Cohen is reported to have claimed that Trump knew in advance and encouraged the infamous meeting between the Russians and Trump Jr. in Trump Tower for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary. If true, Trump intended to enter into a conspiracy with a foreign power to influence a presidential election - an impeachable offense.

Cohen is about to spill his guts about all his dealings as Trump's fixer over the years - paying off porn stars, playmates, and God knows what else. Cohen, more than anyone else, knows where the bodies are buried. He has decided to pledge his allegiance to country and family instead of Donald Trump.

Cohen is reported to have claimed that Trump knew in advance and encouraged the infamous meeting between the Russians and Trump Jr. in Trump Tower for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary.

Even if true, and that's a big "if", it would not be a violation of the law. And even that leaves out the fact that no information was obtained. I think they are chasing the wind on this one.

Certainly a grave political error, but a conspiracy to have meeting, I think it is drawing a long bow. He might be guilty of lying but he hasn't done it under oath, intent? what are we becoming here, the thought police? and if he had the "dirt", what was he going to do with it?

I love the way this is being reported ...explosive !! MSNBC called it an international conspiracy . Cohen's story will not hold up without independent corroboration . He has too much personally at stake . Mueller's team of "investigators " ransacked his offices and home and took a big haul of files away. One thing I keep on saying is that the NY real estate industry is sleazy and I'm sure Mueller found some dirt on Cohen that would pressure him to jump through hoops if Mueller told him to do so.
It sorta reminds me of the Senate hearing in 'The GodFather 2 " . 'Look the FBI guys they promised me a deal . So I made up a lot of stuff...... "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjjzwIrebQ

Hmmm a campaign meeting with Russians to get dirt on their opponent ...where did we hear that before ?

I think this goes well beyond the NY real estate industry. Try the National and local elections as Mueller has subpoenaed The Dufus business manager, because his name appeared on those TAPES Cohen made. Did Donald Jr. LIE? Of course he did, because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree now does it?

https://politicalwire.com/2018/07/26/trump-organization-finance-chief-called-to-testify/



“Allen Weisselberg, a longtime financial gatekeeper for President Trump, has been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in the criminal probe of Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,” the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-organization-finance-chief-called-to-testify-before-federal-grand-jury-1532622947) reports.“Mr. Weisselberg is considered a witness in the investigation… It isn’t known whether he has already appeared before the grand jury or what questions prosecutors of New York’s Southern District have had for him.”

They have already subpoenaed The Dufus business records, so yeah the noose tightens. The Dufus may not need to testify before the special counsel since he appears to be a TARGET . If not now, then VERY soon.

Did Donald Jr. LIE? Of course he did, because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree now does it?

Wow. I didn't realize Donald Jr. was Hillary Clinton's son! Go figure. (<:

There are more liars in the world than one, it appears to be stock in trade in certain parts of the world

Of course, it's a violation of the law. Conspiracy law does not require the object of the conspiracy to be carried out, only that two or more conspire for unlawful purposes as was done here.

If credible, Cohen's testimony shows conspiracy, perpetrating a fraud on the United States, soliciting foreign help in a presidential election, and obstruction. It depends on who the jury believes. The choices are Trump; the greatest pathological liar ever seen in public life who denies every single one of his more than three thousand proven lies, or Cohen, a person who admits lying and is trying to mend his ways by cooperating with the prosecution and receiving lesser punishment.

In addition, Cohen possibly has witnesses to corroborate his testimony - Trump has none.

If Trump's collusion can be proved, it will be the biggest political scandal in American history. He will have been shown to be a presidential candidate who sought and received help from a hostile foreign power, hid that fact, and later, as president, returned the favor by his groveling attitude toward Putin, the leader of that foreign power.

Even the Republicans would finally find a reason to stop supporting Trump without fear of losing the votes of their constituencies.

There are more liars in the world than one, it appears to be stock in trade in certain parts of the world

There are liars and predators, exploiters and just bad people everywhere Clete.


Of course, it's a violation of the law. Conspiracy law does not require the object of the conspiracy to be carried out, only that two or more conspire for unlawful purposes as was done here.

If credible, Cohen's testimony shows conspiracy, perpetrating a fraud on the United States, soliciting foreign help in a presidential election, and obstruction. It depends on who the jury believes. The choices are Trump; the greatest pathological liar ever seen in public life who denies every single one of his more than three thousand proven lies, or Cohen, a person who admits lying and is trying to mend his ways by cooperating with the prosecution and receiving lesser punishment.

In addition, Cohen possibly has witnesses to corroborate his testimony - Trump has none.

If Trump's collusion can be proved, it will be the biggest political scandal in American history. He will have been shown to be a presidential candidate who sought and received help from a hostile foreign power, hid that fact, and later, as president, returned the favor by his groveling attitude toward Putin, the leader of that foreign power.

Even the Republicans would finally find a reason to stop supporting Trump without fear of losing the votes of their constituencies.

Everyday brings new hope they will get that lying, cheating dufus and his sycophants.

soliciting foreign help in a presidential election. That would be Chris Steele ;a foreigner , being solicited by the Evita campaign ,through Fusion GPS ,to create an oppo research "dossier " full of unverified and salacious allegations provided to him by Russians close to Putin.



In addition, Cohen possibly has witnesses to corroborate his testimony - Trump has none.

lol maybe that is Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, who had dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya ,(the Russian lawyer who briefly met with Jr at Trump tower), both the day before and the day after she met with Jr . To my knowlege Veselnitskaya has not been interviewed by the Mueller team.
This is so phony . Mueller punted on the Cohen case and handed it off the US 2nd district . That's because the stuff on Cohen has nothing to do with the election .

Everyday brings new hope they will get that lying, cheating dufus and then what ? Yeah you can take down his associates and family in the legal system and try to use that as leverage . Trump's fight is political .Worse case is that he has to keep 2/3 of the Senate from convicting him of impeachment . That won't happen unless you have overwhelming public support for that action . Like it or not ,you will only be able to defeat him at the ballot box .....and the cast of misfits I see the Dems parading makes that prospect increasingly unlikely .

If credible, Cohen's testimony shows conspiracy, perpetrating a fraud on the United States, soliciting foreign help in a presidential election, and obstruction. It depends on who the jury believes.

Suppose Donald Jr. had met with the Russkies and received some very helpful information on Ms. Clinton. That would not be a crime. If they had given him money, that's a crime, but not information. We might not like that, but it is not illegal. As to perpetrating a fraud on the government of the United States, that's a pretty wild claim. Obstruction of justice? Maybe, but only if, as you said, Cohen is credible.

Look, is Trump a saint? Not even close, but the democrats who nominated Clinton have no room to point fingers. HC is the most corrupt politician in my lifetime with the possible exceptions of Nixon and her husband. Can I agree with a lot of the criticism of Trump? Sure. He has a big mouth and a terrible habit of just saying/tweeting things without thinking about what he is saying, so I have complaints myself. In this last election, we had the most awful selection of candidates I can imagine. If you want to criticize Trump, then go for it, but at least acknowledge that we would not have had a really moral person in office if HC had been elected. The truth is, they are birds of the same feather in more ways than most people care to admit.

That would be Chris Steele ;a foreigner , being solicited by the Evita campaign ,through Fusion GPS ,to create an oppo research "dossier " full of unverified and salacious allegations provided to him by Russians close to Putin.

Factually incorrect Tom. For one the repubs hired Steele initially and dropped him after The Dufus bullied his way to the nomination. The Dems picked him up after that, and it was repub John McCain who took the dossier to the FBI. Yes Steele is a foreigner, and ex intel operative for the British who last I checked was a friendly country that often collaborates with OUR intel community for years. You are correct the salacious parts of his dossier have not been verified, but to date the intel part has not been disproved and as the FISA release states the political actors complete with naming names was submitted to a FISA judge appointed by repubs, and renewed 3 times by 3 repub appointed judges, also conveyed additional probable cause to continue surveillance of the target.

I get the plan to put it all on Clinton and the dems, while being deceptive by omitting those pertinent details is the game The Dufus sycophants have engaged in to holler foul on the whole investigation but FACTS IS FACTS and you guys don't like FACTS and that's obvious.


lol maybe that is Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, who had dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya ,(the Russian lawyer who briefly met with Jr at Trump tower), both the day before and the day after she met with Jr . To my knowlege Veselnitskaya has not been interviewed by the Mueller team.
This is so phony . Mueller punted on the Cohen case and handed it off the US 2nd district . That's because the stuff on Cohen has nothing to do with the election .

Let me get this right! Because Mueller passed what he found off to another jurisdiction it makes the case phony? Because he has yet to interview the players you think he should we should paint his handling of the case as phony? I think I would rather see where this investigation goes rather than assume without FACTS how a seasoned and practiced repub appointed prosecutor handles his case.

I find it amusing and fascinating that two years after The Dufus defeated Clinton we are trying to protect the shady characters that he has surrounded himself with over the years.

Suppose Donald Jr. had met with the Russkies and received some very helpful information on Ms. Clinton. That would not be a crime. If they had given him money, that's a crime, but not information. We might not like that, but it is not illegal. As to perpetrating a fraud on the government of the United States, that's a pretty wild claim. Obstruction of justice? Maybe, but only if, as you said, Cohen is credible.

Receiving STOLEN goods is a crime. Whether you paid for it or NOT. Money doesn't have to be the form of that payment, as favors down the road count the same and Don Jr. alluded to what they wanted a repeal of the MANINSY ACT. He testified he never told his father, is that a lie? Might be. We will see. The whole Trump administration was warned they would be targeted for this type of actions by the Russians, so makes sense they would have reported it and not lied about these contacts, or work so hard to cover them up. Just saying.

As to Cohen's credibility, again we will have to see if Cohens assertions and testimony can be collaborated.


Look, is Trump a saint? Not even close, but the democrats who nominated Clinton have no room to point fingers. HC is the most corrupt politician in my lifetime with the possible exceptions of Nixon and her husband. Can I agree with a lot of the criticism of Trump? Sure. He has a big mouth and a terrible habit of just saying/tweeting things without thinking about what he is saying, so I have complaints myself. In this last election, we had the most awful selection of candidates I can imagine. If you want to criticize Trump, then go for it, but at least acknowledge that we would not have had a really moral person in office if HC had been elected. The truth is, they are birds of the same feather in more ways than most people care to admit.

I have no doubt repubs would have given Clinton the same hell as The Dufus had she won. The same hell they gave Obama, Bush, and all the rest. That's American politics amplified by the silly season of elections to see who retains power. Lets face it, silly season has grown with the advent of so many strides in telecommunications and the Internet, that one silly season follows another so closely that there are no breaks in between any more.

