Only one question. They investigated or they already have the "conclusions"?
Other think. The idea of Russia funding NRA doesn't make any sense for me. Russia have a relative strict gun control.
"Until now Russian gun enthusiasts were only permitted to carry firearms for hunting or target shooting after obtaining a license through the Interior Ministry. Russian gun licenses are to be renewed every five years, and applicants face strict background checks and are required to take gun safety courses."
(...)
In spite of its restrictive gun laws, Russia has seen its share gun violence. In 2012, a 30 year old lawyer opened fire on his colleagues at a pharmaceutical company, killing six. Just last year, 15-year-old straight A student, Sergey Gordeyev, killed a teacher and a police officer after taking 29 students hostage. source https://www.rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/
Russia funding NRA has nothing to do with their support (or lack of it) for gun control - it's just part of their strategy to destabilize other countries and influence elections. It's clear from the affidavit that Butina looked at other potential opportunities for such interference, but the NRA offered particularly good prospects.
The investigation is still ongoing and I would expect a lot more information to come out in due course. The only reason they've charged Butina already is that it looked like she was about to run back to Russia.
Now that this has come to light, though, I think we should expect major political organizations like the NRA to not fall for this kind of thing in the future.
Did they fall for something or did they just unquestioningly accept money? I'm pretty sure they will happily accept money next time as well.
And the day after the news of the Russian spy Trump's treasury passed a rule change that let's non-profits like the NRA accept unlimited bribes, er donations, without having to report the source. They want more of this type of thing to continue. Russians give money to the NRA then the NRA donates it to Republicans.
As an American I am so very sick of hearing about Russia. I don't understand why any thoughtful person would be so down on Russia. I am not necessarily pro-Putin, but the only reason why the west has conspired against him for the last decade is because he doesn't play ball with the globalists. The "he's a dictator and a meanie" excuse amounts to bupkis - Americans have propped up the worst dictators of all time as long as it supported our economic interest. And the "assault on our democracy" spiel coming from American politicians is especially rich considering the number of times we've not only meddled in the democracy of other countries - we've deposed democratically elected officials and instituted fascists.
(I keep creating new posts sometimes when I try to edit - don't know what that is about.)
Actually, I didn't want to say it but I will say it - I am VERY pro-Putin.
I don't agree with his style of government, obviously. But he opposes the globalist first world. And he opposes America. That has to count for something. When I voted for Trump I said to myself, "this is the man that can destroy this country". So far, I am happy to say that he has done absolutely nothing to make me regret my choice.
Anyway, I'm done here. No more politics on Baldur's Gate. Don't want to get banned for truthfulness. Sticking to the games section from here on out.
@FinneousPJSo what if they are in the book? I've already explained their purpose. "Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man..."
Here's the thing. There are a lot of sub denominations that impose dozens of restrictions on their congregation without any kind of Biblical basis. Its very common in Baptist and God Holiness sects to ban things like makeup, nail polish, pants for women, and long hair for men, despite Jesus never once laying out such conditions. Don't even get me started on Westboro Baptists. Presenting mis-representations of a group does not equate a critique of said group. I could blame original Marxism on all leftists, but that wouldn't be accurate.
" This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that."
So, you wanna tell me what is immoral about, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect"?
I think that particular quote is amoral TBH, i.e. neither moral nor immoral. Just a decent thing to do.
I don't follow. "Decent thing to do" is the expression of good (or at least okay) morals.
*EDIT* You know what. I've been using "moral" as synonymous with "good" my entire life. It looks like a lot in this thread does not. So in the furutre I will attempt to differentiate the two.
It is not a matter of IF a Trump supporter kills a member of the media at this point, but just WHEN it is going to happen. And I wonder what we are all going to say when that takes place. What will be the justification when that event comes to pass?? Someone is going to shoot a reporter because of this rhetoric, so let's not sit around shocked and mystified when it happens.
*EDIT* You know what. I've been using "moral" as synonymous with "good" my entire life. It looks like a lot in this thread does not. So in the furutre I will attempt to differentiate the two.
If you're saying "he did something moral" I would agree that would normally be synonymous with "good". If you're talking though about someone's morals or sense of morality, you should leave open the possibility that they act against their morals. So morality gives you a sense of good and evil, but you can choose not to act in accordance with that sense.
