The guy pushing basic minimum income got like, what, 15 total votes in Iowa and New Hampshire?? It was always an idea that sounded like something a college freshman came up with after passing a bong around with some econ majors. He was advocating for sending $1000 a month to EVERYONE, even people who had far less, if not NO need for it, in an effort to appeal to the people who don't like poor people to have anything that they are ostensibly "paying" for (even though their contribution to what poor people get in government services is literally pennies a month). It was as dumb as say......the flat-tax.
If this country despises poor people so much, then why are so many people adamant that we enact policies that will keep more people poor in the long run? The taxes required to give "free" medical care to everyone, "free" university education to everyone, and a basic minimum income will change the current system of "lower class, middle class, upper class, top-out-of-sight class" (note: the top-out-of-sight class refers to people whose wealth is so vast that you, as a normal person, never see them or even their house--that gated driveway you see down that one road, the one you wonder who lives there but you can't see the house, yes--those people...people like Bloomberg) into "lower class, top-out-of-sight class". Incidentally, there is also a bottom-out-of-sight class--these are the people living in the drainage systems in cities like Las Vegas or Los Angeles; they are there, but you as a normal person will probably never see them.
Rich people view us that way, commodities. Someone to drive past and ignore. Sure we exist but what are we doing for them?
Every nation dies as a result of an excess of the virtues which built it. Giving a level playing field to everyone and making sure that everyone has a chance to get ahead...that is how we were built, but mandating it via expanding government programs will make us so top-heavy that we collapse. Mentally, I am prepared for this eventuality but most people are not.
You should look into the tax rates and government programs for the era that there was a level playing field. The top tax rate was 90%. And government programs were enacted to end elderly poverty and set a minimum wage.
Reagan's reduction of the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 20% spurred the end of equality of opportunity and let to the massive inequality and power differential we have today.
The good times were not the result of a libertarian paradise with no rules. Without intervention of government you get child labor, 20 hour work days, and whatever else corporate greed can get away with.
I think one thing people fundamentally gloss over is the vast power differential between one guy and a corporation. Individually we are weak compared to the power big money has over us. They want us fighting for rugged individualism against each other while they rig the systems for their benefit. Socialism for the rich through bailouts, subsidies,and tax cuts and rugged individualism for the little guy.
edit/add: disclosure: I am not wealthy, but my family used to have wealth. My grandfather had a construction business--I have mentioned before that the likelihood that he employed illegal immigrants is about 99%, but I was a child and so I had no say in how he ran his business--and then he got killed by that drunk driver. After the insurance settlements and selling the business my grandmother wound up being a millionaire. After both my father and my aunt--her children--got divorces within 2 years of each other, my aunt and my step-mother--some of whose children were notorious in our town for their criminal activity--wound up pilfering as much money from her as they could. Getting away from the psychotic ex took most of my money, the lazy one wound up costing me the rest. Currently...*whew* it has not been an easy 10 years, especially after my last employer stabbed me in the back--my income alone was well over the national median--so now I work 2 jobs, about 70 hours per week, and am trying to recover the couple of tens of thousands of dollars I had. Retirement? *laugh* There is no retirement for me until age and health force it, after which I will wind up living with one of the kids once they are established and have careers of their own. I don't despise poor people--I pretty much *am* one.
Sounds rough but not boring. Maybe things shouldn't be so cutthroat in the "greatest economy ever" or whatever. Maybe we human beings should not have to work ourselves to literal death to avoid poverty. I've spent time in Europe and in America, their safety nets and systems while obviously not perfect, are an improvement.
I can't see any way in which individuals willing to consider only their specific problems can provide an answer to wider environmental issues, like climate change.
I can give you my answer to climate change: I don't give a shit about climate change. Not only is the climate going to change regardless of whether we do anything about it or not, the climate is *supposed* to change--why is the climate supposed to be exactly like it was 50 or 100 years ago? They keep pushing the disaster events off into the future, usually far enough into the future that by the time that date arrives no one will remember the doom-and-gloom predictions.
Well, your views at least have the virtue of honesty. Without going into too much detail, here's a response to those.
The climate is inherently variable, I agree. However, humans are currently changing the climate, so it's not a case of the climate changing irrespective of what we do - we are the direct cause of the current warming trend. In itself a warming climate is not a bad thing for life on earth, but the speed of the change is so fast that current eco-systems won't find it easy to adapt (and neither will humans).
Other pressures caused by humans mean there's a strong argument that a 6th mass extinction event in the history of the earth is already under way (see here for some background on this) and climate change will give that process a big boost. You may of course feel that's something else that you don't give a shit about in the belief it will have no impact on you.
It's an easy argument to make that predictions of disastrous climate change made 30 or 40 years ago have not come true and therefore predictions made now will prove just as unreliable. However, that ignores the way science works. There's a constant process of testing and refining models to fit better with both theories of how climate works and data on actual changes in the past. The result is that models now can predict with a high degree of accuracy changes we've already seen, thus giving a far better basis for predicting what will happen in the future. That process for climate change models is very similar to the process used to improve weather forecasting. I wonder how many people who are currently happy to ignore climate change predictions would also be happy to ignore storm forecasts? I suspect that it's pretty much only the older members of the community (who grew up when weather forecasting was much less reliable) who feel like that now. In another 40 or 50 years I suspect that it will also only be older people who are prepared to ignore climate change forecasts, as the accuracy of the forecasts in the meantime will have been all too obvious to anyone younger.
Far from being something that will only show up in the distant future, the impacts of climate change are already being felt. Major events that would have been classified as very rare not long ago are already much more common and that trend will continue. Wildfires are an example of that and the fact that Australia has a government that has denied climate change in the past will not alter the fact that the fire risk there will continue to increase in future - and even the fires this year have cost billions of dollars and affected millions of people. The intensity of storms will increase as the ocean warms, while coastal flooding will displace millions of people - IPCC reports predict that by 2050 extreme coastal flooding that would have occurred once in a century will happen every year. While those major events will be the most visible signs of change, the more subtle changes affecting things like appropriate crops for particular locations will have a bigger net impact.