1 Steele did zero of the dossier work while employed by a repub
2 It is not up to the accused to disprove a charge
3 Mueller punted because Cohn's case has no relevance to his charge .
4 Mueller is a deep statist The party labels have no meaning . He's protecting his friend and the agency he once incompetently ran. (specific cases I've already documented )

I have no doubt repubs would have given Clinton the same hell as The Dufus had she won. The same hell they gave Obama, Bush, and all the rest. That's American politics amplified by the silly season of elections to see who retains power. Lets face it, silly season has grown with the advent of so many strides in telecommunications and the Internet, that one silly season follows another so closely that there are no breaks in between any more.

Pretty accurate statement. Politics has become such a mean and ugly business. People of genuine character are becoming fewer and fewer. Meanwhile, we have passed 21 trillion in debt and are heading to 22 trillion. No one seems to notice or care. It's the great national cancer.

1 Steele did zero of the dossier work while employed by a repub

Very true, but the FACT that Steele's work entailed roots in his prior network from years of experience doesn't make it a fraud since it was about DIRT on a political foe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.187b42fad1d5

2 It is not up to the accused to disprove a charge

You better get a lot more specific with that one since innocent until proven guilty is about a court of law not political rock throwing. BIG difference. It's only a charge when law enforcement makes it one in pursuit of a case.

3 Mueller punted because Cohn's case has no relevance to his charge .

Or a better spin is it he uncovered enough evidence of criminal activity that he gave it to another LAW ENFORCEMENT agency as he FOCUSES his resources on the election, the task he was appointed too. Is it his fault The Dufus has so many criminals in his employ? Or YOUR fault for ignoring they were criminals BEFORE they were in the employment of the Dufus?

4 Mueller is a deep statist The party labels have no meaning . He's protecting his friend and the agency he once incompetently ran. (specific cases I've already documented)

Right from the mouth of the Dufus, your documented objections noted. Still The Dufus wanted him for HIS FBI director, until he was appointed special prosecutor.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/trump-robert-mueller-fbi-director-interview/index.html

Pretty accurate statement. Politics has become such a mean and ugly business. People of genuine character are becoming fewer and fewer. Meanwhile, we have passed 21 trillion in debt and are heading to 22 trillion. No one seems to notice or care. It's the great national cancer.

I think it's the people of NO character and their sheeple that have become louder and louder that distracts us from the much needed focus on what we should be doing as a nation, and HOW we should go about it. I admit to hunkering down and trying to weather this storm of stupidity. (Should that be hunkering down loudly?)

8D

When you speak of those with "no character", I assume you are speaking of Hillary Clinton. While I generally support Mr. Trump, though frequently with a knot in my stomach, I can assure you I am no one's "sheeple". I voted for him because the alternative was completely awful. Any political party who nominated anyone as incompetent and corrupt as her has no room to point fingers.

Whose sheeple are the left-wing college and university students who riot to prevent people from speaking with whom they do not agree? Strangely, I do not notice conservative students doing that.

You don't have to assume who I meant by those of NO character, it was as I specified.



"people of NO character and their sheeple that have become louder and louder that distracts us from the much needed focus on what we should be doing as a nation,"

No mention of loony right or left wingers. I am glad the guy you voted for turns your stomach, that's a good sign.

When you speak of those with "no character", I assume you are speaking of Hillary Clinton... Any political party who nominated anyone as incompetent and corrupt as her has no room to point fingers.

Whose sheeple are the left-wing college and university students who riot to prevent people from speaking with whom they do not agree? Strangely, I do not notice conservative students doing that.

The Dufus is incompetent and corrupt and he is the president. He turns my stomach too, and I didn't vote for him. Seems neither party can point fingers but we the people have a right too criticize all we want right? Those lefty students are kids, young adults but those racists neo-Nazis are ADULTS and they should have learned better, but the Dufus has made hate speech and actions okay in America.

Those lefty students are kids, young adults but those racists neo-Nazis are ADULTS and they should have learned better, but the Dufus has made hate speech and actions okay in America.

Typical political answer. When leftists engage in violent protest, it's all just due to their youth. But now when Trump supporters are mentioned, they are racists and neo-nazis who should have learned better.

I just wait for the day when Clinton supporters (I assume that would be you) would just be honest enough to admit that she is everything they accuse Trump of being. For me it was simple. Could I vote for the person who did nothing to protect our consulate in Benghazi, pretty much slept while they were attacked and murdered, and then lied about it afterwards? Answer: Nope.

Your right, typical political response. I couldn't vote for a lying cheating Dufus who started his campaign with racially tinged insults. I guess your stomach is stronger than mine. Are you having fun throwing rocks and getting them thrown back at you? That's pretty much what we regulars do so I hope you don't take it personally... NEWBIE.

:)

I love these exchanges. Truth is, we both have to have strong stomachs. I'll say it again. HC is about the same, at heart, as DT. The only thing you have said that has offended me to is call me a NEWBIE. What?? I've been around the plumbing area of this site for about 10 years, but I guess I am new to the Current Events area.

You've been getting out a lot more, that's good.

It's been a ride!

Suppose Donald Jr. had met with the Russkies and received some very helpful information on Ms. Clinton. That would not be a crime. If they had given him money, that's a crime, but not information. We might not like that, but it is not illegal.

The crime occurs when "something of value" is transacted. Don't wander in areas where you are not capable.


but at least acknowledge that we would not have had a really moral person in office if HC had been elected. The truth is, they are birds of the same feather in more ways than most people care to admit.

To equate Clinton and Trump on a moral plane is breathtaking. Have you learned a single thing about Trump since he entered the world stage? He is the most morally repellent human being in American history.


Meanwhile, we have passed 21 trillion in debt and are heading to 22 trillion. No one seems to notice or care. It's the great national cancer.

How you can say this without mentioning Trump's tax cut for the rich and for corporations with its gigantic increase in the debt without a single economic reason to do it is beyond understanding.

well one could say the economic upturn is a direct result of the new tax rates and please don't give us the nonsense I heard yesterday that the reason for the GDP growth is because farmers are getting soybeans to the market before tariffs come into play.

The crime occurs when "something of value" is transacted. Don't wander in areas where you are not capable. Actually, I was giving the information put out by Alan Dershowitz. Looks like you are the incapable one.


To equate Clinton and Trump on a moral plane is breathtaking. Have you learned a single thing about Trump since he entered the world stage? He is the most morally repellent human being in American history.

Good grief. There is none so blind as he who will not see.


How you can say this without mentioning Trump's tax cut for the rich and for corporations with its gigantic increase in the debt without a single economic reason to do it is beyond understanding.

Finally you say something sensible. It's full of misinformation, and you manage to say it without mentioning Obama's 10 trillion contribution to it, but at least you do have a valid point.

Why would the surge in exports NOT be a factor at least in the short term? Also maybe you should also take a deeper look into how corporations are investing that windfall permanent tax cut, (You will have to extrapolate to out years) and run the wage gains model and even with those so called bonuses, while you factor in creeping price and interest in enough markets and you may be surprised at where the real economic growth and yes the stagnation really is. Haven't even factored in the debt as that lie that the tax cuts will pay for themselves is an old supply side mantra that never works for very long and is great for a few to skim the cream off the top.

We've been through this before with other repub administrations and it always ends up with a mess the dems have to come in and clean up. You guys have not even thanked Obama for cleaning up Bushes mess, but what can you expect if repubs that have elected dufuses that have thrived on multiple bankruptcies in their business dealings, would make economic messes for the country they run.

A lot can happen in the next 100 days though, so temper your enthusiasm until you get down toward Thanksgiving and see how your New Year looks, and if the guy you righties have slobbered all over has taken care of YOUR pocket. Time to move that 401K Tom into a more lucrative market.

Just sayin'

Democrats buy votes with increased welfare payments. Republicans buy votes by cutting taxes. The rather predictable result is 21 trillion in federal debt.

Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?

Democrats buy votes with increased welfare payments. Republicans buy votes by cutting taxes. The rather predictable result is 21 trillion in federal debt.

Do the math. Assistance to the poorest, most woman and children, elderly and some yes, men for two years which is the average stay on welfare, is a lot less than tax breaks that target the wealthiest by far. That does include the working poor and I have used the Walmart example many times here. A job that can't pay the rent is a substandard job, given the employer enjoys local and state tax breaks, uses cheap overseas labor, to sell at cheap prices here, and puts BILLIONS in their pocket every year. To be fair(?) to Walmarts they are raising wages given that many states have raised the minimum wage.

Another example is in my home state of Indiana where Pence was the governor, The Dufus made a big deal out of preventing a company from closing and moving to Mexico, and his solution was a huge state tax break to save jobs which we know only delayed the shutterings long enough for the Dufus and cameras to leave. Naw we can't let those people get public money now can we?


Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?

When the cost of bread goes up, so should welfare payments and SSI, and such. That's the flaw in your plan because you see helping poor people get basics is a bad thing but giving those who have much should be given MORE. I like my plan better, cut corporate welfare out period, and raise taxes on the richest for a while to fund a national upgrade of bridges, schools, roads, energy and tech grids which is long overdue. Less than a 1% increase of tax revenues can achieve this and make MORE consumers, of more people so they live good enough to buy stuff like house refrigerators and FOOD.

The best part is you raise money, make investment opportunities for the long run, and don't add to the debt and deficit because that kind of investment booms the economy and pays for itself with dividends. Yeah I like my plan better it's moree positive, precise, and benefits EVERYBODY.

Actually, I was giving the information put out by Alan Dershowitz.

..... without mentioning Obama's 10 trillion contribution to it, .


Alan Dershowitz - that explains it. Find a lawyer who understands the law. Next you'll be quoting Jeanine Pirro. Or Judge Napolitano, he of the conspiracy theories. Change the channel and got off FOX-TV, Trump's State News Channel.

Obama's increase of the debt had a valid reason behind it - namely, to avoid financial collapse. Trump's increase had NO valid reason - it was simply to pay the rich and, more insidiously, to prepare for the reduced funding of Medicare and Medicaid.

Watch as the Republicans who are chiefly responsible for the debt complain that it is too high and government spending must be reduced. Are you so blind not to see this strategy? The Republicans will tell you that cutting taxes results in higher tax revenues. An economic theory that has been discredited time and again, has NEVER increased tax revenues, and continues to be the big Republican economic lie.


Chew on this thought for a few minutes. If we really believe that any individual American has a legal claim to part of the wealth of other Americans, as we must believe to have a welfare state, then why not simply issue every poor candidate for welfare a voucher that would entitle them to some of the wealth of another American. So, for instance, a poor person would have a voucher for part of Taliniman's monthly income. They would show up at your door on the first of the month and demand payment. If you refused, then the next month they would show up with a policeman who would enforce the voucher at the threat of arrest. Now that, of course, is what is already being done, except that the feds clean it up by taking money from you in taxes and then giving it to others. The current system makes the politician able to brag of how charitable he/she is and relieves the poor person of the imposition of having to go to your house. I like my plan better because it makes what is going on very plain to everyone involved. What do you think?


You are COMPLETELY clueless when it comes to understanding the role taxes play in any civilized society. That's understandable. Many people are in the same boat as you are. A little education would go a long way. Try it.

taxes isn't the problem . overspending is the issue.