If you're amoral you don't have a sense of what's good or evil in the first place.
Not to mention Russia's financing of anti-American propaganda and their attempts to promote it worldwide.
And the fact that American is not the first country that Russia has tried to interfere with. They've meddled in elections in Europe long before they got involved in the 2016 election.
It's bad enough for a friendly country to try to meddle in American elections. It's considerably worse for a hostile, un-democratic, anti-American government to do it.
How about this, union members forced to pay dues, money goes to Democrats (and union fat cats' pockets).
Per the law, unions could not spend that money on campaign contributions in the first place. It was already illegal to make union members funnel money to Democratic candidates. The recent policy change didn't stop that; it just made it so that unions couldn't make people pay equal dues as their co-workers.
The intent wasn't to stop unions from making people support Democratic politicians--that was already illegal. The intent was to damage collective bargaining by allowing people to get union benefits without paying for them. When you don't have to pay dues to get benefits, people stop paying dues, which means the unions get weaker and less capable of fighting for worker's rights.
That decision wasn't actually about partisan politics. It was just an attempt to weaken collective bargaining.
Given the choice, I would stop unions and everyone else from making campaign contributions. Campaign contributions of any kind shouldn't be happening; all forms of it should be banned at the same time.
It's true that unions usually support Democrats and that, previously, workers who got union benefits had to pay for them. But legally, that specific source of money already could not be used to make campaign contributions. Unions had to get voluntary contributions to support candidates.
Not to mention Russia's financing of anti-American propaganda and their attempts to promote it worldwide.
And the fact that American is not the first country that Russia has tried to interfere with. They've meddled in elections in Europe long before they got involved in the 2016 election.
It's bad enough for a friendly country to try to meddle in American elections. It's considerably worse for a hostile, un-democratic, anti-American government to do it.
How about this, union members forced to pay dues, money goes to Democrats (and union fat cats' pockets).
Per the law, unions could not spend that money on campaign contributions in the first place. It was already illegal to make union members funnel money to Democratic candidates. The recent policy change didn't stop that; it just made it so that unions couldn't make people pay equal dues as their co-workers.
The intent wasn't to stop unions from making people support Democratic politicians--that was already illegal. The intent was to damage collective bargaining by allowing people to get union benefits without paying for them. When you don't have to pay dues to get benefits, people stop paying dues, which means the unions get weaker and less capable of fighting for worker's rights.
That decision wasn't actually about partisan politics. It was just an attempt to weaken collective bargaining.
Given the choice, I would stop unions and everyone else from making campaign contributions. Campaign contributions of any kind shouldn't be happening; all forms of it should be banned at the same time.
Individuals who benefit from unions but don't want to pay dues are of the same mentality as those who insist nothing happen to THEIR Medicare and Social Security, but screw everyone else. Incidentally, the guy who brought this case is now making a six-figure salary at a right-wing think tank. He sold out untold thousands of blue collar workers for his own financial benefit:
(I keep creating new posts sometimes when I try to edit - don't know what that is about.)
Actually, I didn't want to say it but I will say it - I am VERY pro-Putin.
I don't agree with his style of government, obviously. But he opposes the globalist first world. And he opposes America. That has to count for something. When I voted for Trump I said to myself, "this is the man that can destroy this country". So far, I am happy to say that he has done absolutely nothing to make me regret my choice.
Anyway, I'm done here. No more politics on Baldur's Gate. Don't want to get banned for truthfulness. Sticking to the games section from here on out.
I've spent plenty of time pointing out problems with the US in this thread, but that's largely because it's historically been a country that has set high standards for itself. Thus for instance the ideal has always been that the government should be for the benefit of the people. In practice that ideal has not always been achieved, but it's still a good ideal to have. It's not clear to me that the same ideal has ever been in place in Russia in a meaningful way.
I agree that the foreign policy of the US has always been less high-principled than domestic policy, but it seems to me that the appropriate response to that is to discuss how policy can be improved - not to say that the country should be destroyed.
I never said that Putin was a saint. All I am saying is that the United States and it's allies are awfully selective in who they condemn and for what reason.
You can swallow the media load all you want - you can swallow what your government tells you.