It's true that the richest countries in the world will be able to mitigate some of these effects, but you're kidding yourself if you think that any individual (or country) will be immune to the changes taking place in the wider world.
Man, I didn’t realize that places like Canada and Denmark and Sweden has a huge amount of people filing for bankruptcy because of high taxes due to the social policies they have implemented for the last 50 years.
Funny, they also don’t have major tent cities popping up outside of large urban areas like Houston and San Francisco.
Maybe instead of giving campaigns $300 million (Trump) or even $18 million (Sanders), citizens of the United States can support other endeavours?
Maybe pure capitalism is failing right now as much as pure socialism has in the past. Maybe there needs to happy balance between the two, something like the three countries that I mentioned above, all of which are constants in the top ten happiness nations.
Sounds rough but not boring. Maybe things shouldn't be so cutthroat in the "greatest economy ever" or whatever. Maybe we human beings should not have to work ourselves to literal death to avoid poverty. I've spent time in Europe and in America, their safety nets and systems while obviously not perfect, are an improvement.
I would rather have it rough than live under European style safety nets because the idea that I have to rely on someone like the government make me feel like less of a person. Incidentally, I have lived in Europe, as well--I drank beer all the time but lost 10 pounds because of all the walking. I definitely recommend living abroad for a year after college.
Sounds rough but not boring. Maybe things shouldn't be so cutthroat in the "greatest economy ever" or whatever. Maybe we human beings should not have to work ourselves to literal death to avoid poverty. I've spent time in Europe and in America, their safety nets and systems while obviously not perfect, are an improvement.
I would rather have it rough than live under European style safety nets because the idea that I have to rely on someone like the government make me feel like less of a person. Incidentally, I have lived in Europe, as well--I drank beer all the time but lost 10 pounds because of all the walking. I definitely recommend living abroad for a year after college.
You don't only rely on the government, they merely work more on your behalf than they do here. Also there tends to be more of a sense of community, I'm sure you noticed, when it's not dog-eat-dog every man for himself. It's more of a brotherhood than if there's minimum standards than if there's no net we're all at the whims of corporate greed and fighting like rats to nibble on whatever droppings the rich and powerful are willing to drop on us to fight over.
*ugh* I thoroughly dislike "community" and "brotherhood"--I am afraid that I am just not a fan of my fellow human beings as you appear to be. No one has your best interests at heart except you and the people you think are fighting for you will, at some point, turn on you if circumstances make them think they need to. Unless you are a corporate executive you are always going to be at the whims of corporate greed--and sometimes even then you are subject to it, such as when the CEO and CIO from my previous company were walked out of the building by the Board on the same day, along with their EAs, in a case of corporate housecleaning.
Someone mentioned it last night--the best way to combat corporate greed that you mention is to increase employee-owned companies. When you, as an employee, work for yourself, your morale and productivity both increase--plus you are getting extra money via shares every paycheck. Not only that, if the employees comprise 50.1% of the shareholders then the likelihood that they move operations overseas is low--no one votes to put themselves out of work just to maximize profits. No, the nameless shareholders most corporations have now do things like that.
edit/add: It looks like they sentenced Roger Stone to 40 months. White-collar Federal prison; with "good behavior" I would be surprised if he spends 24 months inside--which may or may not come with weekend furlough. Of course, no one--not even me--knows whether or not Trump will issue a pardon.
Most of you probably don't keep up with German politics, but they're really freaking out over the rise of a right wing party there. They've crept up to being second place in several areas of Germany and it's getting to the point where they can't shun them out of
participating in government anymore, so now they want to start dissolving elections. It's unlikely to happen given it needs broad support, but it goes to show the depths they will sink to.
Germany is being asked why they haven't done enough to curb far-right terrorism and that right wing nationalist party that was being advocated for two weeks ago here.
The gunman that killed 9 yesterday in Hanau was a big fan of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Recent far-right attacks in Germany
- Feb 2020: A far right gunman kills nine in Hanau
-October 2019: In Halle, an attacker kills two and tries to storm a synagogue, broadcasting the assault live online. He later admits a far-right, anti-Semitic motive for the attack
-June 2019: Walter Lübcke, a pro-migrant politician, is shot in the head at close range and found dead in his garden. A suspect with far-right links later confesses to the murder
- July 2016: An 18-year-old shoots dead nine people at a shopping mall in Munich before killing himself. Bavarian authorities later classify the attack as "politically motivated", saying the teen had "radical right-wing and racist views"
That's right--one town tried Libertarianism *once* and therefore the entire political philosophy is a failure...but dozens of countries have tried Socialism for decades and have all failed but somehow Socialism is still valid because "no one has ever implemented it correctly". Talk about living in a fantasy utopia...... (not a direct quote, of course, but that is the usual defense of it)
Umm, your definition of socialism is clearly non-standard, given that basically every country in the world (most certainly including the US) has implemented socialist policies and they have not all failed.
Like, do you even know the difference between socialism and communism? They're not at all the same thing.
I notice you didn't answer the questions, though. *shrug* Medicare for All--screw that. I am not willing to pay money my neighbor's health care because their illnesses are not my problem just like my illnesses are not their problem. I pay for my stuff, they pay for theirs--*that* is the only system which works.
Then you're going to have to explain why pretty much every single public healthcare system in the world provides better health outcomes for the populace than the US system does, at considerably lesser cost to the taxpayer (because better public health is a public benefit for everyone).
And given your preferred system in its purest form is simply going to let people die if they can't pay for their healthcare, it is not a system that is going to "work" the way most people would define "working".
If this country despises poor people so much, then why are so many people adamant that we enact policies that will keep more people poor in the long run? The taxes required to give "free" medical care to everyone, "free" university education to everyone, and a basic minimum income will change the current system of "lower class, middle class, upper class, top-out-of-sight class" (note: the top-out-of-sight class refers to people whose wealth is so vast that you, as a normal person, never see them or even their house--that gated driveway you see down that one road, the one you wonder who lives there but you can't see the house, yes--those people...people like Bloomberg) into "lower class, top-out-of-sight class". Incidentally, there is also a bottom-out-of-sight class--these are the people living in the drainage systems in cities like Las Vegas or Los Angeles; they are there, but you as a normal person will probably never see them.