Good grief Athos. Chill out. You get too bent out shape.

As seems to be usual on this thread, you did not address my statement. It is entirely accurate. The government takes money from some Americans to give to others. You might think it's justified, and you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think any American has any valid legal claim to the possessions of another American just simply because they want it.

As for Alan Dershowitz, he spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He is very far removed from being a conservative advocate. Sorry if I take his opinion over yours. He is an attorney. As you said, a little education goes a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz


Obama's increase of the debt had a valid reason behind it.

Perhaps at first. That would be the TARP program, which eventually spent around half a trillion to stabilize, they said, the financial sector. They also were able to reclaim a large portion of that money. That leaves a mere 9.5 trillion for ???

collusion is not a crime except in rare cases of anti trust . The Trump associates have been taken down with process crimes or from past violations involving their own business dealings. Mueller also slapped
Manafort and Gates with carrying out a conspiracy against the United States. But even that is related to their own businesses trying to hide income from their work for Ukraine .On that thin thread Mueller will try to make a claim that this whole 'collusion' thing is really a conspiracy against the US.
Fusion GPS was hired by Evita's campaign and the DNC ;who then hired Chris Steele ,a former British spy ,to dig into Trump's personal and business dealings. He solicited information from Russian government officials. That work might similarly be viewed as an unsavory effort to engage with foreign interests to win an election. One could say they conspired through a 3rd party to collude with Russian officials to damage the Trump campaign.
IF Jr. sought “dirt” on Evita from the Russians, then according to tal he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. Why wouldn't the Evita campaign be held to the same standard ?


Nah all of that is nonsense Mueller's whole investigation centers on an alleged obstruction of justice. That is why he is looking at tweets and trying to divine Trump's state of mind when he took action against Mueller's buddy Comey.

Taliniman, here's my response.


When the cost of bread goes up, so should welfare payments and SSI, and such. That's the flaw in your plan because you see helping poor people get basics is a bad thing

I think helping poor people is a great thing, and I do so regularly. I just don't think I should be able to force you to do so. And when you talk about helping poor people with someone else's money, it does nothing so show your own sense of charity.


but giving those who have much should be given MORE..

You're not giving them anything. When did allowing a person to keep their own money become giving them something? And in case you wonder, I was a school teacher/principal for most of my adult life, so I have no connection to the rich.


I like my plan better, cut corporate welfare out period, and raise taxes on the richest for a while to fund a national upgrade of bridges, schools, roads, energy and tech grids which is long overdue.

Of course you like your plan. It doesn't cost you anything. Before you raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for what you want, you should understand that we borrow hundreds of billions a year, so how do you intend to first cover that shortfall?


Less than a 1% increase of tax revenues can achieve this and make MORE consumers, of more people so they live good enough to buy stuff like house refrigerators and FOOD.

Why do I have the funny feeling that you have not done the math on that? But if we are going to do that, then I will go back to my suggestion. Are you prepared to have a poor person show up at your door with a federal voucher for some of your money?

Careful, Tomder. Facts and truth are not always appreciated in this thread. (<:

You'll appreciate this.

49023

And what that proves is both spend too much money it is amazing how much restraint Clinton could have shown

don't kid yourself . Bubba was the beneficiary of a one time dot com stock boom ….. well that and the fact that he actually had the good sense to go along with the Newt Congress reforms of government spending ;
fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization .

Clinton didn't have TWO wars to pay for under the books and Obama put them on the books to include them in his budgets. That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.

taxes isn't the problem . overspending is the issue.


No argument that overspending is an issue, but that doesn't mean tax structures are NOT a problem. Two sides of the same coin.


Clinton didn't have TWO wars to pay for under the books and Obama put them on the books to include them in his budgets. That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.


Like a lot of lawyers, they are past their use-by date. Dershowitz and Giuliani are two prime examples. Rudy was terrific early on, now he defines the expression "unhinged".


Good grief Athos. Chill out. You get too bent out shape.

You have nothing to say, so you sputter. I thought you left.

Athos play nice all opinions are accepted even if we disagree

Athos play nice all opinions are accepted even if we disagree


Sorry, P, you lack any credibility for me which is why I rarely directly respond to you. And I certainly do NOT accept all opinions. I do respect right-wing arguments - tomder being a worthy example - but I don't often agree with them, and I never agree with a Trump supporter.

Trump's edicts and his attitudes toward immigrants and the press, and his disparagement of the rule of law (among other of his attributes) are chillingly similar to the 1930s fascist programs and ideas. Even his body language is an almost comical spot-on replication of Mussolini's strutting, arms folded, head-nodding, self-congratulatory posture.

Sorry, P, you lack any credibility for me which is why I rarely directly respond to you. And I certainly do NOT accept all opinions. I do respect right-wing arguments - tomder being a worthy example - but I don't often agree with them, and I never agree with a Trump supporter.

Trump's edicts and his attitudes toward immigrants and the press, and his disparagement of the rule of law (among other of his attributes) are chillingly similar to the 1930s fascist programs and ideas. Even his body language is an almost comical spot-on replication of Mussolini's strutting, arms folded, head-nodding, self-congratulatory posture.

Stop living in the past, Trump is a class on his own, Trump is no socialist, he is a populist, a would be demagog, but his oratory skills are lacking, so he speaks in short sentences and catch phrases.

You say I have no credibility, but where is yours. You would rather have someone like Hilliary because she is slapped with a demorat label, but she has no credibility at all, Without the support of those super nominations she would hardly have any support and you would have been voting for Bernie. Now I don't say Trump has credibility but he did get elected and he did it in a way that counted, which indicates he had a smart team.

I think you should spend your time on your next wish list

My goodness. All quiet on the western front.

Stop living in the past, Trump is a class on his own, Trump is no socialist, he is a populist, a would be demagog, but his oratory skills are lacking, so he speaks in short sentences and catch phrases.

You say I have no credibility, but where is yours. You would rather have someone like Hilliary because she is slapped with a demorat label, but she has no credibility at all, Without the support of those super nominations she would hardly have any support and you would have been voting for Bernie. Now I don't say Trump has credibility but he did get elected and he did it in a way that counted, which indicates he had a smart team.

I think you should spend your time on your next wish list

I would have voted for Bernie, though I don't line up all the way with his platform. I do think an American version of socialism would shame the Chinese, Russians and all those tin hat dictators.

It's not in your genes

Russia verges on being a third world country. China was a big nothing until they began to move in the direction of... capitalism and free enterprise! Name the socialist country that has matched the economic growth of the U.S. the past fifty years. Socialism promises to erase poverty. We don't like to say this, and I realize it's not popular, but most poor people in America are poor because they make poor decisions. Some have mental and physical problems that limit them, and I get that, but the majority doom themselves to poverty with their lifestyle decisions. Having three or four children out of wedlock, for instance, is nearly always a decision to stay in, or near, poverty. I think it would be amazing if we woke up one day and the out of wedlock birth rate had dropped to 10% or less. That by itself would result in a much lower poverty rate.

Tal, we just ended up buying a new stove. From what I could read, and the videos you dug up (thanks!), there is a relay that energizes the upper element that can fuse stuck. In that case, you have to replace the entire electric control unit for over three hundred bucks. Just made more sense to get a new one.

China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years

Russia verges on being a third world country. China was a big nothing until they began to move in the direction of... capitalism and free enterprise! Name the socialist country that has matched the economic growth of the U.S. the past fifty years. Socialism promises to erase poverty. We don't like to say this, and I realize it's not popular, but most poor people in America are poor because they make poor decisions. Some have mental and physical problems that limit them, and I get that, but the majority doom themselves to poverty with their lifestyle decisions. Having three or four children out of wedlock, for instance, is nearly always a decision to stay in, or near, poverty. I think it would be amazing if we woke up one day and the out of wedlock birth rate had dropped to 10% or less. That by itself would result in a much lower poverty rate.

Tal, we just ended up buying a new stove. From what I could read, and the videos you dug up (thanks!), there is a relay that energizes the upper element that can fuse stuck. In that case, you have to replace the entire electric control unit for over three hundred bucks. Just made more sense to get a new one.

If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids? LOL in contrast, females with means and insurance see the oby/gyn a few times a year for birth controlling procedures and drugs and I respectfully submit if poor woman had the same access and means to such care we wouldn't see women and children in poverty as we do now. Doing it your way has been a recipe for MORE children out of wedlock, and expecting the least of us to toe your moral line has done nothing to help, or guide those in such need, it's made matters worse, as capitalism has failed as miserably as socialism. If you speak of choice you must also recognize that some have more choices than others, and some are forced into bad choices because of OTHERS. Limiting the choices of others has as much consequences as bad choices. Heck guy a LIVING wage would go further in eliminating poverty than almost any other policy. Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.

Glad you solved your problem. I always feel it helpful to know your OPTIONS. Just curious what would you do if you didn't have the RESOURCES for a new oven?


China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years

Not hardly, because they need us a lot more than they let on. There are a lot more of them than us. They require MUCH help.

If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids?

I am 65 years old and I have never heard of any conservative who forced a poor woman to have sex and get pregnant. BC pills are 10 bucks a month. Condoms are what, a quarter? And there is always your beloved Planned Parenthood with their free services, not to mention the many other free and low-priced clinics there are. How do you explain the fact that poor women 60 years ago had children out of wedlock only rarely, and that was before BC pills? Getting pregnant, outside of rape or incest, is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Having 3 or 4 kids out of wedlock is a choice. Don't throw that on conservatives.


Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.

That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.

If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.

The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.


That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.

Who appealed to AD as an economist?

China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years Xi jinping's great leap backwards will derail any gains they had from their pseudo-capitalism.

You may be right but it is his answer to maintain the boom and China is indebting many poor nations

I am 65 years old and I have never heard of any conservative who forced a poor woman to have sex and get pregnant. BC pills are 10 bucks a month. Condoms are what, a quarter? And there is always your beloved Planned Parenthood with their free services, not to mention the many other free and low-priced clinics there are. How do you explain the fact that poor women 60 years ago had children out of wedlock only rarely, and that was before BC pills? Getting pregnant, outside of rape or incest, is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Having 3 or 4 kids out of wedlock is a choice. Don't throw that on conservatives.

I should have specified conservative policy makers. Specifically in Texas where I am. They have been shutting down MANY PP clinics across the state, regulating the doctors who do the actual abortions (Stiff hospital affiliation standards, which hospitals understandably balk at strenuously), and some pretty tough building codes. The funny thing is the emergence of private clinics and emergency facilities, like you said being pushed statewide, but do they cater to women with no insurance or treat Medicaid recipients for women health needs? As to the BC being cheap, yeah if you have an insurance carrier to pay the rest after your copay. How about those conservatives who run Hobby Lobby that refuse to provide insurance to their female employees for any kind of pills or procedures that deal with anything to do with BC? How about those states that conservatives control that didn't expand Medicaid? Such policies and legislation does affect the availability of female services as it relates to any kind of responsible actions for POOR females even in light of the facts that the need for abortions go down with education, and care available to them. Your point of this being an old ongoing issue is well taken but a clearer understanding I think of the solutions to those choices as far as sex and families go for the poorest among us goes back to what I originally said about a strong social safety net being needed.

