Healing Thoughts

via GIPHY

I hesitate to wade into the abortion debate again because it is so emotional and divisive.

The reason it is so emotional and divisive is because it is in that difficult place between religion and politics that has ALWAYS been a challenge for our country. Some of the first settlers fled religious persecution in England and then proceeded to persecute other religions and native people here. We fought a civil war over slavery because both sides believed that they had God on their side. Even Lincoln recognized that folly when he said, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

Into this toxic brew of religion and politics, we have the horrific image of babies being killed after surviving a “botched” abortion.

The facts are that it never happens. The reason why it never happens is because the abortion process is highly regulated. What Trump described in his State of the Union message is illegal in all 50 states. If any medical professional acted as Trump had described, they would be prosecuted for murder. If any medical professional assisted in that procedure, they would be an accessory to murder. We don’t need more laws prohibiting this practice because the existing laws appear to be working just fine.

Here’s what does happen.

Abortion after fetal viability is rare because most pregnancies progress to a successful end. Abortion after fetal viability also requires medical consent as well as patient consent. In Michigan, multiple physicians have to attest that the pregnancy is endangering a woman’s life. In other states, fetal viability is also an acceptable reason but still requires multiple medical confirmations. Generally abortion this late in pregnancy is the last choice rather than the first.

The main reason why a pregnancy can turn deadly after six months is that something goes terribly wrong with fetal development. The last three months of pregnancy is when the brain and other major organs go through dramatic growth. Physicians can detect these abnormalities. In some cases (holes in the heart), surgery in utero or post-delivery can correct the program. In some cases, the deficiencies are so severe that the pregnancy is unlikely to go full term. In most cases, these pregnancies end in miscarriage. When a natural miscarriage doesn’t occur, the pregnancy is terminated medically.

The laws regarding abortion after fetal viability require confirmation that the fetal heartbeat has stopped before anything else is done.

In some cases where it is possible to have a normal delivery, some mothers ask that labor is induced. They elect to go through a delivery so can provide comfort care as their baby passes.

Do the women who make this choice and the medical professionals who assist them sound like the monsters described by President Trump?

The reality is that no woman chooses this path after six months of pregnancy. Instead this is a family tragedy that should be cause for compassion and empathy.

Here’s the rest of the story.

Only 18% of the country believes that abortion should illegal in all circumstances. That number hasn’t changed significantly in 43 years.

The pro-life movement has failed to make their case for 43 years. The reason that they have failed is not because the rest of America is godless or uncaring. They failed because rest of America rejects being demonized. They appreciate how difficult a choice this is and accept that no one should attempt to make this choice for anyone else. Finally they simply reject the assertion that any group has the right to dictate the beliefs of anyone else.

The crime here is the demonization of those who suffer a failed pregnancy.

It is so simple to create this horrific image of innocent babies being cruelly killed.

For those who have a political ax to grind, it is really easy to fire up the outrage machine by suggesting that a vote for a Democrat is an endorsement of the practice of killing babies after they are born. The reality is that Democrats love babies just as much as Republicans because loving babies is built into our DNA as humans. Democrats find the prospect of killing babies just as repugnant as Republicans.

So why does our President suggest otherwise?

Because it is an emotional issue that creates fear and outrage. Politicians like Trump use fear and outrage to motivate their base to take action.

The “action” generally involves more “ends justifies means” thinking. It justifies treating the “other” (the ones we disagree with) as something less than human. It justifies repeating a lie even when you know it is a lie because that lie supports the larger mission of “getting something done”. It justifies rationalizing hateful behavior in the name of God.

Even though American voters agree on more that 80% of the issues that face us, we have allowed politicians to divide us into warring camps over a small handful of issues.

It is time for this to stop.

Change starts with a willingness to accept that rational people can have reasonable differences and that those differences don’t diminish their humanity, piety, or patriotism or enhance our own.

It continues when rational people admit that words can be used to harm or to heal. When we use words to harm, we attack the very fabric that holds our society together.

Emotional issues like abortion, immigration, race, religion, or sexual preference have the power to divide us when used by people who don’t believe in treating others with love and respect. Change gains momentum when rational people who are willing to treat each other with respect, reject politicians who try to use words to incite hate and violence.

We heal the country by healing ourselves. We heal ourselves when we start to hold our representatives accountable for their failure to model the same sort of behavior we personally aspire to. We heal ourselves when we stand up to defend the rights of others to be treated with respect even when we may disagree deeply with some of the things they believe in.