But the fact is, America chooses when to have standards. The USA chooses in what instances they will condemn all the things that Putin is accused of doing. The sole standard for that choice has absolutely nothing to do with the moral specifics pertaining to either democracy or human rights - it has had and continues to have everything to do with the perpetuation of American hegemony and their continued stranglehold on the world economy.
The only diplomacy this country cares about is of the gunboat variety. It is a solemn fact that If Putin's actions were profitable, in any way whatseover, to our so-called "leaders" and their desired ends, he would be a saint ... no matter how many lives he destroys!!!
As for meddling in American democracy - I've already told you, what goes around comes around. America has selfishly meddled and manipulated other countries a thousand times more than the Russians - and when that fails we've resorted to brute force. So spare me the crocodile tears about Putin. Hearing it makes me want to puke!
Yes, I am an American. But the US Military has never once fought for me. Their soldiers have never once died for me. They've never represented my interests. And I despise everything for which this country stands.
I want a country that puts a premium on equality - a premium on fair play for the developing world - a premium on social justice and human rights - a premium on protecting the environment - a premium on universal brotherhood. Turning my anger onto Putin would be like taking the side of a ravenous lion when hungry hyenas fight back. Putin is a nasty hyena- yes. But BY FAR the greatest EVIL in the world right now is The United States of America®.
If I were asked to name the most evil country in the world, I would name North Korea, primarily for its Nazi-grade concentration camps. But I don't generally like the word "evil," because it tends to imply malice rather than incompetence, corruption, poor judgment, ideology, or even indifference and selfishness. Only psychopaths actively intend to do harm; the other criminals do it for other reasons. North Korea is one of the few examples where it genuinely seems like the leadership is actively trying to hurt people.
I have always been very big on improving the United States and fixing its flaws and its problems, but I've never lost sight of the fact that the country I live in is a substantially more productive and functional place than the large majority of nations on the planet Earth. No other country produces so many inventions, makes so many scientific discoveries, contributes so much to global GDP and development, or leads, creates, and finances so many international initiatives.
I've never agreed with the notion that we should "destroy" the United States, or any other country. The fundamental problem with the concept, aside from the obvious (how much would we lose, and how would it even be done?), is the question of what would replace it. I've never heard of a viable replacement for such a massive and vital system.
What would the destruction of the United States even mean in practice? Would I still be able to go to the grocery store in an American-made vehicle with government-mandated safety features and use American currency to purchase safe, FDA-approved foods, knowing that a government-funded police service was on hand to keep people from robbing me, before going home and using water and electricity at low, government-regulated prices?
It is a solemn fact that If Putin's actions were profitable, in any way whatseover, to our so-called "leaders" and their desired ends, he would be a saint ...
I hate to say it, but I think this is the Trump administration's view of Russian meddling.
Trump is unhinged - that's the "problem" with Trump. He's going to screw things up for the people in high places. It's not that they don't share a lot of his ideas - they do. But that's incidental. The problem is that he's nuttier than squirrel shit and seeks his own advancement in a way that is separated from their agenda ...kinda like Putin. No, it was Hillary who was the corporate chosen one. Trump was more of a whistle blower who pulled back the curtain on all his buddies - the power brokers, and he did it for his own personal advancement. And now, he must pay the piper.
But bet your bottom dollar that all the politicians and media people condemning Trump would also secretly welcome the help of an outside influence, as long as it was conducive to their agenda. And if you think different, you are incredibly naive.
Trump is full of crap. He says one thing and does the opposite.
His whole agenda is rolling back protections for people. Poison water, poison waste, poison air that's what he has done. He agenda is antiworker, he wants you to be screwed over by businesses and be poisoned by waste because it helps corporations to just cheaply dump their waste in the rivers - that's it. And tax cuts for the rich.
The drain the swamp and outsider stuff was complete bullshit. Look at what he does not what he says. He is the ultimate insider. What has he done that's antiestablishment? Not a thing. $717 billion dollar giveaway to defense contractors, cutting corporate tax rate in half, and a huge tax giveaway 80% of the benefits to the ultrawealthy. "Outsider" yeah right, if you believe that you got conned by Don the Con.
It is going to boil down to Venezuela’s word against the U.S. in the latter’s involvement.
Now I am not saying the U.S. had anything to do with it, but with this administrations track record of lying, it is going to take a lot to prove otherwise to the international community.