I mean its great to be able to see that OBY/GYN regularly, and when needed, get scripts, and guidance, and access to those inpatient procedures if you are a few days weeks pregnant despite whatever BC you may use, and that does happen, and I just think poor woman should have that same CHOICE for care and guidance and support.

*Condoms help but are not 100% effective so not a guarantee at all and yes I know a few who use them and the pill and still got pregnant. Browse these forums if you decline to take my word for it.


That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.

I respectfully submit that the case for generationally poor is overblown, and the governments own data indicates that public aid is used by the working poor as well as people going through hard times, typically on average for TWO years. Children born out of wedlock is a NON FACTOR in a country with a 50% divorce rate for a FIRST marriage, and many who live together in long term relationships. A marriage license or religious affiliated ceremony doesn't protect anyone from the life altering break up of the family structure. I won't get on the subject of education both primary and higher being sorely and systematically underfunded, staffed, and inadequate, that's more to the leadership of the state, nor will I fault those that have shared in the states failings due to budgets cuts because of closing businesses and high unemployment, and massive infrastructure degradation. I find it amazing that nobody minds being taxed for guns and weapons of war, windfalls to rich guys and a bunch of corporate welfare to international conglomerates, but no help for struggling in need men woman and children. It's my position that EVERYBODY be treated fairly while keeping the trains running on time and the roads and schools open and maintained and not just a cash cow for rich guys who hoard their money. You saying taxation shouldn't support ALL the people, just the rich investor class job creators? DUDE, those job creators barely support their own workers let alone their country. Got to be a better way. Research Amazon workers on food stamps to get an idea of what I'm talking about. What you thought Walmart was the only gouger in town? That's your local taxes at work. You are paying workers instead of the boss they work for. So lets put this welfare charity tax stuff to bed until we address the corporate welfare that destroys the tax base like poor people never will. Yeah I did the MATH!


If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.

A fair tax contribution/distribution system is in order if you want America to be great again. The one we have now is nowhere near FAIR or effective. I know poor myself and can say with certainty it's not even a matter of taking from the rich, it's more like giving MORE to the rich and very little is left for anything else. Poor people don't cause recessions/depressions, or global financial meltdowns... RICH guys do. I got nothing against them but why should I slobber over them and just give 'em my life for little return? LOL, I know where the cheap parts are, and the easy credit terms can be found.


The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.

Got ya' on the working hard deal, not so much on escaping poverty through marriage. It's that 50% divorce rate that looms large. Just don't buy that last line for reasons outlined above.


Who appealed to AD as an economist?

He is entitled to his opinion when getting his face time. Your choice to agree, disagree, or ignore.

I admire any 65 year old guy who can work 80 hours a week.

8)

Interesting reply. I have three questions for you.

1. Why is it that the out of wedlock birth rate was so low in 1960 (about 5%) compared to now (about 40%)? Bear in mind that this was before any birth control than those old unreliable condoms.

2. Can any woman get pregnant who is not having sex? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex? If you feel that is not sensible or possible, then explain how it was both sensible and possible for nearly all of recorded human history. And if they become pregnant by having unprotected sex, then why would any other American be forced to pay to support her?

3. Would you be OK with the feds issuing a poor person a voucher entitling that person to 300 dollars a month of your income? That way you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually contributing to the benefit of a poor person.

One point. Ten dollars a month for birth control pills is the actual price at Walmart and several other stores, not a co-pay. In fact, it is actually cheaper than 10 bucks.

2. Wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex?
And certainly there's NO pressure on her to have sex.... New rule for males: No more sex unless you're married to her.

Ahh, Wondergirl. Now you are catching on! I agree with you completely.

There is pressure to do many things. Drugs, drunkenness, party down, drop out of school, and so forth. The challenge is to do what is productive, and I would say what is pleasing in the sight of God.

Ahh, Wondergirl. Now you are catching on! I agree with you completely.
And males will say when she says "no"....?

What does that have to do with it? So you are seriously suggesting that women should base their decisions on what they think a man will say? A woman makes a decision to live wisely. Why should she care what some stupid men say about it? What if they won't date her because she won't do drugs, or she won't get drunk? Should she change her standards then?

No. When she says no to requests/teasing/pleading/etc. for sex, males will honor that. In fact, they won't even bring it up.

I haven't located the world in which men are not sexually interested in women. I just don't think it's a good reason to get pregnant out of wedlock, and especially if a woman then wants to get other Americans to support her. Better to use some wisdom.

I haven't located the world in which men are not sexually interested in women. I just don't think it's a good reason to get pregnant out of wedlock, and especially if a woman then wants to get other Americans to support her. Better to use some wisdom.
So you're saying it's really the woman's fault.

Okay, males are interested -- and will have self control.

I'm saying we all make decisions, and we all need to shoulder the load of the consequences of our decisions. Don't expect others to do so. If a woman wants to have sex outside of marriage, then spend ten bucks a month and get on the pill. Or she can do whatever she wants, but don't ask other Americans to pay for the consequences of her decision. It's called responsibility. And yes, men need to exercise self control. I fully agree. If a man gets a woman pregnant, then he should help support the child.

So let me ask a question. Since a woman cannot get pregnant outside of sex, then wouldn't you consider her wise to postpone sex until she gets married? And please don't respond with more nonsense about men exercising self control. Men don't get pregnant. It's the woman who will have to make the most sacrifices, and should therefore think the most carefully. It is in her best interest to do so.

Isn't it amazing how many problems are solved by the institution of marriage?

Since a woman cannot get pregnant outside of sex, then wouldn't you consider her wise to postpone sex until she gets married?
That's what I was taught by my Lutheran pastor father. (Um, what about getting pregnant via artificial insemination?)


And please don't respond with more nonsense about men exercising self control.
If they can't, the castle will be raided.

So men and women both need to exercise self-control. I can go with that.

jlisenbe; I have three questions for you.

1. Why is it that the out of wedlock birth rate was so low in 1960 (about 5%) compared to now (about 40%)? Bear in mind that this was before any birth control than those old unreliable condoms.

You mean back in the day when unmarried pregnant females disappeared to relatives or boarding houses run by nuns that had adoptions services, or back alley doctors and knowledgeable women versed in those kinds of things or given societies attitudes the simple answer was pregnancy went unreported.

2. Can any woman get pregnant who is not having sex? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex? If you feel that is not sensible or possible, then explain how it was both sensible and possible for nearly all of recorded human history. And if they become pregnant by having unprotected sex, then why would any other American be forced to pay to support her?

Yes that was the sensible attitude but maybe you should ask the females why they had sex, or got pregnant. You may be shocked to learn that sensibility was not an option, or sensibility was overwhelmed by that primal need to breed, whether marriage was an option or not. Many women think pregnancy keeps a man so how sensible is that?

3. Would you be OK with the feds issuing a poor person a voucher entitling that person to 300 dollars a month of your income? That way you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually contributing to the benefit of a poor person.

You keep coming back to this idea that it's your personal money going to the welfare of women and children be it a mistake or out of wedlock. Two points to consider, 1. it comes from the general fund yes TAXES. and 2. After a mistake as you call it what does it matter since the outcome is a CHILD and needs love and support because it's here for whatever the reason.

Hey I see your point and I'm sure we all have MANY things we don't want our tax dollars going to. Personally I don't want a rich fat cat getting welfare and destroying my local tax base and I have to subsidize a working person because the bosses don't pay enough for food lights or babysitters.

Yeah it would be nice if all humans were more sensible, there would be no wars, crime, or poverty. If only they were sensible. The reality is humans are not sensible, They are flawed so their thinking, actions, and behavior will be flawed. Wonder why God made us so flawed instead of sensible. Remind me to ask when I meet my maker.

In the meantime I have to make the best choices I can and hope for the best. Stuff happens though even when we make excellent choices. Now we have another CHOICE. How we deal with it. So a woman has made mistakes and you say let her and her mistakes pay the consequences. I simply say since I have made many mistakes myself, the best choice is to forgive and help her do better.

Quite simply that's the choice I make. Maybe that $300 bucks is a small price to pay for being a good human, if you choose to look at it that way. Seems very sensible to me in the grand scheme of things. I mean that could be me depending on the milk of another humans kindness.

One point. Ten dollars a month for birth control pills is the actual price at Walmart and several other stores, not a co-pay. In fact, it is actually cheaper than 10 bucks.

I would much prefer a female see a doctor first just to make sure she isn't taking something that may not be healthy for her just because it's cheap and easily available. That would be the sensible course of action to take, and the path I guided my daughters and female relatives and friends too. Some listened some didn't.

You should read the inserts that come with those products.

Before Roe v. Wade:

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/939286)used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death. This was the technique used by Vera Drake (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/movies/08DRAK.html?_r=0), the protagonist of Mike Leigh’s 2004 award-winning movie. Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy. As a young doctor, I removed a rubber catheter from the uterus of a woman with fever of 106 degrees. A dietitian in a nearby city had inserted the catheter through her cervix to induce an abortion.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/the-bad-old-days-abortion_b_6324610.html

You mean back in the day when unmarried pregnant females disappeared to relatives or boarding houses run by nuns that had adoptions services, or back alley doctors and knowledgeable women versed in those kinds of things or given societies attitudes the simple answer was pregnancy went unreported.

That is simply not true. Did those things happen? Yes, but not in anything close to being enough to explain the difference in numbers between now and then. The truth is, sexual activity outside of marriage was not nearly as prevalent as it is today. It was a different moral climate.


I simply say since I have made many mistakes myself, the best choice is to forgive and help her do better.


Then I encourage you to do so, and I'll join you, but don't force others to pay when they don't want to. It is an issue for private charity, not forced charity by the feds. Again, I don't think any American has a right to the wealth or income of another American.

The truth is, sexual activity outside of marriage was not nearly as prevalent as it is today. It was a different moral climate.
*cough* In which hole had you buried your head????

An age old debate and age old remedies, I think we should reintroduce the chastity belt with some innovations, making it suitable for both sexes, however this would never be adopted in the land of freedom where you are free to stuff up someone's life every day of the week anyway you can

That is simply not true. Did those things happen? Yes, but not in anything close to being enough to explain the difference in numbers between now and then. The truth is, sexual activity outside of marriage was not nearly as prevalent as it is today. It was a different moral climate.

The rise of the divorce rate may be a factor in the changing mores as well as people coming out and rejecting the mores that don't work for them any longer. Or maybe woman have decided they have had enough of being told what to do and how to do it and have taken to planning their own lives. I'm sure we aren't talking about them, as you seemed to be focused on poor females. That's an incomplete equation because as WG points out a female CANNOT have sex and get pregnant without a MAN right. Why is his choice not a MAJOR factor in what you see are those choices? You seem to place no responsibility on HIS choice to make a baby and walk away from it.