Those policies don't keep more people poor in the long run, and there is a multitude of history to prove this.
Not least of which being the history of the United States, whose greatest prosperity (and most expansive middle class) was built on the socialist policies and high taxes on the rich that followed World War II.
You can believe all you want that helping people get an education, stay healthier and get a hand out of poverty does not benefit the economy more than it costs, but you are as definitively wrong as it is possible to be in a discussion about economics.
We're getting really non-specific and philosophical here. It's not clear to me that folks are even arguing about the same thing.
We live in different worlds. Conservative propaganda presents a different reality. People in that bubble have a distorted view of reality based on fear and hate anxiety. Corporate media presents a biased reality but generally doesn't need to spin every story and filter out stories they don't want the audience to hear to keep their viewers misinformed the same way the Conservatives' media does.
Long story short: different realities.
It's clear to me, at least, that getting people to hate each other, fear cooperation and our common humanity is a conservative weapon.
Divide and conquer is the strategy. Setting the working class against the poor to keep them showing up at those jobs while they collect money doing nothing but inheriting wealth and profiting off your back.
Seeing people argue for a worldview of hating against their neighbors, loved ones and fellow human beings who are trying to get by is frankly disturbing.
edit: updated language to reflect "anxiety" per studies not hate
We're getting really non-specific and philosophical here. It's not clear to me that folks are even arguing about the same thing.
We live in different worlds. Conservative propaganda presents a different reality. People in that bubble have a distorted view of reality based on fear and hate. Corporate media presents a biased reality but generally doesn't need to spin every story and filter out stories they don't want the audience to hear to keep their viewers misinformed the same way the Conservatives' media does.
Long story short: different realities.
It's clear to me, at least, that getting people to hate each other, fear cooperation and our common humanity is a conservative weapon.
Divide and conquer is the strategy. Setting the working class against the poor to keep them showing up at those jobs while they collect money doing nothing but inheriting wealth and profiting off your back.
Seeing people argue for a worldview of hating against their neighbors, loved ones and fellow human beings who are trying to get by is frankly disturbing.
Wow, you really nailed it. That's exactly what we conservatives want. We also eat kittens and sacrifice babies to Satan whenever we can...
Wow you nailed it. Making up stuff and misdirection instead of addressing the point.
Which is, again, conservative media, which is funded by elites and brought to you by millionaires, whole thing is pitting the working class against the poor so the rich run off with the money. Divide and conquer.
Speaking of fearmongering...."enact our green policies *now* or the planet is going to *die*"..."we need Medicare for All *right now* or millions of people are going to *die*"...and "we need to tax the crap out of people *right now* or millions of people are going to be living and starving to death on the street". Yeah, okay, sure--whatever. None of those things have happened despite people saying these things for decades and so those things are not going to happen in the future, either. Conservatives don't live in fear and we do not tell people "the government is the *only* thing which can save you". The people who *do* say that just want you to submit and learn your place as a good little plebe.
Yes, I understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is the "gateway drug" to Communism--it killed the CCCP and it killed Venezuela. China *calls* its ruling party "Communist" but it really a form of Socialism--a capitalist economy under strict control by the centralized government. I studied political science before all the definitions got blurred, so not only do I understand what they mean and how they are different, I don't pay attention to any newer voices trying to claim that they know what they really are or how policies with a proven history of failure can somehow be successful here.
*************
I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.
I also see that "Russian hacking" and "Russian meddling" are already being used to discredit the results of the 2020 Election and that event is still 9 months away. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why they lost again already? How, exactly, is Russia "hacking" anything? They have agents in every precinct fiddling with the machines? As far as "meddling"...what, via social media? Which law is being broken if a Russian agent creates a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be a person in the United States and putting out false news stories? Isn't that a Facebook problem instead of a legal problem?
Of course, I also saw it said that the Russians were meddling in the Democrat primaries, so they are even trying to cast doubt on their own primary process. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why Sander is--or is not--the nominee? It won't matter who they choose, someone is going to say "interference is why my candidate was not chosen". These stories are driven by Democrats--there is the real "divide and conquer", which is the only way Democrats can ever win.
I don't hate my neighbors, loved ones, or fellow human beings. If I did, I would not continue to be here arguing that we need to keep our freedoms in place despite increasing calls for most of them to be taken away under the guise of "Democratic Socialism".
If billionaires should not exist, Mr. Sanders, should millionaires exist? If so, why the arbitrary distinction between the two? Having a net worth of $999 million is okay, but $1 billion is not? If you take away the top 1%, wouldn't that just make a new "top 1%" of the people who are left?
Speaking of fearmongering...."enact our green policies *now* or the planet is going to *die*"..."we need Medicare for All *right now* or millions of people are going to *die*"...and "we need to tax the crap out of people *right now* or millions of people are going to be living and starving to death on the street". Yeah, okay, sure--whatever. None of those things have happened despite people saying these things for decades and so those things are not going to happen in the future, either. Conservatives don't live in fear and we do not tell people "the government is the *only* thing which can save you". The people who *do* say that just want you to submit and learn your place as a good little plebe.
Yes, I understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is the "gateway drug" to Communism--it killed the CCCP and it killed Venezuela. China *calls* its ruling party "Communist" but it really a form of Socialism--a capitalist economy under strict control by the centralized government. I studied political science before all the definitions got blurred, so not only do I understand what they mean and how they are different, I don't pay attention to any newer voices trying to claim that they know what they really are or how policies with a proven history of failure can somehow be successful here.
*************
I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.
I also see that "Russian hacking" and "Russian meddling" are already being used to discredit the results of the 2020 Election and that event is still 9 months away. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why they lost again already? How, exactly, is Russia "hacking" anything? They have agents in every precinct fiddling with the machines? As far as "meddling"...what, via social media? Which law is being broken if a Russian agent creates a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be a person in the United States and putting out false news stories? Isn't that a Facebook problem instead of a legal problem?
Of course, I also saw it said that the Russians were meddling in the Democrat primaries, so they are even trying to cast doubt on their own primary process. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why Sander is--or is not--the nominee? It won't matter who they choose, someone is going to say "interference is why my candidate was not chosen".