If we can leave our children anything, let’s leave them an example of how to defeat hate and restore love as the dominant force that shapes our country.

43 Responses to “Healing Thoughts”

  1. Keith says:

    https://apple.news/AnuV198h4SXez1xvdoIt5dg

    Hi Jeff,
    Hope we’ve enjoyed winter wonderland!

    Let’s say in two years those on the right have absolutely had it with Trump. This author has nailed it perfectly. Would anyone trade Trump id the choice is is a left wing extremists?

  2. Keith says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/20/ted-koppel-post-nyt-have-decidedtrump-is-bad-united-states/?outputType=comment&utm_term=.90bbd8d3bc4e

    https://apple.news/AwsNgDMALSC-u9rQA51jSBQ

    I found the difference in these two articles interesting.
    Notice how the opinion writer for the times focuses his agreement on one item. He then uses that one item to discredit the whole of Teds comment. The broader point Ted made was that opinion and analysts had made its way to the front pages of the Times and the Post. The times writer site the fact of the exact words trump used in one instance and the times choose to print the exact words. The says “guilty, we printed exactly what Trump said.” Not Teds point entirely.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://apple.news/AnuV198h4SXez1xvdoIt5dg

    Hi Jeff,
    Hope we’ve enjoyed winter wonderland!

    Let’s say in two years those on the right have absolutely had it with Trump. This author has nailed it perfectly. Would anyone trade Trump id the choice is is a left wing extremists?

    This is an (unlabeled) opinion piece by the deputy editor of the Washington Examiner.

    The Democratic Party has a big tent. As a result, there are a lot of issues being raised by a lot of candidates who represent a spectrum of thought on important topics. The primary process will sort of which of those issues resonate with voters.

    Every campaign that Trump has run so far as been about him, not about the issues. There is no reason to believe that this next campaign is going to be any different.

    Democrats won the 2018 midterm election because they focused on healthcare, immigration, and providing a check on the Trump administration. Trump wasn’t on the ballot, but his appeal in every one of his campaign rallies was that voters need to elect Republicans in order to allow him to continue to advance his agenda. He lost.

    I hope that Democrats will continue to focus on the issues that voters care most about. That will stand in stark contrast to Trump’s claims that he has been the best president this country has ever had that failed to reform healthcare, failed to implement an infrastructure plan, failed to save the jobs that he promised, broke his promise about protecting Medicare in his most recent budget, failed to build the wall at Mexico’s expense, and failed to drain the swamp, and failed to deliver the economic growth that he promised (among other things). Trump will continue to sow fear and doubt about how a Democratic president will be the end of the country as we know it. Hopefully whomever is nominated will run an issue oriented campaign based on facts which support the positions that we CAN improve healthcare, reform immigration, improve our infrastructure, reduce the costs of a college education, and strengthen Medicare, Social Security, and Medicare simply by changing our spending priorities.

    Should be fun.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/20/ted-koppel-post-nyt-have-decidedtrump-is-bad-united-states/?outputType=comment&utm_term=.90bbd8d3bc4e

    https://apple.news/AwsNgDMALSC-u9rQA51jSBQ

    I found the difference in these two articles interesting.
    Notice how the opinion writer for the times focuses his agreement on one item. He then uses that one item to discredit the whole of Teds comment. The broader point Ted made was that opinion and analysts had made its way to the front pages of the Times and the Post. The times writer site the fact of the exact words trump used in one instance and the times choose to print the exact words. The says “guilty, we printed exactly what Trump said.” Not Teds point entirely.

    Of course you would find these two articles interesting. They support, without fact, your claim that the media is biased.

    The analysis of Ted Koppel’s opinion is accurate.

    He feels that printing an unedited version of what Trump said showed bias.

    The OPINION of the Wash Post and the NYT IS that Trump is bad for the country. They have said so multiple times on their editorial pages.

    The question is whether or not this Editorial Opinion is affecting the way that the news is reported.

    In the one instance that Ted has raised, I’m afraid I disagree with him. When the President says something, it is news.

    When the President says something that is also untrue, it is the responsibility of ethical news sources to both accurate quote the President AND point out that what he said is not supported by the facts. Pointing out that the President has lied is clearly negative coverage. But it is not evidence of bias as long as the NYT and the Wash Post accurately quoted the President/administration AND accurately reported on the facts that don’t support whatever was said.