Maybe what has changed the moral climate is the choices MEN make when they get a female pregnant. Maybe there is a need for poor MEN to be helped in some ways also. I just reject the notion that it's all the woman's fault for being left with bad options and bad mouthing while the man just finds another female to impregnate. It's a problem for poor folks man or woman to make such 'mistakes". Maybe it's the men we should be educating and guiding to the path of good orderly direction and maybe the female will follow to put it simply.


Then I encourage you to do so, and I'll join you, but don't force others to pay when they don't want to. It is an issue for private charity, not forced charity by the feds. Again, I don't think any American has a right to the wealth or income of another American.

A helping hand to insure the real victims of the mistakes of fellow humans, their children, have what they need to make better choices would seem the path to go. Rather than exclusively lament the choices of others a SOLUTION to the task at hand would be desirable and more productive. So what's your solution to that? You got a better solution than a social safety net that everybody contributes to equally to ensure help for THOSE victims (THE KIDS) who had no say in the parent(S) bad choices?

Don't let me get started on this notion of taking another mans wealth. A false narrative that hides the truth of blaming the least while the most extract even more. Poor people don't take your wealth, they are just easy targets to blame after you are ROBBED by someone else.

*cough* In which hole had you buried your head????

What a well thought out, scholarly response. It's these kinds of non-thinking comments that get tiresome.

I think I can sum this up easily.

1. Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.
2. If a woman does have sex, she should use some sort of birth control. The same is true for men.
3. If she doesn't do so, and becomes pregnant, then it becomes an issue for her, her family, and the man to solve. She should not have the right to take money (assisted by the feds) from other Americans.
4. Marriage is the solution to all of those problems. Not a perfect solution, but the best solution.
5. That we are living in a sex-saturated, promiscuous culture, much more so than it was 60 years ago, is the most obvious truth in the world to anyone willing to see it. Out of wedlock birth rate differences (800% increase) cannot be explained by backroom abortions and boarding houses. And even if a single woman was "sent off" to have her baby in another city, it would still be listed as an out of wedlock birth. In fact, with legalized abortion and the universal, easy availability of birth control methods, you would think the opposite would have happened.

What a well thought out, scholarly response. It's these kinds of non-thinking comments that get tiresome.
So why then do men have/want/demand sex?


Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.
Men who don't have sex with women don't get them pregnant.

jlisenbe; I think I can sum this up easily.

1. Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.

Men that get women pregnant should take care of their responsibility or pay consequences for their actions. They also made a choice to have sex.

2. If a woman does have sex, she should use some sort of birth control. The same is true for men.

Agreed and if that doesn't go as planned or something goes wrong, both should RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

3. If she doesn't do so, and becomes pregnant, then it becomes an issue for her, her family, and the man to solve. She should not have the right to take money (assisted by the feds) from other Americans.

And if none of the above lacks the ability or resource to adequately address the problem, then the rest of the village has to help. Again though I must point out that accusing the least of us of robbing us, and letting the ones that are actually robbing us blind not have any blame or consequences is a distraction and impediment to solving an ages old problem.

4. Marriage is the solution to all of those problems. Not a perfect solution, but the best solution.

Do the math, poor people's needs cost a lot less that what our corrupt officials skim from the economy. You still have addressed how to stay married. The failure of marriages to endure makes it not only less than perfect but undesirable because of the devastation and disruption of real lives by all involved. I think that's why people have rejected in growing numbers the institution of marriage and seek other ways of living.

5. That we are living in a sex-saturated, promiscuous culture, much more so than it was 60 years ago, is the most obvious truth in the world to anyone willing to see it. Out of wedlock birth rate differences (800% increase) cannot be explained by backroom abortions and boarding houses. And even if a single woman was "sent off" to have her baby in another city, it would still be listed as an out of wedlock birth. In fact, with legalized abortion and the universal, easy availability of birth control methods, you would think the opposite would have happened.

Actually the opposite is happening as education and availability of options to unwanted pregnancies gives females choices to better themselves and raise their kids without a man's help. More and more that is the choice being made and we have more woman gainfully employed and with good careers. The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?

A cared for well raised child to productive adult hood is becoming the acceptable option despite preoccupation with name callers and label makers. Ill say it again since you focus on the taking of your money, the cost of corrupt politicians shilling for rich donors far outweighs the cost of raising a child be they B@STARD or baptized.

Let's hold everybody equally accountable for their actions, not just poor people, who have few options. Interesting discussion my friend, but I'm not buying out of wedlock kids or poor females have caused all the ills in our society. Marriage is not the answer to corruption, or wage inequality, and banning porn or sex won't change those things. Nor is out of wedlock kids that grow up to be productive good humans a bad thing either. Why even judge those of humble beginnings like they can NEVER learn to do better.

It's a FACT hungry kids can't learn so well, be they ba$tards or baptized, and more women are taking their kids and leaving bad marriages than they did back in the day. So marriage can also be a very sad miserable trap. Seen plenty of those too!

I could resist posting this absolutely perfect representation of my opinions

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F164%2F16488%2F1648862.jpg&t=1533230104&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cc8-c10004015700&sig=e8xFCZM0E3eTjOW2MsLQoQ--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2108978?ezine=640&r=c3tJorM-k5ZnQ0Bb0PlcP3R69AuEGd1C1zDNqLJ1B8ZDOjUxMDM2OTA1Ok o6MTc4MDEyMTpMOjY0MDpSOjQ1NDYxNDpTOjIxMDg5Nzg6Vjo0 OA)

Actually the opposite is happening as education and availability of options to unwanted pregnancies gives females choices to better themselves and raise their kids without a man's help. More and more that is the choice being made and we have more woman gainfully employed and with good careers. The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?

How on earth you can say the opposite is happening is just mind-blowing. The rate of out of wedlock births is up 800%, but you say it's going down?? Good grief. Facts and truth no longer matter to you.


The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?

How is it a bad thing? Well, just for instance, in 2016, 32% of single-parent families with children were living in poverty versus just 7% of two-parent families. Additionally, 63 percent of suicides nationwide are from single parent homes, 75 percent of children in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families, and more than half of all youths incarcerated in the U.S. lived in one-parent families as a child. Those children perform less well in school and are less likely to get a college degree. But fear not, for in Tal's imaginary world, all is well.


I'm not buying out of wedlock kids or poor females have caused all the ills in our society. Marriage is not the answer to corruption, or wage inequality, and banning porn or sex won't change those things.

Where did you get this nonsense? I've never said poor females have caused all the ills in our society or that marriage is the answer to corruption or wage inequality. I have never suggested we ban sex or porn. What dream world are you living in?

The way to stay married is... to stay married. Not real complicated.

I don't mean to sound ugly, but this has become frustrating. It would be very helpful if you would stop posting the party line and engage in facts. Just five or ten minutes on the internet would show you that children from single parent homes face enormous challenges. You say they need a village. I say they need a mom and dad to raise them. Now some kids don't have that, and we need to help them. I get that. The difference is, my approach is that I need to be involved, and have been for decades. Your approach is to show your heart of compassion by forcing other people to help. Sorry. That's not compassion. It's fake compassion.

Might add that in 1960, about 90% of families were two parent homes. Wonder how it is that they were so much more successful in the business of marriage than we are today?

Wonder how it is that they were so much more successful in the business of marriage than we are today?

It had to do with religious beliefs which have been lost, thus leading to the breakdown of marriage and society and the rise of the me generation

It had to do with religious beliefs which have been lost, thus leading to the breakdown of marriage and society and the rise of the me generation.

Might not be all of the answer, but it certainly is the foundation.

I'm not going to endlessly debate abortion and women's rights. I don't believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn child. The child is a consequence of her actions and has a right to life. The responsible thing to do is avoid the problem, particularly considering the resultant consequences. If women don't have the intelligence to figure this out then stop shouting equality

To be clear, I completely agree that men have a responsibility in this situation. We tend to look at women as objects for our gratification, yet they end up with most of the responsibility. It is an unfair situation. My appeal is for us to exercise some common sense.

I think requires a very different moral code

To be clear, I completely agree that men have a responsibility in this situation. We tend to look at women as objects for our gratification, yet they end up with most of the responsibility. It is an unfair situation. My appeal is for us to exercise some common sense.

After the deed is done what's the next step? Geez JL after you get all riled up your capacity to become VERY reasonable is commendable. Glad you're here, love the back and forth.

I think requires a very different moral code

Whose moral code is the question.

PS

Glad you're here too Clete, just want to take a minute to tell you that as I pour my second cup. I know once we get warmed up the knives will come out, but for now can you put another shrimp on the barby for me?

Whose moral code is the question.

PS

Glad you're here too Clete, just want to take a minute to tell you that as I pour my second cup. I know once we get warmed up the knives will come out, but for now can you put another shrimp on the barby for me?

I Thai red curried the prawns last night Tal, possibly still paying for it, but I reserve my barby for snags and T-bone.

The moral code I was speaking of is the one where you avoid getting the girl pregnant or getting pregnant. Used to be it had serious consequences both socially and sometimes physically. As I said earlier a reinvention of the chastity belt for those who can't control themselves and an absence of enticing the other sex

Here is my objection to your position.

1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.
2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.
3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.
4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.
5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.

I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.

Out of wedlock birth unless people are in a committed relationship is undesirable
Yes people do have sex because they are unable to contain their emotions
I believe the responsible attitude is to abstain from sex outside of marriage
I don't think unmarried mothers should be supported by the state, however you cannot allow the family to starve
I am not a "liberal"

It is time for there to be a social compact and that might include sterilisation of those who continually wantonly add to the population, men and women both.

I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.

I was answering Tal. I would think you and I are in general agreement.

jlisenbe; Here is my objection to your position.

1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.

Where are your links to back that up. For one out of wedlock is a term you need to define because modern couples find that a committed relationships without the religious attachment, pomp, or ceremony works for them. Does it work for you?

2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.

Again you need to define your terms because despite your implications it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with your long term partner.

3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.

We can agree on that, but stuff happens and a few women on this forum have used more than one form of birth control and gotten pregnant.

4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.

That's not written in stone, and is but a challenge that MANY have overcome to find happiness and fulfillment. Goes back to what I said, learned from real life experience, a mistake is human and it's how you deal with it that counts.

5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.

That's not what I said, nor is it my position. I explicitly said we should have a strong social safety net for those AMERICAN can get help in hard and bad times and that is not restrict to unmarried woman, but unemployed men and children, and old people. Hey guy stuff happens.

We already have a process for that which doesn't include knocking on your door and handing over money. Its called welfare, Medicaid, and social security and there is an orderly process of application and acceptance with guidelines for compliance. How a nation treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into the morals and values of that country.

Is it any of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors or what religion they adhere too? NO! So bring on those links so we can get to the facts of the matter. And read what I wrote more closely.


I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.