Trump ADMITTED on Twitter today that the Trump Tower meeting was set up to get dirt on Clinton. He flat-out said so. Not only is this the third or fourth different story we have heard on this issue, but it also marks the "yeah we did it, so what??" phase of the justification, which has been inevitable from the start. If the meeting was solicited with the INTENT to get information from a foreign power to influence an election, how does it even matter if it was successful or not?? If more than one person was involved, it still constitutes a criminal conspiracy to willfully and openly violate election laws.
This is a great time to bring up the Al Gore campaign of 2000. During the heat of that campaign, someone mailed them a briefing book and videotape of George W. Bush's debate prep. They almost IMMEDIATELY turned the materials over to the FBI. Now, personally, I STRONGLY suspect these materials found their way to the Gore camp as part of a set-up by Karl Rove, given the advantage of hindsight. But the point is that they didn't fall for the trap being set. They did the right thing.
It is going to boil down to Venezuela’s word against the U.S. in the latter’s involvement.
Now I am not saying the U.S. had anything to do with it, but with this administrations track record of lying, it is going to take a lot to prove otherwise to the international community.
I agree that Trump's past loose words about Venezuela mean the US is an easy target to blame. However, I don't think whatever happened in Venezuela was a drone attack. Here's a picture of the exterior of the building that was reported to have been hit by a drone - I'll let that speak for itself.
It's conceivable that something was deliberately staged in order to provide the opportunity for a government crackdown. It seems more likely though that this was just an accident (3 firefighters at the scene said it was a gas tank explosion at an apartment), but Maduro has seized the opportunity to spread some blame around and start arresting people.
Trump ADMITTED on Twitter today that the Trump Tower meeting was set up to get dirt on Clinton. He flat-out said so. Not only is this the third or fourth different story we have heard on this issue, but it also marks the "yeah we did it, so what??" phase of the justification, which has been inevitable from the start. If the meeting was solicited with the INTENT to get information from a foreign power to influence an election, how does it even matter if it was successful or not?? If more than one person was involved, it still constitutes a criminal conspiracy to willfully and openly violate election laws.
So it's time for impeachment right? He admitted to Criminal conspiracy.
Trump ADMITTED on Twitter today that the Trump Tower meeting was set up to get dirt on Clinton. He flat-out said so. Not only is this the third or fourth different story we have heard on this issue, but it also marks the "yeah we did it, so what??" phase of the justification, which has been inevitable from the start. If the meeting was solicited with the INTENT to get information from a foreign power to influence an election, how does it even matter if it was successful or not?? If more than one person was involved, it still constitutes a criminal conspiracy to willfully and openly violate election laws.
So it's time for impeachment right? He admitted to Criminal conspiracy.
I don't know what it is time for, but I know this with nearly 100% certainty: If Hillary Clinton had done or was accused of even a 1/10th (hell, 1/100th) of what Trump has done or been accused of, we would be 7 or 8 months into the Tim Kaine Administration. A Democrat, accused of conspiring with a foreign adversary to win an election?? Pfffh, please.....impeachment would have been just the beginning. They would have had a public stoning on the steps of the Capitol.
So it's time for impeachment right? He admitted to Criminal conspiracy.
Trump Sr still says he knew nothing about the meeting.
Without further information than what's already come out, there's not in any event a clear case of intent to break any laws (and therefore no clear criminal conspiracy). The most obvious charge, arising from the meeting, would be in relation to campaign finance laws. I think though that proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians were offering to provide something of value (under those laws) needs more evidence.
Impeachment is a political process and would not be a good way to gather evidence. Rather, it would tend to produce uncertainty about what evidence was real and what was produced for political purposes. Attempting to impeach Trump now would be pretty unlikely to lead to his removal, but would make further investigations in the future more difficult. I think it would be better to just let the current investigations (which are still relatively young in historical terms) continue. If Trump chooses to end the investigations, that would be a reasonable time to attempt impeachment (which could then be based on a far stronger case for obstruction of justice).
@FinneousPJSo what if they are in the book? I've already explained their purpose. "Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man..."