    The fact that this sort of reporting dominates the news cycle is a CHOICE that Trump and his administration has made.

    If they don’t want to see this sort of reporting, they should stop generating the lies that are at the foundation of this coverage.

    It is unclear whether this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the President or the result of some manic need to be the center of attention. But there are NUMEROUS reliable reports that the White House staff is regularly distressed at the fact that their attempts to promote whatever positive thing is is that they are promoting today is regularly undermined by Trump.

    His latest unprovoked attacks on John McCain are a perfect example.

    The administration message has been that Democrats were extremists and radicals. AOC and Ilhan Omar were taking a lot of flak from all sides because of some of the things that they had said.

    What is everyone talking about today?

    ‘New bizarre low’: Trump faces backlash after reviving McCain attacks

    So back to Ted’s claim. What Trump said wasn’t the story. There is perhaps a story in figuring out how the Hollywood tapes were uncovered. There is certainly a story in covering Trump when he said that the tapes were fake. But printing what the tapes said on the front page of the NYT during a campaign is IMHO news.

    The fact that the NYT and the Wash Post are making money is also not the issue. If they were failing in their promise to report the news accurately and without bias, then you could make the claim that profit was motivating that change in reporting. But both Ted and you have failed to produce credible evidence that any individual news story reflects any bias, and the claim that just reporting on what the President and his administration say is somehow biased is ridiculous.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Something today along these same lines.

    — “Some people close to Trump speculated that he might be consciously trying to remake the news environment — creating a bizarre spectacle to displace criticism of his tepid response to the massacre of dozens of Muslims in New Zealand, the timing of the administration’s decision to ground Boeing’s 737 Max jets, and frenzied anticipation around the expected release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report,” Politico’s Eliana Johnson and Daniel Lippman report. “‘For the most part, most people internally don’t want to touch this with a 10-foot pole,’ said one former senior White House official. A current senior White House official said White House aides are making an effort ‘not to discuss it in polite company.’ Another current White House official bemoaned the tawdry distraction. … ‘Why are we doing this?’”

    Hopefully, you don’t have an issue regarding reporting Trump’s remarks on McCain.

    Very few appear to be coming to his defense, so the bulk of the reporting covers what others have said defending McCain. Clearly that is negative for Trump. Is it also biased?

    Finally there is also reporting on how many Republicans have defended McCain without criticizing Trump. That is also news which reflects negatively on some Republicans. Is that biased?

  6. Keith says:

    YS)This is an (unlabeled) opinion piece by the deputy editor of the Washington Examiner.

    MR) please feel free in all future comments to identify who you are posting and, by intent, their bias. It gets old Jeff. I’m merely giving different opinions. It’s why we converse!!!! Trying to keep you out of your bubble. Lol

    YS) Democrat’s won in 2018 because they ……

    MR) or because they minority generally always wins? An observation – in our 13-14 years of conversing dems win because of issues, Republicans because of racism, hatred, fear, or just general mischief.

    You might take a closer look at what I tried to say above. Ted said that involved in the NYT and The Post front page reporting is creeping things like analysis and opinion. This shouldnt be. You’ve done exactly as the second article I posted and chosen to only look at the factual part of the comments Ted pointed out and said, so facts should be reported?” Yes fact should be reported and I have no problem with reporting on the comments Trump made about McCain by the way. However the point was the bias analysis and opinion that goes along with it on the front page news reporting is what’s changed. And that it’s liberal. Follow? That belongs as you have pointed out many many times in the opinion or editorial page.

    The title of the above is “Healing thoughts.” Boy sure didn’t see or hear that on TV last night. Seems the dems, without reading or hearing from Mr Muller, aren’t in the mood to heal. Of course they never are. Trump wins, they rally and resisted. Trump was accused before the election of not being willing to live with the result. Muller report? Watch!!!! Again I’ve always said let’s see what he finds…. hopefully. The gal loses the governship in GA and she still is yelling foul. I could continue….. But I digress.

    If Muller found nothing are you going to move on? Retract?

    Trump has lived up to many of his promises. If he only lived up to one, appointment of conservative judges, I would be happy. He’s done far more.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    MR) please feel free in all future comments to identify who you are posting and, by intent, their bias. It gets old Jeff. I’m merely giving different opinions. It’s why we converse!!!! Trying to keep you out of your bubble. Lol

    Your basic claim is that media bias is distorting reporting on Trump.