Out of wedlock birth unless people are in a committed relationship is undesirable
Yes people do have sex because they are unable to contain their emotions
I believe the responsible attitude is to abstain from sex outside of marriage
I don't think unmarried mothers should be supported by the state, however you cannot allow the family to starve
I am not a "liberal"

It is time for there to be a social compact and that might include sterilisation of those who continually wantonly add to the population, men and women both.

We have a social compact in America, though sterilization is NOT a part of it unless that's what a female wants, otherwise it's illegal and punishable by law. The social contract though not enough for some, and too much for others, so we debate.

That's not what I said, nor is it my position. I explicitly said we should have a strong social safety net for those AMERICAN can get help in hard and bad times and that is not restrict to unmarried woman, but unemployed men and children, and old people. Hey guy stuff happens.

We already have a process for that which doesn't include knocking on your door and handing over money. Its called welfare, Medicaid, and social security and there is an orderly process of application and acceptance with guidelines for compliance.

It is rather amusing that you seem unable to see that having a poor person come to your door is the same thing, functionally, as having the taxman come to your door. It is still the idea that a one American has some legal right to the wealth and income of other Americans. Unless, of course, you believe that there is a money tree located somewhere in Washington.


How a nation treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into the morals and values of that country.

Even more to the point, how TAL treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into his soul. When your moral point of reference is what others do, then it just becomes empty platitudes.

By the way, where did you get that moral value you are expressing, and why do you believe you have the right to impose it on the rest of the country? It's strange to me that so many people are quick to protest the imposition of moral values such as restricting abortion or marriage, but are enthusiastic about imposing their moral values of welfare and social nets on the rest of us.

I will agree fully that all us have a moral obligation to the poor, but that is for individuals to carry out. It just means nothing when one person attempts to force a second person to take care of a third person.

It came from my Christian upbringing by my parents, if you want to know, and boggles my mind that you are so hyped up over this out of wedlock sex thing taking your money yet say NOTHING when a huge international company just takes your local tax money to build a place where the workers need welfare to have food shelter and clothes.

HMMMM?

It came from my Christian upbringing by my parents, if you want to know,

So why do you get to impose your moral value on the rest of the country?


boggles my mind that you are so hyped up over this out of wedlock sex thing taking your money

I'll say if for about the fifth time. I would like for you, or anyone, to justify how any one American can lay a legal claim on the wealth or income of any other American. Slice it any way you want, but that is exactly what welfare is.


yet say NOTHING when a huge international company just takes your local tax money to build a place where the workers need welfare to have food shelter and clothes.

That has not happened in my area, at least not to my knowledge. If it has happened in yours, and you feel strongly about it, then raise it as an issue. I can understand that. Frankly, if we could get a "huge international company" to come in to our area and pay 20 or more dollars an hour to several hundred workers, then I would vote personally to give that company a short term (which is what most of them are, at least to my understanding) tax break. A business creating jobs benefits the entire community and is the best welfare program I know of.

I would like for you, or anyone, to justify how any one American can lay a legal claim on the wealth or income of any other American.
Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?

Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?

That is a wonderful, charitable sounding reply, but it is not consistent. You say you are more than willing to help in any way you can. That is good, and I agree with you. But then you change direction when you say, "Isn't that what our taxes do?" Now you are wanting to get other people to help, and in fact force them to help. That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?

Since you believe we are all in this together, and that other Americans have legal claim to your income, are you OK with one of them coming by and insisting you give them money? That is precisely what is happening, except that the feds wash it through the government to make it look OK.

I love charity and engage in it, but I'm hesitant to impose my belief in that regard on everyone.

tal there is no virtue in giving because you are compelled to do so .

Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!

That's how it's done in America so quit the right wing bellyaching and the notion of being compelled. Or go tell your boss to stop taking out taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.



Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?

Well said!

Now you are wanting to get other people to helpYou don't pay taxes?

Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!

Does that also apply to your incessant harping about corporate welfare? We are discussing policy. That's how it goes.


Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!

That's how it's done in America so quit the right wing bellyaching and the notion of being compelled. Or go tell your boss to stop taking out taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.

Funny. I am to drop the "compelled to crap", but then you tell me to see what happens when I stop paying taxes. That kind of comes from the "compelled to" part.

Still haven't heard how it is that any American has a right to the income of another American.

Wondergirl, I'll ask it again. "That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?"

Neither of you has bothered to answer that.

I pay taxes. I have no idea where your question came from. We are all compelled to pay taxes.

I pay taxes. I have no idea where your question came from. We are all compelled to pay taxes.
What are those taxes used for?

What are those taxes used for?

Many things. Some legitimate (at least to me), and some not. However, I do not believe any American has any legal right to the income of any other American. Put another way, no American should be compelled to support another American.

Peeps you must forgive me if that's possible because I am totally PO'd

PO #1

Yesterday the Intel community collectively gave a press conference and said The Russians hacked, and are still hacking our election system, and Facebook the day before confirmed that foreign actors are still setting up fake accounts and spreading rumors and lies faster than they can take them down and this is across numerous social media platforms. The Dufus went to Pennsylvania yesterday and had the audacity to call the Russian Investigation a big hoax and it was hurting relationships between Russia and the US. The crowd went wild.

WHAAAA? What will it take to make the Dufus protect his people?

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F164%2F16482%2F1648261.jpg&t=1533337674&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c4e-b5000301f100&sig=H1QwmefK0_ImFWdrl.wwVg--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2108154?ezine=640&r=G3acjr-i8JeEPLjYm16ZDS9y5taA0ajA5xZnSiM942lDOjUxMDM2OTA1O ko6MTc3OTY1OTpMOjY0MDpSOjEyNTIwNzpTOjIxMDgxNTQ6Vjo zNg)

PO #2

The DOJ just told the ACLU it was their job to find and reunite children separated from their parents because of this zero tolerance policy on the southern border. Luckily the Federal judge excoriated the DOJ, and Dufus administration and ordered them to do their jobs that they screwed up royally in the first place.

Whew, that helped. For the record it's not me imposing MY morals on anyone. See your lawmakers, but don't put it on me. You held your nose and voted for this Dufus, go complain to him.

"For the record it's not me imposing MY morals on anyone. See your lawmakers, but don't put it on me."

OK. I thought you were advocating for the welfare system, which would be imposing your moral values on others. I guess you were just... talking? Rambling? Waiting on dinner? Who knows.

I advocate for a STRONG SOCIAL Safety net big enough to help ALL American during Bad and hard times. Actually at the moment I am taking a break after making dinner.

Are you one of those anti government folks?

I advocate for a STRONG SOCIAL Safety net big enough to help ALL American during Bad and hard times. Actually at the moment I am taking a break after making dinner.

Another way of saying that you support compelling one American to support another American, which is you imposing your moral values on others. I wish you'd just admit it. You know it's true and I know it's true.

Another way of saying that you support compelling one American to support another American, which is you imposing your moral values on others. I wish you'd just admit it. You know it's true and I know it's true.
Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?

What's YOUR plan?

Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?

What's YOUR plan?

Well you wouldn't know it from some of the comments here. What Tal just advocated is " from each according to his need from each according to their ability" which is communist just as you have advocated it.

You either have a capitalist system which is someone owns the means of production and pays someone else to do the work, or you have a system where the state owns the means of production and pays everyone to do the work, which we know to be communist. You can have hybrid systems where the state intervenes in key industries in order to ensure allocation of resources and these work much better than wholly market based systems based on profit

" from each according to his need from each according to their ability"

Sorta like in the New Testament:

Acts 2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Philippians 2:4 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/philippians/2/) 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

James 2:14-17 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/james/2/) 14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Sorta like in the New Testament:

Acts 2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Philippians 2:4 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/philippians/2/) 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

James 2:14-17 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/james/2/) 14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

I'm not denying that Christian values reflect the need to look after the less fortunate however is this an individual mandate? Or a government mandate? In today's society the obligation has been abdicated to government and of course there is never enough, thus the need for increased taxation of those who earn more to satisfy the needs of the less advantaged. God's economy is based on giving but man's economy is based on grabbing so the two are incompatible and thus trying to apply the values of one to the other doesn't work

And all voluntary! Just imagine that the early church did all of that without Wondergirl or the feds to enforce compliance.

I'll say it one last time. It is not charity when A wants to force B to take care of C. It's just a fake, cheap copy of the real thing carried out, frequently, by people who have no intention of troubling themselves personally to help C.

Another way of saying that you support compelling one American to support another American, which is you imposing your moral values on others. I wish you'd just admit it. You know it's true and I know it's true.

No I support being compelled to obey the law, just as I am compelled to, as we all are. See, we are in the same boat, but YOU don't like your seat. You can beetch, or you can go through the process of changing it. Those are your choices. That's the proper way of good orderly direction, so don't impose your chaos on me. That how I handle my peeves and get redress for them. I vote! Sometimes I don't win.

Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.

Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it! Then stop the constant nonsense that is the moral thing to do and lecturing us on how to be Christian . Yes we are compelled to do so because it is the law . Don't pretend that it has anything to do with morals and virtue .

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." (Ben Franklin )

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49 percent.” (Thomas Jefferson)


“Every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” (H.L. Menken)




“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (CS Lewis)

No I support being compelled to obey the law, just as I am compelled to, as we all are. See, we are in the same boat, but YOU don't like your seat. You can beetch, or you can go through the process of changing it. Those are your choices. That's the proper way of good orderly direction, so don't impose your chaos on me. That how I handle my peeves and get redress for them. I vote! Sometimes I don't win.

Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.

Compelled to obey the law, sounds like freedom to me, the freedom of the gun totting leftists dictator society where the government owns the guns and the peons do what they are told, the ultimate socialist dream. That boat is sinking Tal

Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.

Now that's a fair statement. I'm glad we've come to understand that you believe in enforcing your moral vision on others (we all do) and that some Americans have a legal and moral claim on the income of other Americans. I despise that idea. So we just disagree. I still think the country would change dramatically if the feds would issue poor people a voucher entitling them to some of the money of others. That would at least be an honest representation of what is happening.

Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?


Uhm... no. According to Jefferson, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Liberty would mean that Wondergirl cannot compel me to engage in her ideas of charity. She can pursue them, but cannot compel me to pursue them.


What's YOUR plan?

My plan is to involve myself, as I have done for many years, in the pursuit of helping those less fortunate than me. This is a weekly engagement for my wife and me. It is responding to what Jesus tells us to do, to love our neighbor. That is never presented as a government undertaking. Now I encourage you and others to do so as well, but will not even think about compelling you to do so. Are you currently involving yourself, personally, in helping to love your neighbor as yourself? Is Christ your Saviour and Lord? Have you responded to the gospel message? These are the important questions.

So you don't think your government should serve all the people, just the ones YOU deem worthy? I finally got you.

So you don't think your government should serve all the people, just the ones YOU deem worthy? I finally got you.


