign manager is a pretty shady dude. Not surprising, Trump is really shady himself.
* Manafort currently has three US passports, each under a different number. He has submitted 10 passport applications in roughly as many years, prosecutors said. * Over the past two years Manafort traveled to Mexico, China Dubai, Cancun, Panama City, Havana, Shanghai, Madrid, Tokyo, Grand Cayman Island and Ecuador with a phone and email account registered under a fake name. (The names was not disclosed in the filings.) * Both Manafort and Gates were frequent travelers to Cyprus. "Extensive travel of this nature further evidences a risk of flight," the prosecutor's filing said. * Manafort wrote on loan applications and other financial documents that his assets were worth between $19 million in April 2012 and $136 million in May 2016. * In some months, like while he served as Trump's national campaign chairman in August 2016, Manafort's assessment of his total worth fluctuated. In August 2016 he said his assets were worth $28 million, then wrote he had $63 million in assets on a different application. * Gates "frequently changed banks and opened and closed bank accounts," prosecutors said. In all, Gates opened 55 accounts with 13 financial institutions, the prosecutors' court filing said. Some of his bank accounts were in England and Cyprus, where he held more than $10 million from 2010 to 2013.
It's worth mentioning right out of the gate here that Tony Podesta, who is the brother of John Podesta, is likely involved with some of Manafort's shady business dealings. Whether they end up being criminal or not is anyone's guess, but I know I speak for 99.9% of liberals when I say no one is going to shed a tear if Tony Podesta gets caught up in this mess. He's in all likelihood the same kind of scummy DC lobbyist that Manafort is, and it's entirely possible he could be in the crosshairs for whatever work he was doing with Manafort. Looking into it further, John Podesta (who of course chaired Hillary's campaign) did found the Podesta Group in 1988 with his brother, but left in 1993 when he went to work in the Clinton White House. He hasn't had any association with the group since that time, which by my count is nearly 25 years. There is no indication that John Podesta is a target of the Mueller investigation (despite what you are hearing on FOX News). His brother's company did receive subpoenas and he did step down yesterday from the group. Again, I would not be shocked if Tony Podesta faces charges here. Good. If he did something nefarious in his dealings with Manafort in Ukraine and Russia, he should go down.
Of course the real rub will be this: if Tony Podesta is charged with some sort of crime, the right-wing media will immediately seize on it. But how can they possibly do so without admitting the entire investigation is 100% valid?? They will not be able to pick and choose which parts are legit and which aren't. I'd advise most liberals to get out in front on this when in discussions about this topic. Tony Podesta isn't someone worth defending, and if Mueller finds something on him, it's almost certainly legit.
I Of course the real rub will be this: if Tony Podesta is charged with some sort of crime, the right-wing media will immediately seize on it. But how can they possibly do so without admitting the entire investigation is 100% valid?? They will not be able to pick and choose which parts are legit and which aren't. I'd advise most liberals to get out in front on this when in discussions about this topic. Tony Podesta isn't someone worth defending, and if Mueller finds something on him, it's almost certainly legit.
You misunderestimate the right wing media if you think they have a problem being hypocritical and denying wrongdoing by Manaford, Gates and Papa but being 100% certain of a Podesta's criminality. If you think they'd bat an eyelash before doing that you have not been paying attention.
There is no such thing as Conservatism these days, there is only anti-leftism. Deficits? Consistency? Any kind of policy besides tax cuts for the rich? Nah.
That's why they kind of suck at government, they are in their element when they can complain about liberals from their high horse, they don't actually want to solve real world problems or anything.
I've given up hope of anything in a large respect. For one thing, Republicans are never going to impeach Trump unless we get a videotape of him roasting a live infant over a spit. It doesn't matter what Mueller finds, they'll never, ever budge. The people who might give a damn make speeches (McCain, Flake, Corker) but do nothing and vote with him 90% of the time. All bark, no bite. The Democrats have a structural disadvantage in both the Congressional and Presidential races, so even a President who is hovering somewhere around 33-38% approval may be tough to unseat. Voter suppression is going to get WORSE, not better, and there is already ample evidence that it may have cost Clinton Wisconsin at the very least. Since the Republicans (and especially the Administration) can't admit anything about Russia, they also refuse to even acknowledge the obvious fact that they interfered, and no one is going to stop them from doing so a year from now. Last time they were able to access the voter rolls. How long is it before they can change votes??