Here's the thing. There are a lot of sub denominations that impose dozens of restrictions on their congregation without any kind of Biblical basis. Its very common in Baptist and God Holiness sects to ban things like makeup, nail polish, pants for women, and long hair for men, despite Jesus never once laying out such conditions. Don't even get me started on Westboro Baptists. Presenting mis-representations of a group does not equate a critique of said group. I could blame original Marxism on all leftists, but that wouldn't be accurate.
" This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that."
So, you wanna tell me what is immoral about, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect"?
I think that particular quote is amoral TBH, i.e. neither moral nor immoral. Just a decent thing to do.
I don't follow. "Decent thing to do" is the expression of good (or at least okay) morals.
*EDIT* You know what. I've been using "moral" as synonymous with "good" my entire life. It looks like a lot in this thread does not. So in the furutre I will attempt to differentiate the two.
I guess one could argue that everything that isn't immoral is moral, or vice versa. But I think that diminishes the meaning of these words. For example, saying hello to a person is a decent thing to do, but I wouldn't call it moral (or not saying hello immoral). It's just common courtesy, and amoral in my view.
There's a curious article on the Times about public perception of government assistance programs. Apparently people have increasingly negative views of welfare even as welfare programs grow smaller and as the number of people on other forms of government assistance grows, dislike for welfare programs increases with the size of minority populations using welfare, and dislike for welfare programs is correlated more with the programs that one doesn't benefit from, rather than the programs one does.
The data indicate that the distaste for welfare is mostly based on the fact that other people benefit from it. Programs that affect a broader portion of the population, like Social Security and Medicare (two of our most massive expenditures), are viewed more positively than smaller programs that benefit only 1% of the population.
It is not a matter of IF a Trump supporter kills a member of the media at this point, but just WHEN it is going to happen. And I wonder what we are all going to say when that takes place. What will be the justification when that event comes to pass?? Someone is going to shoot a reporter because of this rhetoric, so let's not sit around shocked and mystified when it happens.
So you don't think people have the right to fight back against the lying press?
I don't share the Trump voter's agenda - but the agenda that they hold isn't really their agenda. And you know this is true. It's the agenda that has been put into them. I am no fan of reactionaries.
But there is no question that the media should be run by the State. And overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. Of course you are probably just fine with the media - democrats seem to be these days. So much for being a party for the people. Perhaps they will be the first to face justice when power returns to the people. Bernie Sanders was the only politician worth a shit and even he sold out at the end.
As for the reactionaries - they have already blown their load on Trump, and their fight isn't my fight. But it's not their fight, either. They are just brainwashed hooligans. But the time comes when Americans WILL wake up and demand justice against those who sold their hides. And I will sit back and laugh as suburban, gated-white communities burn to the ground. Too long have the upper-classes lorded it over poor folk and minorities.
The lying press has already burned their bridge - we know who these people are. At this point, I assure you, they do well for themselves in opposing the revolution! Those who lie for the sake of their corporate and bureaucratic masters will have to pay back every penny!
I have never been a communist but that hammer and sickle is looking sweeter by the moment.
Comments
Other think. The idea of Russia funding NRA doesn't make any sense for me. Russia have a relative strict gun control.
"Until now Russian gun enthusiasts were only permitted to carry firearms for hunting or target shooting after obtaining a license through the Interior Ministry. Russian gun licenses are to be renewed every five years, and applicants face strict background checks and are required to take gun safety courses."
(...)
In spite of its restrictive gun laws, Russia has seen its share gun violence. In 2012, a 30 year old lawyer opened fire on his colleagues at a pharmaceutical company, killing six. Just last year, 15-year-old straight A student, Sergey Gordeyev, killed a teacher and a police officer after taking 29 students hostage. source https://www.rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/
So gun control din't prevented school shooting
The investigation is still ongoing and I would expect a lot more information to come out in due course. The only reason they've charged Butina already is that it looked like she was about to run back to Russia.
How about this, union members forced to pay dues, money goes to Democrats (and union fat cats' pockets).
It's hard not to despise this country.
Actually, I didn't want to say it but I will say it - I am VERY pro-Putin.
I don't agree with his style of government, obviously. But he opposes the globalist first world. And he opposes America. That has to count for something. When I voted for Trump I said to myself, "this is the man that can destroy this country". So far, I am happy to say that he has done absolutely nothing to make me regret my choice.