I don't hate my neighbors, loved ones, or fellow human beings. If I did, I would not continue to be here arguing that we need to keep our freedoms in place despite increasing calls for most of them to be taken away under the guise of "Democratic Socialism".
If billionaires should not exist, Mr. Sanders, should millionaires exist? If so, why the arbitrary distinction between the two? Having a net worth of $999 million is okay, but $1 billion is not? If you take away the top 1%, wouldn't that just make a new "top 1%" of the people who are left?
It's a news report about what Trump's OWN intelligence agencies told Congress, his reaction to which was to fire the head of them and replace him with a man who is essentially a sycophantic internet troll. What are you even going on about with this pre-emptive excuses nonsense?? "Democrats" had nothing to do with the reporting yesterday. As for what laws are broken by Russian agents creating fake social media accounts, your answer is in the Mueller Report. Read or don't. But don't pretend the answer isn't available.
For another thing, we don't know if they can hack machines. We know for a FACT they can hack voter rolls, because they already did so in 2016. That's what burglars might call "casing the joint". Almost all our machines are electronic. Of course they can find a way to do worse than last time.
The reports of Russian meddling are being overblown as a way to set up the narrative in case November doesn't go very well for Democrats. If Trump loses, the narrative will be "we found out about the interfernce in time and stopped it" but if he wins it will be "see? they meddled *again*".
This is the sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking Democrats have been employing often lately. Consider the economy. For the first year, yes--the economy was Obama's, but we are now two years into a Trump economy, which is why it is good. If the economy were doing poorly I guarantee the narrative would be "look at how he has totally wrecked the economy all on his own".
Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote a small compact which purports to release people from Bloomberg NDAs, provided both he (well, his legal team) and the other individuals sign it. She is not licensed to practice law in New York--I don't think her compacts would have any legal enforcability. A New York State attorney would have to draft those but they could use hers as a template.
Speaking of fearmongering...."enact our green policies *now* or the planet is going to *die*"..."we need Medicare for All *right now* or millions of people are going to *die*"...and "we need to tax the crap out of people *right now* or millions of people are going to be living and starving to death on the street"
Scientists are warning that there is a climate emergency. It does make sense to want to do something about it instead of making it worse so some Billionaire oil CEOs make more money which seems to be the rights plan.
The US healthcare system sucks ass. 68k die each year because they can't afford medical care so it will take a few years to get to a million but it is true.
And homelessness is a huge problem in this country.
Democrat fearmongering is at least based on reality and not "zomg scary brown ppl taking ur minimum wage jerbs".
Finally, no one wants to tax you. We need higher rates on the top. Like it was in the hood old days. You're doing the dirty work for the elites defending their interests.
We're getting really non-specific and philosophical here. It's not clear to me that folks are even arguing about the same thing.
We live in different worlds. Conservative propaganda presents a different reality. People in that bubble have a distorted view of reality based on fear and hate. Corporate media presents a biased reality but generally doesn't need to spin every story and filter out stories they don't want the audience to hear to keep their viewers misinformed the same way the Conservatives' media does.
Long story short: different realities.
It's clear to me, at least, that getting people to hate each other, fear cooperation and our common humanity is a conservative weapon.
Divide and conquer is the strategy. Setting the working class against the poor to keep them showing up at those jobs while they collect money doing nothing but inheriting wealth and profiting off your back.
Seeing people argue for a worldview of hating against their neighbors, loved ones and fellow human beings who are trying to get by is frankly disturbing.
Wow, you really nailed it. That's exactly what we conservatives want. We also eat kittens and sacrifice babies to Satan whenever we can...
I KNEW IT!
@Mathsorcerer "*ugh* I thoroughly dislike "community" and "brotherhood"--I am afraid that I am just not a fan of my fellow human beings as you appear to be. No one has your best interests at heart except you and the people you think are fighting for you will, at some point, turn on you if circumstances make them think they need to."
Yeah, that's what @smeagolheart said. Either enriching yourself at the expense of someone else, or outright turning on each other. Its one of THE defining traits of the conservative mindset.
Ah. I’m sorry your education into political science wasn’t better. The idea that socialism is a “gateway drug” to communism is utterly untrue. Your assertion of such belies the fact that you don’t really understand either.
Also - seems like projection to say that because Trump fired his DNI for briefing a room that Adam Schiff was in about Russian meddling, the “Democrats are making excuses already”. They aren’t. The reporting is entirely directly toward Trump being upset that his team briefed Democrats of Russian meddling.
Ah. I’m sorry your education into political science wasn’t better. The idea that socialism is a “gateway drug” to communism is utterly untrue. Your assertion of such belies the fact that you don’t really understand either.
Also - seems like projection to say that because Trump fired his DNI for briefing a room that Adam Schiff was in about Russian meddling, the “Democrats are making excuses already”. They aren’t. The reporting is entirely directly toward Trump being upset that his team briefed Democrats of Russian meddling.
It's very suspicious that Trump has a reaction like that over the only branch of government willing to perform oversight on the Executive branch and to protect American elections isn't it.
The Senate is not passing election security bills intentionally.
Barr has inserted himself personally in the investigation into election campaign investigations saying any investigation needs his personal approval.
Trump finds out that Democrats were briefed on continuing Russian interference to benefit Trump and his reaction is to fire the DNI and put someone who is a gold star member at his hotels and a conspiracy theorist loyalist in charge of national intelligence.
“I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.”
They are appealing for a new trial because of the jury forewoman’s media posts prior to the trial that bashes Donald Trump.
I’d be very annoyed if it got approved because that’s all defence teams need to do from this point forward - make sure their is at least one biased juror.
“I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.”
They are appealing for a new trial because of the jury forewoman’s media posts prior to the trial that bashes Donald Trump.