At this point it almost feels silly to point out the differences in Trump's reactions to the New York attack vs the Vegas shooting. Because we all already knew that it is never too early to talk politics if the perpetrator is non-white and/or muslim.
At this point it almost feels silly to point out the differences in Trump's reactions to the New York attack vs the Vegas shooting. Because we all already knew that it is never too early to talk politics if the perpetrator is non-white and/or muslim.
He is also blaming Democrats for a program signed into law by George H. W. Bush in 1990. And guess what??
Trump was literally getting his talking points from FOX and Friends and Breitbart this morning.
These are the historical FACTS. The Senate had a bipartisan bill in 2013 that did exactly what Trump is suggesting. It was killed by the Republican House, because of Tea Party hardliners on immigration. Republicans killed merit-based immigration reform. They wouldn't even bring the bill to a vote.
Obama was willing to negotiate a deal with Boehner and the Republicans on immigration through most of his Presidency. Every effort to do so was shut down, mostly because of intense opposition from talk-radio and places like Breitbart. The very thing they will be bitching about today was torpedoed because of their efforts.
As a matter of fact, now that it's been brought up, I personally remember listening to Laura Ingraham take Marco Rubio to the woodshed in an interview for supporting the EXACT bill Flake is referring to while I was driving back from South Dakota. I can even distinctly remember what the gas station I fueled up at looked like while it was on the radio. Hard-right Republicans killed merit-based immigration because the bill wasn't pure enough.
Trump's campaign manager is a pretty shady dude. Not surprising, Trump is really shady himself.
* Manafort currently has three US passports, each under a different number. He has submitted 10 passport applications in roughly as many years, prosecutors said. * Over the past two years Manafort traveled to Mexico, China Dubai, Cancun, Panama City, Havana, Shanghai, Madrid, Tokyo, Grand Cayman Island and Ecuador with a phone and email account registered under a fake name. (The names was not disclosed in the filings.) * Both Manafort and Gates were frequent travelers to Cyprus. "Extensive travel of this nature further evidences a risk of flight," the prosecutor's filing said. * Manafort wrote on loan applications and other financial documents that his assets were worth between $19 million in April 2012 and $136 million in May 2016. * In some months, like while he served as Trump's national campaign chairman in August 2016, Manafort's assessment of his total worth fluctuated. In August 2016 he said his assets were worth $28 million, then wrote he had $63 million in assets on a different application. * Gates "frequently changed banks and opened and closed bank accounts," prosecutors said. In all, Gates opened 55 accounts with 13 financial institutions, the prosecutors' court filing said. Some of his bank accounts were in England and Cyprus, where he held more than $10 million from 2010 to 2013.
Incidentally, being shot with a paintball gun hurts but unless it hits you in the eye or directly on your trachea it isn't going to be really damaging.
Incidentally, being shot with a paintball gun hurts but unless it hits you in the eye or directly on your trachea it isn't going to be really damaging.
I'd say that's not true. There is a corporate democratic version of leftism (Tom Perez/Chuck Schumer) and a progressive version (Bernie). They are just not in power to do anything about it. The GOP is passing whatever they can with simple majority without Democratic party votes anyway, it doesn't matter what the Democrats say anyway. They don't want to reach out to Democrats and Democrats don't want to destroy the country so there's little common ground. But given all this power the GOP doesn't seem to know what to do since their main thing has been attacking Obama the past 8 yrs and Democrats in general for farther back than that.
I've given up hope of anything in a large respect. For one thing, Republicans are never going to impeach Trump unless we get a videotape of him roasting a live infant over a spit. It doesn't matter what Mueller finds, they'll never, ever budge. The people who might give a damn make speeches (McCain, Flake, Corker) but do nothing and vote with him 90% of the time. All bark, no bite. The Democrats have a structural disadvantage in both the Congressional and Presidential races, so even a President who is hovering somewhere around 33-38% approval may be tough to unseat. Voter suppression is going to get WORSE, not better, and there is already ample evidence that it may have cost Clinton Wisconsin at the very least. Since the Republicans (and especially the Administration) can't admit anything about Russia, they also refuse to even acknowledge the obvious fact that they interfered, and no one is going to stop them from doing so a year from now. Last time they were able to access the voter rolls. How long is it before they can change votes??
They are also packing the courts with judges, using their simple majority, put put judges on the court that believe in religion over the country.