Anyway, I'm done here. No more politics on Baldur's Gate. Don't want to get banned for truthfulness. Sticking to the games section from here on out.
The annexation of the Crimea region.
The spying on American people.
The disregard of Northern Borders (North Pole)
*EDIT* You know what. I've been using "moral" as synonymous with "good" my entire life. It looks like a lot in this thread does not. So in the furutre I will attempt to differentiate the two.
Murdering of journalists and intellectuals
Nerve agent attacks on people in other countries
A totally corrupt government where a handful of billionaires get all the money and the people struggle to get by. Capitalism gone wild.
State sanctioned extreme discrimination against homosexuals including murder
A fake rigged democracy
It is not a matter of IF a Trump supporter kills a member of the media at this point, but just WHEN it is going to happen. And I wonder what we are all going to say when that takes place. What will be the justification when that event comes to pass?? Someone is going to shoot a reporter because of this rhetoric, so let's not sit around shocked and mystified when it happens.
If you're amoral you don't have a sense of what's good or evil in the first place.
And the fact that American is not the first country that Russia has tried to interfere with. They've meddled in elections in Europe long before they got involved in the 2016 election.
It's bad enough for a friendly country to try to meddle in American elections. It's considerably worse for a hostile, un-democratic, anti-American government to do it. Per the law, unions could not spend that money on campaign contributions in the first place. It was already illegal to make union members funnel money to Democratic candidates. The recent policy change didn't stop that; it just made it so that unions couldn't make people pay equal dues as their co-workers.
The intent wasn't to stop unions from making people support Democratic politicians--that was already illegal. The intent was to damage collective bargaining by allowing people to get union benefits without paying for them. When you don't have to pay dues to get benefits, people stop paying dues, which means the unions get weaker and less capable of fighting for worker's rights.
That decision wasn't actually about partisan politics. It was just an attempt to weaken collective bargaining.
Given the choice, I would stop unions and everyone else from making campaign contributions. Campaign contributions of any kind shouldn't be happening; all forms of it should be banned at the same time.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/janus-afscme-illinois-policy-institute-job-ruling-fair-share-union-dues/
I agree that the foreign policy of the US has always been less high-principled than domestic policy, but it seems to me that the appropriate response to that is to discuss how policy can be improved - not to say that the country should be destroyed.
You can swallow the media load all you want - you can swallow what your government tells you.
But the fact is, America chooses when to have standards. The USA chooses in what instances they will condemn all the things that Putin is accused of doing. The sole standard for that choice has absolutely nothing to do with the moral specifics pertaining to either democracy or human rights - it has had and continues to have everything to do with the perpetuation of American hegemony and their continued stranglehold on the world economy.
The only diplomacy this country cares about is of the gunboat variety. It is a solemn fact that If Putin's actions were profitable, in any way whatseover, to our so-called "leaders" and their desired ends, he would be a saint ... no matter how many lives he destroys!!!
As for meddling in American democracy - I've already told you, what goes around comes around. America has selfishly meddled and manipulated other countries a thousand times more than the Russians - and when that fails we've resorted to brute force. So spare me the crocodile tears about Putin. Hearing it makes me want to puke!
Yes, I am an American. But the US Military has never once fought for me. Their soldiers have never once died for me. They've never represented my interests. And I despise everything for which this country stands.
I want a country that puts a premium on equality - a premium on fair play for the developing world - a premium on social justice and human rights - a premium on protecting the environment - a premium on universal brotherhood. Turning my anger onto Putin would be like taking the side of a ravenous lion when hungry hyenas fight back. Putin is a nasty hyena- yes. But BY FAR the greatest EVIL in the world right now is The United States of America®.
I have always been very big on improving the United States and fixing its flaws and its problems, but I've never lost sight of the fact that the country I live in is a substantially more productive and functional place than the large majority of nations on the planet Earth. No other country produces so many inventions, makes so many scientific discoveries, contributes so much to global GDP and development, or leads, creates, and finances so many international initiatives.
I've never agreed with the notion that we should "destroy" the United States, or any other country. The fundamental problem with the concept, aside from the obvious (how much would we lose, and how would it even be done?), is the question of what would replace it. I've never heard of a viable replacement for such a massive and vital system.