I’d be very annoyed if it got approved because that’s all defence teams need to do from this point forward - make sure their is at least one biased juror.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings. I'm sure they had an entire team of experts dissecting the pros and cons of each one, because that's what you get when you have an actual expensive legal defense. Apparently it's now perfectly normal for the President of the United States to personally attack citizens who serve on a jury. Also, let's get real here. The jury forewoman is black. What this is really about is they don't believe a black woman has the right to sit in judgement of someone like Roger Stone. Not only are the citizen of Washington DC not allowed to have representation in the Senate or House, apparently they aren't allowed to field of pool of jurors either. Look at the demographics of the city and you'll find out why.
So we've reached the point where now jurors can't have personal political opinions. So, to round out the list, we have celebrities who aren't allowed to have them (unless they are Jon Voight or Ted Nugent), athletes aren't allowed to have them, and now, POTENTIAL JURORS, which is.......everyone. And I want to make this very clear once again. Trump has singled out this juror who is nothing but a private citizen who answered a legally binding summons to appear for jury duty. This is the 2nd or 3rd time he has done so. If you don't think the right-wing troll brigade on the internet is making her life a living hell as we speak, you are living in a fantasy world. I'm 110% sure her personal information has ALL been discovered and spread.
Trump took an oath to defend that woman's constitutional rights whether she is his biggest supporter or most toxic critic. Instead, he has essentially assured death threats will be a daily part of her life for the foreseeable future. Calling out judges as the head of the Executive Branch was bad enough. Now he is personally targeting individual citizen jurors. It's so far beyond the pale it's not even funny.
Once again, economics is not a zero-sum game: if I make an extra $1 that is not taking the $1 out of your pocket.
*All* types of people turn on each other--didn't you watch the Democrat debate the other night?
Trump's DNI is his choice and he may replace that person at any time, for any reason, without having to explain himself to anyone. Ideally, that should be someone well-suited for the job but I am not in charge of Trump (if I were, several things would be considerably different than they are right now).
The climate has been described as "an emergency" for at least 30 years--that does not qualify as an "emergency". The changes in climate are slow and human beings will adapt, as we always have.
The worst-case scenario conservatives fear if liberals get everything they want is that everyone will be poor--except for government officials, who will fantastically wealthy--and no one will have the freedom to oppose the government even by expressing a dissenting opinion. The worst-case scenario liberals fear if conservatives get everything they want is that everyone will be poor--except for corporate executives, who will be fantastically wealthy--and then the planet will die. Which scenario is more extreme and insane?
Ah so--someone else to add to the ignore list. Done.
“I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.”
They are appealing for a new trial because of the jury forewoman’s media posts prior to the trial that bashes Donald Trump.
I’d be very annoyed if it got approved because that’s all defence teams need to do from this point forward - make sure their is at least one biased juror.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings. I'm sure they had an entire team of experts dissecting the pros and cons of each one, because that's what you get when you have an actual expensive legal defense. Apparently it's now perfectly normal for the President of the United States to personally attack citizens who serve on a jury. Also, let's get real here. The jury forewoman is black. What this is really about is they don't believe a black woman has the right to sit in judgement of someone like Roger Stone. Not only are the citizen of Washington DC not allowed to have representation in the Senate or House, apparently they aren't allowed to field of pool of jurors either. Look at the demographics of the city and you'll find out why.
So we've reached the point where now jurors can't have personal political opinions. So, to round out the list, we have celebrities who aren't allowed to have them (unless they are Jon Voight or Ted Nugent), athletes aren't allowed to have them, and now, POTENTIAL JURORS, which is.......everyone. And I want to make this very clear once again. Trump has singled out this juror who is nothing but a private citizen who answered a legally binding summons to appear for jury duty. This is the the 2nd or 3rd time he has done so. If you don't think the right-wing troll brigade on the internet is making her life a living hell as we speak, you are living in a fantasy world. I'm 110% sure her personal information has ALL been discovered and spread.
Obviously. This was planned from the get go, however, I personally don’t think her race played a part.
As long as he keeps appealing, he’s a free man. Once the appeals run out, Trump will issue a pardon based on how “unfairly” he had been treated this entire time.
And if he does get a new trial, with handpicked prosecutors from the DoJ, he will get far less of a punishment than 40 months, of not a “botched” mistrial (which his defensive team was hoping for the first time around).
Ah. I’m sorry your education into political science wasn’t better. The idea that socialism is a “gateway drug” to communism is utterly untrue. Your assertion of such belies the fact that you don’t really understand either.
Also - seems like projection to say that because Trump fired his DNI for briefing a room that Adam Schiff was in about Russian meddling, the “Democrats are making excuses already”. They aren’t. The reporting is entirely directly toward Trump being upset that his team briefed Democrats of Russian meddling.
It's very suspicious that Trump has a reaction like that over the only branch of government willing to perform oversight on the Executive branch and to protect American elections isn't it.
The Senate is not passing election security bills intentionally.
Barr has inserted himself personally in the investigation into election campaign investigations saying any investigation needs his personal approval.
Trump finds out that Democrats were briefed on continuing Russian interference to benefit Trump and his reaction is to fire the DNI and put someone who is a gold star member at his hotels and a conspiracy theorist loyalist in charge of national intelligence.
You're even missing part of the story. Trump thought ONLY Adam Schiff was given this information. That was the assumption he was operating under. It was given to the Congressional Intelligence Committees as a whole. He fired him under an entirely faulty assumption ON TOP of the overarching reason. How much you wanna bet 35% of the country now thinks the DNI and Schiff meeting in some secure basement is how they view this event?? Because that is how the President viewed it too. Totally erroneously.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings.
The House of Representatives had every opportunity to go to the courts to enforce subpoenas to get testimony during impeachment...but they did not *want* to because they didn't *really* want to impeach Trump, just pretend to do so.
Stone is not going to be pardoned until the day after November elections. At that point, Trump is free to pardon anyone he pleases regardless of the outcome.
“ Trump's DNI is his choice and he may replace that person at any time, for any reason, without having to explain himself to anyone. Ideally, that should be someone well-suited for the job but I am not in charge of Trump (if I were, several things would be considerably different than they are right now).”
I thought all appointees had to be approved by the Senate and any “Acting” appointee only has a limited time in the role until the president finds a suitable replacement.
~
Also, putting a yes man in the DNI position is a very risky thing to do. We’re talking about election interference atm, but not having a vigilant person in the role can lead to another terrorist attack like 9/11.