I think the government should serve all the people. I don't think the government should take money from one American to give to another individual American. I don't believe any individual American has the right to another American's money. But to serve all the people, collectively, is exactly what government is for. To establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for defense, and promote the general welfare.

I'll say it again, Tal, for you have yet to address this. Your concept of charity is to force other Americans to do what you want done with their money. And again, that is a cheap, fake imitation charity.

How does government do those things without REVENUES?

How does government do those things without REVENUES?

Are now there is the trick, you have heard of tariffs, it is what started your country, you tax imports rather than incomes and if you can't get enough money doing that you are not trying. Every tax is unpopular particularly in a place where they had an insurrection over taxes and you could try death duties; a tax on capital, stamp duties on property transfer; another tax on capital but don't tax incomes

you tax imports rather than income
Then why do we pay both state and federal income taxes by April 15th?

Then why do we pay both state and federal income taxes by April 15th?

Someone thought it was a good idea to use OPM for their pet projects, it is called convenience, much easier to shear the sheep with the idea that everyone pays whether they benefit or not

The rich are flush with money, the poor are even poorer, working people haven't gotten a raise in decades, and the roads and bridges and schools are crumbling, and Russia is screwing with the internet. The Dufus says he is doing a fantastic job, better than any president in history, The crowds go wild!

Don't look up!

The rich are flush with money, the poor are even poorer, working people haven't gotten a raise in decades, and the roads and bridges and schools are crumbling, and Russia is screwing with the internet. The Dufus says he is doing a fantastic job, better than any president in history, The crowds go wild!

Don't look up!

Is that because pigs are flying and you might get pigdung in the eye? Or is it that meteorites are dashing across the sky?

Your country is enjoying a better economic climate, who can say if Trump contributed or the actions of others contributed but confidence is up, always a good thing. I think your problems stem from the distributed nature of your political scene, you are over governed and this always leads to a certain lethagy in public affairs as blame is assigned to others. Trump is not responsibility for problems at a local level, he wasn't elected to the school board, or your state or local government. Reality says there is alack of funds despite record spending and you have to ask, how much does a large illegal immigrant population contribute to the problems, how much does disadvantage contribute to the problems. Anyone can identify a problem, taking action is the difficult part

Is that because pigs are flying and you might get pigdung in the eye? Or is it that meteorites are dashing across the sky?

That's not rain falling on our heads!


Your country is enjoying a better economic climate, who can say if Trump contributed or the actions of others contributed but confidence is up, always a good thing.

Lots of venting going on for sure, both sides, but the war of ideas rage on, and the data says the economy has been steady and growing for a few years now but perception is everything and the fringe is giddy with their new star. They were the sourpusses for many years bring everybody down and even now are talking crazy with conspiracies to keep their spirits up. My side always has the hope that steady pragmatic progress is better than brimstone fire and fairy dust. That's why the Dufus must feed red meat to them constantly with his hillbilly in person rallies across the country. Repubs let him spout off, because they got the tax cuts for the cronies, and will pick a slew of federal judges and the prized supreme court judges. They are all nervous awaiting the next election though, because they may lose power, and MONEY, and a chance to push more of their wish list. They are also afraid the artificial juicing of the economy will offset the tax cuts and the tariff wars and PUTIN will bite them in the butt, and they get blamed.


I think your problems stem from the distributed nature of your political scene, you are over governed and this always leads to a certain lethagy in public affairs as blame is assigned to others.

The constant drumbeat of bleating idiots is louder than the nerds and wonks at this time and for that we can thank the Dufus. Actually state governors and legislatures run the country, as they control the elections and electoral college, and set the priorities in their locations.


Trump is not responsibility for problems at a local level, he wasn't elected to the school board, or your state or local government.

To some extent you are correct, but some localities are doing better than others and a few are deserted economic failures, specifically rural one industry small towns that lost that one industry and the lives that fed it. Repubs have long consolidated local and state power though to elect the Dufus. Let's face it The Dufus won, maybe with Russian help, but mostly with his loony fringe right wing base of racists and idiots that he totally unleashed on the republican party. He destroyed them and now it's the DUFUS party. The good news is they are loud and visible and can be identified. They've always existed.


Reality says there is alack of funds despite record spending and you have to ask, how much does a large illegal immigrant population contribute to the problems, how much does disadvantage contribute to the problems.

I don't worry about 10% or less of the population hiding in cracks and shadows having much impact on anything other than being a racist scare tactic for loonies that want a wall you can see from space as a gift from those illegal immigrants. Now the issue of poverty and the wage gap, that's a biggie. Growing poverty is not good in a consumer driven economy. Doesn't effect exports though but tariffs do.

I have to rebut the lack of funds reality, it's just the opposite, rich guys are FLUSH with it and manipulate the economy to keep it that way. The problem has never been lack of funds, but lack of distribution. Out right stealing doesn't help either.



Anyone can identify a problem, taking action is the difficult part

Especially when there is opposition to the solution, or it costs someone money.

Then why do we pay both state and federal income taxes by April 15th?
The real question is how did the nation survive before 1913 when the 16th amendment became the law of the land ?

Someone thought it was a good idea to use OPM for their pet projects, it is called convenience, much easier to shear the sheep with the idea that everyone pays whether they benefit or not




(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3819842)



Well here there was a temporary income tax of 3% during the Civil War. But the movement to go to confiscatory income taxing began just about the same time as the progressive movement began getting it's legs .(what a coincidence!)



you are over governed and this always leads to a certain lethagy in public affairs as blame is assigned to others. AMEN !

I see Tom understands

Loonies of a feather stick together. Tom hates taxes and thinks everyman for himself, a recipe for chaos if you have a weak central government with 50 sovereign states. We had our bloody war over it, and even though it's less bloody we still conflict on how the government can function best and states can be do their own thing under the umbrella of the central government. It takes a strong central government here, to keep order and apply the law and provide equal protection under that law.

Some disagree, and that's fine since there is always an election looming to voice your opinion and stake your claim to whatever you believe in. Fact is as a country grows, so must the central government, and that you will realize Clete as your land becomes more populated. So no matter what side of the fence you are on you still need a referee to keep a semblance of order, or we have another bloody war. War without the blood is much preferable.

Don't you both agree?

I do not agree that it is necessary to grow the central government as a nation grows .I think the government should stay within it's constitutional mandate ;that those powers are few and enumerated ,and that power is derived from the people ;and that liberties are God granted and not granted by government and that the government that governs least governs best .


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/founders/james-madison/)
, Federalist
45, 1788


“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” – John Adam (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/founders/john-adams/)

I get you Tom, but the opinions of those very fine founding fellows has long ago been replaced, or upgraded if you will, because of some very country changing events, and developments. You have to admit that the nation has grown and changed and the old horse and buggy thinking cannot work now except in museums or celebration in honor of times past.

I would expect one that holds the value of a dollar to be self evident can acknowledge that.

nah their ideas about liberty and governance are universal and timeless

nah their ideas about liberty and governance are universal and timeless
The Founding Fathers didn't have a clue that companies would poison our lakes and streams; that special interest groups would want to arm men, women, and even children; and that 326 million people would be living here in 2018. Thus, we need a strong central government to make uniform the solutions needed.

if you don't think special interests were a concern with the Framers then you haven't read the history . The first special interest groups were the political parties themselves and they have always been primarily special interest groups . Madison in Federalist 10 made it very clear how necessary interest groups are .
“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.
“
I think the Founding Fathers would be very surprised to learn that lobbying is something that is looked down upon. They would have thought that lobbying is foreseeable as the government grew in size and complexity. That is why the right to lobby(
"to petition the Government" ) is in the 1st amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the creation and enforcement of environmental laws . They easily anticipated and looked forward to a growing nation . That is precisely why the Articles of Confederation needed to be scrapped .

I think you missed the point of Wondergirl's post. Some things the Framers anticipated, others they did not.

They were named Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison - not Nostradamus. 1789 is not 2018 and never will be.

1789 is not 2018 and never will be.

A point I have made to Tom on many occasions but he has faith in the founders to discern all things

I understood her point very well . I reject the premise . I'll let Washington say it because he said it better than I can.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
"— George Washington

I understood her point very well . I reject the premise . I'll let Washington say it because he said it better than I can.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
"— George Washington



Very nice words, but let us not forget it was that very usurpation that allowed Washington to lead the faction that broke away from the legally constituted government of King George.

Nothing is written in stone.

So Tom what are you doing about the current usurpation? Washington forgets he earned his position by usurpation

I'm in favor of amending the constitution by either the Congressional method or by the convention of the states .That is the constitutional way to make change .As for Washington and the Founder's so called usurpation ,I'll quote the Declaration of Independence .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


.................................................. ......


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.




You say you reject that premise (paraphrased as "nothing is forever") yet you quote Jefferson's own words supporting the very premise you are objecting to.

If I am missing something, I'm sure you'll tell me.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the vehicle for constitutional change. You live in an era of absolute despotism and the remedy is plain, not to uphold the constitution but throw it off

This is the vehicle for constitutional change. You live in an era of absolute despotism and the remedy is plain, not to uphold the constitution but throw it off


The remedy most often used has been amending the Constitution. In fact, the Framers saw immediately that the Constitution would need to be modified from time to time - hence, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments.

The remedy most often used has been amending the Constitution. In fact, the Framers saw immediately that the Constitution would need to be modified from time to time - hence, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments.

Yes but they didn't go far enough, they were filled with good intentions for future generations but not for themselves, as they maintained slavery and considered democracy an anathema

=paraclete;3819902 as they maintained slavery


The alternative was no Constitution and no nation. It would take another 70 years before this was resolved in a bloody Civil War.

This is the vehicle for constitutional change. You live in an era of absolute despotism and the remedy is plain, not to uphold the constitution but throw it off There is no absolute despotism in this country ;not even close .

Athos is right .The issue of slavery was irreconcilable in 1787. It remained so until 1865 when it was settled violently .

But you should stop throwing rocks from a glass house . Your nation allowed slavery to continue until 1970s as the indigenous and people from surrounding islands were compelled to work without wages ;often separating families .The convicts worked without wages until the 1850s . Then there was a practice called pearling where indigenous were kidnapped and sold to the pearl trade in the north . Then there is this :


Between 1860 and 1970, Australia effectively had
state-sanctioned slavery (http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/stolen-wages)
of Aboriginal people. Historians Dr Rosalind Kidd and
Dr Thalia Anthony (http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v4/n3/anthony.pdf)
have documented how Aboriginal Australians of all ages were forcibly sent to work on sheep and cattle properties across Australia under government schemes that were supposedly "
designed to protect them (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/did-legalised-slavery-exist-in-australia/5580456)
". Laws in Western Australia allowed Aboriginal children to be sent from the age of 12. The conditions were often horrific: 16-hour days, floggings and forced removal from families. They were either unpaid or received only a few shillings pocket money. State governments assured these workers that their wages were placed in a government trust, but most never saw a cent.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/australia-needs-to-own-up-to-its-slave-history-20150427-1muhg3.html

No Tom it wasn't slavery, you can't enslave the fauna. We did not forceibly import millions of people from Africa to do unpaid labour after selling them in slave markets. Convicts were criminals, transportation wasn't an ideal solution but they fared better here than where they came from in many cases. There is no doubt indigenous people were badly treated but we did not have a policy of actively wiping them out as you did

I can see you like to listen to propaganda and we have a lot of it here from a noisy minority who have everything done for them and still want more

You mean done to them for there own good. It's not your fault they don't do as you tell them and assimilate at your pace, and the manner prescribed to them.