What would the destruction of the United States even mean in practice? Would I still be able to go to the grocery store in an American-made vehicle with government-mandated safety features and use American currency to purchase safe, FDA-approved foods, knowing that a government-funded police service was on hand to keep people from robbing me, before going home and using water and electricity at low, government-regulated prices? I hate to say it, but I think this is the Trump administration's view of Russian meddling.
But bet your bottom dollar that all the politicians and media people condemning Trump would also secretly welcome the help of an outside influence, as long as it was conducive to their agenda. And if you think different, you are incredibly naive.
His whole agenda is rolling back protections for people. Poison water, poison waste, poison air that's what he has done. He agenda is antiworker, he wants you to be screwed over by businesses and be poisoned by waste because it helps corporations to just cheaply dump their waste in the rivers - that's it. And tax cuts for the rich.
The drain the swamp and outsider stuff was complete bullshit. Look at what he does not what he says. He is the ultimate insider. What has he done that's antiestablishment? Not a thing. $717 billion dollar giveaway to defense contractors, cutting corporate tax rate in half, and a huge tax giveaway 80% of the benefits to the ultrawealthy. "Outsider" yeah right, if you believe that you got conned by Don the Con.
It is going to boil down to Venezuela’s word against the U.S. in the latter’s involvement.
Now I am not saying the U.S. had anything to do with it, but with this administrations track record of lying, it is going to take a lot to prove otherwise to the international community.
He normally just grabs countries and they let him because he's famous. He's not used to being told no and even worse at accepting a no.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/donald-trump-wasnt-kidding-about-wanting-to-invade-venezuela
This is a great time to bring up the Al Gore campaign of 2000. During the heat of that campaign, someone mailed them a briefing book and videotape of George W. Bush's debate prep. They almost IMMEDIATELY turned the materials over to the FBI. Now, personally, I STRONGLY suspect these materials found their way to the Gore camp as part of a set-up by Karl Rove, given the advantage of hindsight. But the point is that they didn't fall for the trap being set. They did the right thing.
It's conceivable that something was deliberately staged in order to provide the opportunity for a government crackdown. It seems more likely though that this was just an accident (3 firefighters at the scene said it was a gas tank explosion at an apartment), but Maduro has seized the opportunity to spread some blame around and start arresting people.
Without further information than what's already come out, there's not in any event a clear case of intent to break any laws (and therefore no clear criminal conspiracy). The most obvious charge, arising from the meeting, would be in relation to campaign finance laws. I think though that proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians were offering to provide something of value (under those laws) needs more evidence.
Impeachment is a political process and would not be a good way to gather evidence. Rather, it would tend to produce uncertainty about what evidence was real and what was produced for political purposes. Attempting to impeach Trump now would be pretty unlikely to lead to his removal, but would make further investigations in the future more difficult. I think it would be better to just let the current investigations (which are still relatively young in historical terms) continue. If Trump chooses to end the investigations, that would be a reasonable time to attempt impeachment (which could then be based on a far stronger case for obstruction of justice).
The data indicate that the distaste for welfare is mostly based on the fact that other people benefit from it. Programs that affect a broader portion of the population, like Social Security and Medicare (two of our most massive expenditures), are viewed more positively than smaller programs that benefit only 1% of the population.
I don't share the Trump voter's agenda - but the agenda that they hold isn't really their agenda. And you know this is true. It's the agenda that has been put into them. I am no fan of reactionaries.
But there is no question that the media should be run by the State. And overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. Of course you are probably just fine with the media - democrats seem to be these days. So much for being a party for the people. Perhaps they will be the first to face justice when power returns to the people. Bernie Sanders was the only politician worth a shit and even he sold out at the end.
As for the reactionaries - they have already blown their load on Trump, and their fight isn't my fight. But it's not their fight, either. They are just brainwashed hooligans. But the time comes when Americans WILL wake up and demand justice against those who sold their hides. And I will sit back and laugh as suburban, gated-white communities burn to the ground. Too long have the upper-classes lorded it over poor folk and minorities.
The lying press has already burned their bridge - we know who these people are. At this point, I assure you, they do well for themselves in opposing the revolution! Those who lie for the sake of their corporate and bureaucratic masters will have to pay back every penny!
I have never been a communist but that hammer and sickle is looking sweeter by the moment.
I despise injustice ...and you all should, too!