Republicans put up Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic law professor who has questioned the legal rationale behind the Supreme Court ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade. The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Barrett to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Republicans focused on Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who accused Barrett at a hearing of letting “dogma” overwhelm legal reasoning, and then expanded to attacking any Democrat who opposed Barrett. But they had nothing to say about Roy Moore, the future Senator from Alabama, who thinks Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) should not be a member of Congress because he’s Muslim and has said homosexual conduct should be illegal.
Comments
And more than 900 people have died from gun violence since the Las Vegas massacre. So it must be time to go after Hillary Clinton and ban abortion! #priorities
There was no purpose in putting in the second half of the post other than to note that it is a political topic now which is not related to Russia, Catalonia, or Puerto Rico. The role of the government in that topic for now should be trying to find out why so many doctors were overprescribing drugs they should not have been. So much for "do no harm", yes?
When you set yourself up to provide goods to the general public there are laws that govern not just the goods you're selling, but who you can sell to (and not sell to). While it's not the same I think the old requirement that the US had (and the UK still has) for political balance in a public broadcaster is analagous. I suspect that one reason for the increase in political tensions in the US is the removal of that requirement. Another is the growth in the use of partisan social media as the sole or main way for many people to get information and that's an issue that deserves more consideration I think.
As for the opiod issue I think there's a number of things government could reasonably be doing, e.g.
- following the finances to see who's been benefiting.
- reviewing existing studies on addiction and long-term dependency and disseminating information from those (and probably commissioning further work).
- considering how best to help people get off unnecessary drugs (which are ultimately a cost to the country as well as the individuals).
blackurban people is not a problem.Trump fired him last week.
This is the same president who’s taken the unprecedented step of meeting privately with prospective federal prosecutors before nominating them to posts where Trump may personally face legal jeopardy.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-ouster-us-attorney-dana-boente-matters
North had tech, south had crops that needed to be harvested. Looks like a deal to move more industry, rail, etc would have been an option, deals to pay more for cotton for a time,(with paid labor by freemen). I don't know, I would have liked to have tried and talked to more folks then, knowing what I do know about talking to opposing sides that both want something.
Saying Kelly (can't really say, from that) is a racist because compromise failed does not exactly seem to say he is a racist. Perhaps OTHER deals (compromise= deal, solution, win-win for both) could have been reach to avert war and get rid of slavery. Maybe we good have had freedom for slaves and not the legacy of a civil war that still haunts this country today.
Just would like to have tried using better techniques at reaching a deal (and reading, getting through to others than were known back then.
I don't know, maybe war was the only way at the time for the minds at the time on all sides involved. Still sucks though as many have not gotten over that, or racial equality for that matter, by in large.
Beyond that, I learned something about Robert E. Lee today that should shatter any notion of nobility anyone has about him:
Compromise is great, and we certainly need people to be more open to compromise today, but there are a few rare things that are just flat-out evil and need to be destroyed. The United States couldn't have compromised with slavers about slavery any more than we could have compromised with the Nazis about the Holocaust, the Soviets about the spread of communism, the North Koreans about the invasion of South Korea, or al Qaeda about 9/11.
What sort of compromise would have freed the slaves in the southern states?
"Russian linked" accounts retweeted Clinton almost twice as much as Trump, all Russian linked content is less than 1% of election based Twitter content at the time and had low impressions, but most importantly in my mind, Twitter was targeting and silencing tweets under the #PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak hashtags. Half of the #DNCLeak tweets were silenced. They estimate that 0.84-4% of the hashtag tweets were Russian related. Interesting stuff coming out today. The political agendas of social media companies are more pernicious than the political agendas of the media in my opinion. We expect it when "journalists" vow to defend Democrat appointees or give veto power on stories to powerful Democrat figures or are described by Democrats as mouthpieces for pro-Democrat messages to be pushed. We don't expect this kind of underhanded tribalism from private social media companies. Or, at least, there was a time when we didn't.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10-31-17 Edgett Testimony.pdf
#MMGA
Here is why it's such good satire: Trump and everyone around him is now claiming that Papa was basically someone who fetched the coffee. You can believe that, but you then have to dismiss your own ears if you listen to the audio of what he told the Washington Post in March, where, bragging about his foreign policy team, he said of him (and I quote) "He's an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy". In the same month, an official photo was released by the campaign showing a meeting of the entire foreign policy team. He is sitting in the middle of the table two spots from both Sessions and Trump. We have audio of him saying the first, and we have a picture of the later. Not that that matters in American in 2017, because reality has been subverted into whatever the hell we are living through now.