That is what American’s should be concerned about IMO. It’s up to each individual to determine if that risk is great enough to let something like this slide.
“Trump's DNI is his choice and he may replace that person at any time, for any reason, without having to explain himself to anyone. Ideally, that should be someone well-suited for the job but I am not in charge of Trump (if I were, several things would be considerably different than they are right now). “
This argument does not refute the claim that firing the head of the DNI because, in doing his job, he may have harmed Trump’s reelection chances. Unless I missed it, literally no one is saying he shouldn’t be allowed to replace his DNI.- he is allowed to be criticized for replacing him with a crony (apparently), and doubly so because it suggests he doesn’t want to protect the US from attempted Russian meddling.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings.
The House of Representatives had every opportunity to go to the courts to enforce subpoenas to get testimony during impeachment...but they did not *want* to because they didn't *really* want to impeach Trump, just pretend to do so.
Comments
Rich people view us that way, commodities. Someone to drive past and ignore. Sure we exist but what are we doing for them?
You should look into the tax rates and government programs for the era that there was a level playing field. The top tax rate was 90%. And government programs were enacted to end elderly poverty and set a minimum wage.
Reagan's reduction of the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 20% spurred the end of equality of opportunity and let to the massive inequality and power differential we have today.
The good times were not the result of a libertarian paradise with no rules. Without intervention of government you get child labor, 20 hour work days, and whatever else corporate greed can get away with.
I think one thing people fundamentally gloss over is the vast power differential between one guy and a corporation. Individually we are weak compared to the power big money has over us. They want us fighting for rugged individualism against each other while they rig the systems for their benefit. Socialism for the rich through bailouts, subsidies,and tax cuts and rugged individualism for the little guy.
Sounds rough but not boring. Maybe things shouldn't be so cutthroat in the "greatest economy ever" or whatever. Maybe we human beings should not have to work ourselves to literal death to avoid poverty. I've spent time in Europe and in America, their safety nets and systems while obviously not perfect, are an improvement.
Well, your views at least have the virtue of honesty. Without going into too much detail, here's a response to those.
The climate is inherently variable, I agree. However, humans are currently changing the climate, so it's not a case of the climate changing irrespective of what we do - we are the direct cause of the current warming trend. In itself a warming climate is not a bad thing for life on earth, but the speed of the change is so fast that current eco-systems won't find it easy to adapt (and neither will humans).
Other pressures caused by humans mean there's a strong argument that a 6th mass extinction event in the history of the earth is already under way (see here for some background on this) and climate change will give that process a big boost. You may of course feel that's something else that you don't give a shit about in the belief it will have no impact on you.
It's an easy argument to make that predictions of disastrous climate change made 30 or 40 years ago have not come true and therefore predictions made now will prove just as unreliable. However, that ignores the way science works. There's a constant process of testing and refining models to fit better with both theories of how climate works and data on actual changes in the past. The result is that models now can predict with a high degree of accuracy changes we've already seen, thus giving a far better basis for predicting what will happen in the future. That process for climate change models is very similar to the process used to improve weather forecasting. I wonder how many people who are currently happy to ignore climate change predictions would also be happy to ignore storm forecasts? I suspect that it's pretty much only the older members of the community (who grew up when weather forecasting was much less reliable) who feel like that now. In another 40 or 50 years I suspect that it will also only be older people who are prepared to ignore climate change forecasts, as the accuracy of the forecasts in the meantime will have been all too obvious to anyone younger.
Far from being something that will only show up in the distant future, the impacts of climate change are already being felt. Major events that would have been classified as very rare not long ago are already much more common and that trend will continue. Wildfires are an example of that and the fact that Australia has a government that has denied climate change in the past will not alter the fact that the fire risk there will continue to increase in future - and even the fires this year have cost billions of dollars and affected millions of people. The intensity of storms will increase as the ocean warms, while coastal flooding will displace millions of people - IPCC reports predict that by 2050 extreme coastal flooding that would have occurred once in a century will happen every year. While those major events will be the most visible signs of change, the more subtle changes affecting things like appropriate crops for particular locations will have a bigger net impact.
It's true that the richest countries in the world will be able to mitigate some of these effects, but you're kidding yourself if you think that any individual (or country) will be immune to the changes taking place in the wider world.
Funny, they also don’t have major tent cities popping up outside of large urban areas like Houston and San Francisco.
Maybe instead of giving campaigns $300 million (Trump) or even $18 million (Sanders), citizens of the United States can support other endeavours?
Maybe pure capitalism is failing right now as much as pure socialism has in the past. Maybe there needs to happy balance between the two, something like the three countries that I mentioned above, all of which are constants in the top ten happiness nations.
I do what I can, and I am not here to be popular, only to state things as I think they are.
I would rather have it rough than live under European style safety nets because the idea that I have to rely on someone like the government make me feel like less of a person. Incidentally, I have lived in Europe, as well--I drank beer all the time but lost 10 pounds because of all the walking. I definitely recommend living abroad for a year after college.
You don't only rely on the government, they merely work more on your behalf than they do here. Also there tends to be more of a sense of community, I'm sure you noticed, when it's not dog-eat-dog every man for himself. It's more of a brotherhood than if there's minimum standards than if there's no net we're all at the whims of corporate greed and fighting like rats to nibble on whatever droppings the rich and powerful are willing to drop on us to fight over.
Someone mentioned it last night--the best way to combat corporate greed that you mention is to increase employee-owned companies. When you, as an employee, work for yourself, your morale and productivity both increase--plus you are getting extra money via shares every paycheck. Not only that, if the employees comprise 50.1% of the shareholders then the likelihood that they move operations overseas is low--no one votes to put themselves out of work just to maximize profits. No, the nameless shareholders most corporations have now do things like that.
edit/add: It looks like they sentenced Roger Stone to 40 months. White-collar Federal prison; with "good behavior" I would be surprised if he spends 24 months inside--which may or may not come with weekend furlough. Of course, no one--not even me--knows whether or not Trump will issue a pardon.
Germany is being asked why they haven't done enough to curb far-right terrorism and that right wing nationalist party that was being advocated for two weeks ago here.