We did not forceibly import millions of people from Africa
you didn't need to .There were plenty of natives and nearby islanders to do your slave labor . You really are in denial about your history. What does blackbirding mean ? How about pearling . Do you deny that Australia used aboriginal slave to create a cotton industry when the American Civil War disrupted the world cotton supply ? Do you deny that men and women from the islands were kidnapped to work in sugar plantations into the 20th century ? Do you deny that aboriginals were kidnapped and sent to cattle and sheep ranches as slaves as late as 1970 ? Do you deny that even when these workers got paid that often the money was confiscated and never given to the workers ? These wages were often stolen by corrupt politicians or the owners themselves . Stolen Compensation is still an unresolved issue there today .

In 1974, in his film The Unlucky Australians , John Goldschmidt explains how “the authorities made [Aboriginal work] slave labour by making the Aborigines wards of the state”, referring to the Welfare Ordinance of 1953 which made Aboriginal people of the NT wards and the Director of Welfare their guardian. As wards, Aboriginal workers couldn’t leave the station where they were working, “could be forcibly brought back with chains around their necks”.

The more I look into this ,it resembles holocaust denial or the Germans denying their complicity in the Nazi atrocities . At least in America we acknowledge our past . http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILRev/2007/4.html#Heading1

You mean done to them for there own good. It's not your fault they don't do as you tell them and assimilate at your pace, and the manner prescribed to them.

You can't assimilate a tribal person all you can do is leave them alone

It is not deniel to say that not all opinions are true, our nation is still working through the issue of what state and religious organisations were complicit in. We acknowledge our past and we can say that change was made but you need to remember that freedom is not the provience of the USA, you talk to jim crow and excuse the treatment of millions for a century or more before you point at us.

You should know that aboriginals have a particular affinity to country so to say they could not leave is to ignore the question of where did they have to go?

Seems they were not allowed to go anywhere you did not approve of, but so much for your moral high ground and blaming them for their situation. I don't recall you ever acknowledging the part you played in this, or the part you still play. Wrongs that are rooted in race are never solved in a legislative session but through many years and decades of changed minds and hearts, so I ain't buying that you have solved your own problem in this regard, it's just less blatant and probably more insidiously taken off the public front burner just as ours still is.

Whupping someone's arse and then leaving them alone is no solution. That never worked here, it won't work there either... but you'll see.

Seems they were not allowed to go anywhere you did not approve of, but so much for your moral high ground and blaming them for their situation. I don't recall you ever acknowledging the part you played in this, or the part you still play. Wrongs that are rooted in race are never solved in a legislative session but through many years and decades of changed minds and hearts, so I ain't buying that you have solved your own problem in this regard, it's just less blatant and probably more insidiously taken off the public front burner just as ours still is.

Whupping someone's arse and then leaving them alone is no solution. That never worked here, it won't work there either... but you'll see.

I didn't play any part in this, nor do I CONTINUE TO PLAY A PART! So stop projecting. I didn't say we have solved all the problems, these people want a sovereignty over the majority we will never surrender. You cannot understand how to negotiate with a people who see themselves as part of the land. Every rock, every pool is "sacred" or has a spirit, so in their view no one can do anything. This isn't race although the concept of work appears to have completely elluded them. The affairs of these people is very much on the front burner. They want us to live by their rules which are completely incomprehensible
Image a situation where prison is seen as a holiday, where you can just go somewhere else when ever you like, where you can't date a girl because she is the wrong "skin" for you, where what ever a family member has can be taken by you for your own use, where you can just move into a family house and sponge on those there. Theirs was a primitive . Theirs was a primitive communist society, no one owned anything. They spend indeterminate amounts of time discussing things and cannot reach a consensus and they keep talking, talking. There were 250 languages so they couldn't even communicate with each other..
We didn't whupp their arse, we did have skirmishes with small groups in various places and they didn't win and were hunted in the same way you hunted Indians when they killed people or stock That was 200, 150, 100 years ago and it is over and I will not assume the guilt of a colonial past

This isn't about you, but how YOU people deal with your colonial past. All you did was blast the minority AGAIN.

Clete's white man's burden

I have no burden, I would happily leave them to live their stone age lives without interference as long as they leave me alone. I don't need to deal with the colonial past, my family have been here for two hundred years and lived in peace with those who came before.

You see I don't accept projection of guilt for the acts of others and I don't accept that just because someone may have walked upon the land in the distant past it is their's in perpetuity

You could be honest and just say you took it and ain't giving it back, even at this late stage of the game, and screw the aborigines and their issues. Oh wait that is what your saying.

we aren't talking about subduing natives . We are talking about enslaving them. You can deny your history all you want to . But you can no longer bury it .

Tal I see you no longer need an intepreter.

Tom this is not a question of slavery, working for rations may be considered slavery in your country, but such methods of compensation exist in the agricultural industry even today. The problem is that some laws in the distant past were unfair in both your country and mine

And the practice and policies of those antiquated laws still exists and used to disadvantage the unpopular part of the population. Something's have not change and hate is alive and well. The Dufus makes good use of it.

Tom this is not a question of slavery, working for rations may be considered slavery in your country, but such methods of compensation exist in the agricultural industry even today.
It becomes slavery when it involved kidnapping and involuntary servitude . Both conditions existed as institutional policy and law until the 1970s in Australia .

wow by your argument I could say American slaves were just workers working for rations. I mean Massa provided them with food ,clothing and shelter …..right ?

It becomes slavery when it involved kidnapping and involuntary servitude . Both conditions existed as institutional policy and law until the 1970s in Australia .

wow by your argument I could say American slaves were just workers working for rations. I mean Massa provided them with food ,clothing and shelter …..right ?

And whupped, sold, and raped them for their own good and because they could. After all they were property and inferior, so even after slavery they could be denied the basics of human dignity and subjected to ECONOMIC and SOCIAL slavery which even in the US AND Australia and to be fair, many other places, still exists.

Agree with you Tom, but the forms of slavery have expanded and morphed to a more palatable form of terrorism on both sides of the equation.

ECONOMIC and SOCIAL slavery

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59cf8710a803bb8ab82715f9/59d32432c027d84feee26969/59d3248ac027d84feee26b9b/1507009680345/1.1.jpg?format=500w (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjktZbPz-XcAhXwYt8KHV0FD5cQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaomojibalms.com%2Fshop%2Fea g6tfz9qjmqipql7loyp47b9upb06&psig=AOvVaw1--EIgsEDG4BF_26jnh3g2&ust=1534098071463909)

You been isolated in NY for too long Tom. You should get out more, no Disneyland doesn't count.

And whupped, sold, and raped them for their own good and because they could. After all they were property and inferior, so even after slavery they could be denied the basics of human dignity and subjected to ECONOMIC and SOCIAL slavery which even in the US AND Australia and to be fair, many other places, still exists.

Agree with you Tom, but the forms of slavery have expanded and morphed to a more palatable form of terrorism on both sides of the equation.

I keep telling you to stop projecting, we live in two very different places. By the time my nation was been established slavery was on the nose in the enlightened world. I have no doubt attitudes still existed among the landed gentry but it was no longer socially acceptable. Exploitation of labour has always been a problem and continues to this day all over the world and it was to combat this that trade unions formed and the early expressions of this are found in my nation

I'm not projecting anything, just you are trying to dodge your own hateful bigotry, or maybe you see it as fair and accurate. It's always been the way of humans to put others down to justify mistreatment. The dufus does it as well as anyone, as many agree with his mistreatment of women and children along our southern border, and his attack on foreigners with tans, while he just made citizens of his wife's parents while he wants to stop other people from doing just that.

You're not alone by any means Clete as my own country fails miserably on race relations as well. Maybe you don't have anything to do with the past colonials, but you sure feed into it and enjoy the privilege it brings. That's not projecting, just a statement of fact as I see it.

You forgot Wage slavery which is having half of what you earn confiscated and given to people who don’t work.

Quite a statement, prove it is factual. I don't think it is, nor does it fit logically that the non workers get half your paycheck, and still be poor. Of course I have links for you to peruse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

https://www.wisebread.com/how-to-not-be-a-wage-slave

Now you can show me where half your wages goes to none workers.

Now you can show me where half your wages goes to none workers.


Half might be an exaggeration as are many things here, however, let us substitute a large percentage. Who do you think pays the large number of drones employed by government of various persuasions? Then we have those on welfare or benefits, who do you think pays for them? It is certainly slavery that any person should be expected to work for minimum wage and that they should be asked to contribute in any form to the tax collection.

You ask for facts

please digest these facts

https://taxfoundation.org/distribution-tax-and-spending-policies-united-states

Now ask your self who the low income families are in these numbers

Nice link, the data has been updated to 2018 HERE

https://taxfoundation.org/

I don't need an update the data is clear

Yes the data has been clear for some time but the real story is how easy it is to manipulate the economy of groups in regions/locations for profits and gains. I won't assume you reference wage slavery, I will let you explain your interpretation of the data.

I though I already had. It clearly shows the those on the bottom paying tax and yes they might get more back than they contribute according to the stats but surely that is a bureaucratic nightmare for both

It's surely a social nightmare that the not so well off don't deserve any kind of consideration of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and are and have always been devalued, and dehumanized by many people in an attempt to elevate their own value and stature. Just because a CEO is rich famous and powerful, is he really any better of a human being than a janitor?

Unfortunately to many he is, and that's kind of a shame.

It is the system Tal, the capitalist way. Many have understood that this is not the way but they are not willing to put aside what they have gained. While there are some who benefit at the expense of many other less fortunate it will not change. It took a revolution to sweep away this thinking in some places but even that didn't stop it rising again. It was said long ago what does it profit a man ……. and yet men still seek profit

Can't blame anybody for wanting mo money, its additive.

Can't blame anybody for wanting mo money, its additive.

Basic human need, but when some have enough they shouldn't be wanting more. We should tax greed. Set a ceiling on income and take the rest. It would be a better system. So set the threshold at $1 million, no tax below, take the rest above. No deductions, no concessions, just a simple system. Do away with state taxes so everyone is on the same level.

Money is power, and the ability to influence others to follow OR manipulate the course of events and outcomes favorably for whatever cause you choose. The fewer hands that have that power, the more outcomes and events are skewed in that direction. A classic case of the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many. Poverty, war, hunger and ignorance are the outcomes of that model. I agree Clete, a drastic change in that system is needed. The present one has been corrupted.