Now, the article is mostly spoofing Manafort, and that is even more beyond ridiculous. He came on in March, and was the Campaign Chair through August. The only reason he had to leave the campaign at all was because this Ukraine business was coming out in the press. He was instrumental in wrangling delegates to make sure the Republican Convention went smoothly. But, more importantly, once people like Manafort, Papa, and Carter Page joined the team, Donald Trump's language and position on Russia's incursions into Ukraine completely shifted, as did the entire Republican platform.
We can also sit here and ignore the fact that the Administration is just flat-out REFUSING to implement the sanctions on Russia that were passed by Congress and signed by Trump at was essentially gunpoint because they were totally veto-proof. But it's no wonder he signed them, because he never had any intention of carrying out the law he himself signed.
* Manafort currently has three US passports, each under a different number. He has submitted 10 passport applications in roughly as many years, prosecutors said.
* Over the past two years Manafort traveled to Mexico, China Dubai, Cancun, Panama City, Havana, Shanghai, Madrid, Tokyo, Grand Cayman Island and Ecuador with a phone and email account registered under a fake name. (The names was not disclosed in the filings.)
* Both Manafort and Gates were frequent travelers to Cyprus. "Extensive travel of this nature further evidences a risk of flight," the prosecutor's filing said.
* Manafort wrote on loan applications and other financial documents that his assets were worth between $19 million in April 2012 and $136 million in May 2016.
* In some months, like while he served as Trump's national campaign chairman in August 2016, Manafort's assessment of his total worth fluctuated. In August 2016 he said his assets were worth $28 million, then wrote he had $63 million in assets on a different application.
* Gates "frequently changed banks and opened and closed bank accounts," prosecutors said. In all, Gates opened 55 accounts with 13 financial institutions, the prosecutors' court filing said. Some of his bank accounts were in England and Cyprus, where he held more than $10 million from 2010 to 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/manafort-3-passports/index.html
Of course the real rub will be this: if Tony Podesta is charged with some sort of crime, the right-wing media will immediately seize on it. But how can they possibly do so without admitting the entire investigation is 100% valid?? They will not be able to pick and choose which parts are legit and which aren't. I'd advise most liberals to get out in front on this when in discussions about this topic. Tony Podesta isn't someone worth defending, and if Mueller finds something on him, it's almost certainly legit.
There is no such thing as Conservatism these days, there is only anti-leftism. Deficits? Consistency? Any kind of policy besides tax cuts for the rich? Nah.
That's why they kind of suck at government, they are in their element when they can complain about liberals from their high horse, they don't actually want to solve real world problems or anything.
Trump was literally getting his talking points from FOX and Friends and Breitbart this morning.
These are the historical FACTS. The Senate had a bipartisan bill in 2013 that did exactly what Trump is suggesting. It was killed by the Republican House, because of Tea Party hardliners on immigration. Republicans killed merit-based immigration reform. They wouldn't even bring the bill to a vote.
Obama was willing to negotiate a deal with Boehner and the Republicans on immigration through most of his Presidency. Every effort to do so was shut down, mostly because of intense opposition from talk-radio and places like Breitbart. The very thing they will be bitching about today was torpedoed because of their efforts.
As a matter of fact, now that it's been brought up, I personally remember listening to Laura Ingraham take Marco Rubio to the woodshed in an interview for supporting the EXACT bill Flake is referring to while I was driving back from South Dakota. I can even distinctly remember what the gas station I fueled up at looked like while it was on the radio. Hard-right Republicans killed merit-based immigration because the bill wasn't pure enough.
*************
Here is the information guide about diversity visas directly from the Dept. of State itself.
Incidentally, being shot with a paintball gun hurts but unless it hits you in the eye or directly on your trachea it isn't going to be really damaging.
They are also packing the courts with judges, using their simple majority, put put judges on the court that believe in religion over the country.
Republicans put up Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic law professor who has questioned the legal rationale behind the Supreme Court ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade. The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Barrett to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Republicans focused on Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who accused Barrett at a hearing of letting “dogma” overwhelm legal reasoning, and then expanded to attacking any Democrat who opposed Barrett. But they had nothing to say about Roy Moore, the future Senator from Alabama, who thinks Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) should not be a member of Congress because he’s Muslim and has said homosexual conduct should be illegal.