The gunman that killed 9 yesterday in Hanau was a big fan of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51571177
Recent far-right attacks in Germany
- Feb 2020: A far right gunman kills nine in Hanau
-October 2019: In Halle, an attacker kills two and tries to storm a synagogue, broadcasting the assault live online. He later admits a far-right, anti-Semitic motive for the attack
-June 2019: Walter Lübcke, a pro-migrant politician, is shot in the head at close range and found dead in his garden. A suspect with far-right links later confesses to the murder
- July 2016: An 18-year-old shoots dead nine people at a shopping mall in Munich before killing himself. Bavarian authorities later classify the attack as "politically motivated", saying the teen had "radical right-wing and racist views"
Umm, your definition of socialism is clearly non-standard, given that basically every country in the world (most certainly including the US) has implemented socialist policies and they have not all failed.
Like, do you even know the difference between socialism and communism? They're not at all the same thing.
Then you're going to have to explain why pretty much every single public healthcare system in the world provides better health outcomes for the populace than the US system does, at considerably lesser cost to the taxpayer (because better public health is a public benefit for everyone).
And given your preferred system in its purest form is simply going to let people die if they can't pay for their healthcare, it is not a system that is going to "work" the way most people would define "working".
Those policies don't keep more people poor in the long run, and there is a multitude of history to prove this.
Not least of which being the history of the United States, whose greatest prosperity (and most expansive middle class) was built on the socialist policies and high taxes on the rich that followed World War II.
You can believe all you want that helping people get an education, stay healthier and get a hand out of poverty does not benefit the economy more than it costs, but you are as definitively wrong as it is possible to be in a discussion about economics.
We live in different worlds. Conservative propaganda presents a different reality. People in that bubble have a distorted view of reality based on fear and hate anxiety. Corporate media presents a biased reality but generally doesn't need to spin every story and filter out stories they don't want the audience to hear to keep their viewers misinformed the same way the Conservatives' media does.
Long story short: different realities.
It's clear to me, at least, that getting people to hate each other, fear cooperation and our common humanity is a conservative weapon.
Divide and conquer is the strategy. Setting the working class against the poor to keep them showing up at those jobs while they collect money doing nothing but inheriting wealth and profiting off your back.
Seeing people argue for a worldview of hating against their neighbors, loved ones and fellow human beings who are trying to get by is frankly disturbing.
edit: updated language to reflect "anxiety" per studies not hate
Wow, you really nailed it. That's exactly what we conservatives want. We also eat kittens and sacrifice babies to Satan whenever we can...
Which is, again, conservative media, which is funded by elites and brought to you by millionaires, whole thing is pitting the working class against the poor so the rich run off with the money. Divide and conquer.
Yes, I understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is the "gateway drug" to Communism--it killed the CCCP and it killed Venezuela. China *calls* its ruling party "Communist" but it really a form of Socialism--a capitalist economy under strict control by the centralized government. I studied political science before all the definitions got blurred, so not only do I understand what they mean and how they are different, I don't pay attention to any newer voices trying to claim that they know what they really are or how policies with a proven history of failure can somehow be successful here.
*************
I heard this morning that Roger Stone's sentence has actually been put on hold pending the appeal of the conviction but I cannot find any confirmation of it at this time. Oh, it must have been because the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, made political comments during the sentencing--she made the case political, which is probably why it will be thrown out in appeal.
I also see that "Russian hacking" and "Russian meddling" are already being used to discredit the results of the 2020 Election and that event is still 9 months away. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why they lost again already? How, exactly, is Russia "hacking" anything? They have agents in every precinct fiddling with the machines? As far as "meddling"...what, via social media? Which law is being broken if a Russian agent creates a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be a person in the United States and putting out false news stories? Isn't that a Facebook problem instead of a legal problem?
Of course, I also saw it said that the Russians were meddling in the Democrat primaries, so they are even trying to cast doubt on their own primary process. Do Democrats really have to set up the excuse as to why Sander is--or is not--the nominee? It won't matter who they choose, someone is going to say "interference is why my candidate was not chosen". These stories are driven by Democrats--there is the real "divide and conquer", which is the only way Democrats can ever win.
I don't hate my neighbors, loved ones, or fellow human beings. If I did, I would not continue to be here arguing that we need to keep our freedoms in place despite increasing calls for most of them to be taken away under the guise of "Democratic Socialism".
If billionaires should not exist, Mr. Sanders, should millionaires exist? If so, why the arbitrary distinction between the two? Having a net worth of $999 million is okay, but $1 billion is not? If you take away the top 1%, wouldn't that just make a new "top 1%" of the people who are left?
It's a news report about what Trump's OWN intelligence agencies told Congress, his reaction to which was to fire the head of them and replace him with a man who is essentially a sycophantic internet troll. What are you even going on about with this pre-emptive excuses nonsense?? "Democrats" had nothing to do with the reporting yesterday. As for what laws are broken by Russian agents creating fake social media accounts, your answer is in the Mueller Report. Read or don't. But don't pretend the answer isn't available.
For another thing, we don't know if they can hack machines. We know for a FACT they can hack voter rolls, because they already did so in 2016. That's what burglars might call "casing the joint". Almost all our machines are electronic. Of course they can find a way to do worse than last time.
This is the sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking Democrats have been employing often lately. Consider the economy. For the first year, yes--the economy was Obama's, but we are now two years into a Trump economy, which is why it is good. If the economy were doing poorly I guarantee the narrative would be "look at how he has totally wrecked the economy all on his own".
Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote a small compact which purports to release people from Bloomberg NDAs, provided both he (well, his legal team) and the other individuals sign it. She is not licensed to practice law in New York--I don't think her compacts would have any legal enforcability. A New York State attorney would have to draft those but they could use hers as a template.
You are blaming Democrats for this:
Trump Replaced Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with ‘Gold-Level’ Trump Hotel Member After House Was Briefed on Russia Threat: Report
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-replaced-acting-dni-with-gold-level-trump-hotel-member-after-house-was-briefed-on-russia-threat-report/
Scientists are warning that there is a climate emergency. It does make sense to want to do something about it instead of making it worse so some Billionaire oil CEOs make more money which seems to be the rights plan.
The US healthcare system sucks ass. 68k die each year because they can't afford medical care so it will take a few years to get to a million but it is true.
And homelessness is a huge problem in this country.
Democrat fearmongering is at least based on reality and not "zomg scary brown ppl taking ur minimum wage jerbs".
Finally, no one wants to tax you. We need higher rates on the top. Like it was in the hood old days. You're doing the dirty work for the elites defending their interests.
I KNEW IT!
@Mathsorcerer "*ugh* I thoroughly dislike "community" and "brotherhood"--I am afraid that I am just not a fan of my fellow human beings as you appear to be. No one has your best interests at heart except you and the people you think are fighting for you will, at some point, turn on you if circumstances make them think they need to."
Yeah, that's what @smeagolheart said. Either enriching yourself at the expense of someone else, or outright turning on each other. Its one of THE defining traits of the conservative mindset.
Also - seems like projection to say that because Trump fired his DNI for briefing a room that Adam Schiff was in about Russian meddling, the “Democrats are making excuses already”. They aren’t. The reporting is entirely directly toward Trump being upset that his team briefed Democrats of Russian meddling.
It's very suspicious that Trump has a reaction like that over the only branch of government willing to perform oversight on the Executive branch and to protect American elections isn't it.
The Senate is not passing election security bills intentionally.
Barr has inserted himself personally in the investigation into election campaign investigations saying any investigation needs his personal approval.
Trump finds out that Democrats were briefed on continuing Russian interference to benefit Trump and his reaction is to fire the DNI and put someone who is a gold star member at his hotels and a conspiracy theorist loyalist in charge of national intelligence.
They are appealing for a new trial because of the jury forewoman’s media posts prior to the trial that bashes Donald Trump.
I’d be very annoyed if it got approved because that’s all defence teams need to do from this point forward - make sure their is at least one biased juror.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings. I'm sure they had an entire team of experts dissecting the pros and cons of each one, because that's what you get when you have an actual expensive legal defense. Apparently it's now perfectly normal for the President of the United States to personally attack citizens who serve on a jury. Also, let's get real here. The jury forewoman is black. What this is really about is they don't believe a black woman has the right to sit in judgement of someone like Roger Stone. Not only are the citizen of Washington DC not allowed to have representation in the Senate or House, apparently they aren't allowed to field of pool of jurors either. Look at the demographics of the city and you'll find out why.
So we've reached the point where now jurors can't have personal political opinions. So, to round out the list, we have celebrities who aren't allowed to have them (unless they are Jon Voight or Ted Nugent), athletes aren't allowed to have them, and now, POTENTIAL JURORS, which is.......everyone. And I want to make this very clear once again. Trump has singled out this juror who is nothing but a private citizen who answered a legally binding summons to appear for jury duty. This is the 2nd or 3rd time he has done so. If you don't think the right-wing troll brigade on the internet is making her life a living hell as we speak, you are living in a fantasy world. I'm 110% sure her personal information has ALL been discovered and spread.
Trump took an oath to defend that woman's constitutional rights whether she is his biggest supporter or most toxic critic. Instead, he has essentially assured death threats will be a daily part of her life for the foreseeable future. Calling out judges as the head of the Executive Branch was bad enough. Now he is personally targeting individual citizen jurors. It's so far beyond the pale it's not even funny.
*All* types of people turn on each other--didn't you watch the Democrat debate the other night?
Trump's DNI is his choice and he may replace that person at any time, for any reason, without having to explain himself to anyone. Ideally, that should be someone well-suited for the job but I am not in charge of Trump (if I were, several things would be considerably different than they are right now).
The climate has been described as "an emergency" for at least 30 years--that does not qualify as an "emergency". The changes in climate are slow and human beings will adapt, as we always have.
The worst-case scenario conservatives fear if liberals get everything they want is that everyone will be poor--except for government officials, who will fantastically wealthy--and no one will have the freedom to oppose the government even by expressing a dissenting opinion. The worst-case scenario liberals fear if conservatives get everything they want is that everyone will be poor--except for corporate executives, who will be fantastically wealthy--and then the planet will die. Which scenario is more extreme and insane?
Ah so--someone else to add to the ignore list. Done.
Obviously. This was planned from the get go, however, I personally don’t think her race played a part.
As long as he keeps appealing, he’s a free man. Once the appeals run out, Trump will issue a pardon based on how “unfairly” he had been treated this entire time.
And if he does get a new trial, with handpicked prosecutors from the DoJ, he will get far less of a punishment than 40 months, of not a “botched” mistrial (which his defensive team was hoping for the first time around).
You're even missing part of the story. Trump thought ONLY Adam Schiff was given this information. That was the assumption he was operating under. It was given to the Congressional Intelligence Committees as a whole. He fired him under an entirely faulty assumption ON TOP of the overarching reason. How much you wanna bet 35% of the country now thinks the DNI and Schiff meeting in some secure basement is how they view this event?? Because that is how the President viewed it too. Totally erroneously.
The House of Representatives had every opportunity to go to the courts to enforce subpoenas to get testimony during impeachment...but they did not *want* to because they didn't *really* want to impeach Trump, just pretend to do so.
Stone is not going to be pardoned until the day after November elections. At that point, Trump is free to pardon anyone he pleases regardless of the outcome.
I thought all appointees had to be approved by the Senate and any “Acting” appointee only has a limited time in the role until the president finds a suitable replacement.
~
Also, putting a yes man in the DNI position is a very risky thing to do. We’re talking about election interference atm, but not having a vigilant person in the role can lead to another terrorist attack like 9/11.
That is what American’s should be concerned about IMO. It’s up to each individual to determine if that risk is great enough to let something like this slide.
This argument does not refute the claim that firing the head of the DNI because, in doing his job, he may have harmed Trump’s reelection chances. Unless I missed it, literally no one is saying he shouldn’t be allowed to replace his DNI.- he is allowed to be criticized for replacing him with a crony (apparently), and doubly so because it suggests he doesn’t want to protect the US from attempted Russian meddling.
Whataboutism.