    I agree there are only a few media outlets that I feel are reliable. The rest are completely unreliable.

    The distortions of these unreliable outlets create an inaccurate version of Trump and his administration for the purposes of increasing their viewership. This happens for the audience that opposes Trump AND the audience that supports Trump.

    The handful of ethical print and broadcast media outlets who DO make an effort to report the news without bias, earn the right to have an opinion which they express on their editorial pages and in their opinion pieces. One of the key attributes of these organizations is that they clearly label what is an opinion piece and what is news.

    Fox News is one of the biased sources where there is no line between opinion and news. When Fox News prints an opinion by the deputy editor of another biased news source (Washington Examiner) and treats it as news – that’s an example of why they can’t be trusted.

    Opinion pieces ONLY EXPRESS the opinion of the writer. You used this opinion piece to support your claim that media is biased because this writer and Ted Koppel say so.

    You are welcome to your opinion, but posting other people who agree with you DOES NOT advance your argument. As a result, I continue to point that out. If you are interested in advancing your argument, please post some examples of biased reporting from the NYT or the Wash Post. For the reason I stated, the ONE example that Ted Koppel and the deputy editor for the Washington Examiner used IMHO does not make their point.

    MR) or because they minority generally always wins? An observation – in our 13-14 years of conversing dems win because of issues, Republicans because of racism, hatred, fear, or just general mischief.

    I do appreciate our conversations.

    I can’t document that EVERY time Republicans have won a midterm election, it was because of racism, hatred, fear, or general mischief – but at least in the most recent election IT WAS for the reasons that I listed based on exit polling data.

    It IS also true that Republicans starting with Nixon DID adopt a deliberate strategy to appeal to the racial fears of southern whites. From a political perspective this made sense because LBJ had passed Civil Rights legislation. The results of that strategy are reflected in the rapid transition from the Democratic to the Republican Party that occurred in the 70’s. Lee Atwater who was the architect of that strategy has documented that this was intentional and effective. That strategy has continued uninterrupted since then. Happy to post data to support that claim if you would like.

    Nixon also started the whole concept of “dirty tricks” which has also continued in every Republican presidential election since. Obviously Nixon left office as a result of one of the biggest scandals in our history. So that would certainly qualify as “mischief”.

    Reagan made “liberal” a dirty word. He came into office based on an illegal pre-election deal with Iran to release the hostages and left office with a long history of scandals including banking and Iran Contra. Bush I won using Willie Horton to terrify while voters. He pardoned most of the Iran Contra bunch after he lost to Clinton. Bush II beat McCain by claiming in the SC primary that McCain had fathered a black child (he adopted an SE Asian child). Bush II made “liberal” an unpatriotic word, he ignored warnings about terrorists attack plans, he tortured prisoners, he spied on US citizens, he invaded Iraq on false pretense, he lied about Enron, he failed to respond to Katrina, and his administration ignored all the warning signs that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I guess that would all fall under “mischief”. And yet many people look with nostalgia at Bush II in comparison to Trump.

    As far as hatred, fear, and general mischief – that pretty much describes the Trump campaign. If you have any dispute, I’m happy to post data to support this claim too.

    You might take a closer look at what I tried to say above. Ted said that involved in the NYT and The Post front page reporting is creeping things like analysis and opinion. This shouldnt be. You’ve done exactly as the second article I posted and chosen to only look at the factual part of the comments Ted pointed out and said, so facts should be reported?” Yes fact should be reported and I have no problem with reporting on the comments Trump made about McCain by the way. However the point was the bias analysis and opinion that goes along with it on the front page news reporting is what’s changed. And that it’s liberal. Follow? That belongs as you have pointed out many many times in the opinion or editorial page.

    I know this is what you think, but this is NOT was Koppel said. His claim was that quoting the video clip verbatim on the front page was evidence of bias. He did not say that the subsequent article which simply documented what was said and the reactions of those who saw the tape (both pro and con) was biased.

    Some could say that since this happened before Trump was a candidate, posting “old news” was an effort by the liberal media to undermine the candidacy of a person they didn’t like. If that were the only instance of Trump being a misogynist, then you could have a point. But it was Trump who CREATED the question of his attitude toward women in the way that he treated Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly, Rosie O’Donnell, among others. As a result, by the time that the Hollywood Access tapes were released this had become a valid campaign issue.

    The title of the above is “Healing thoughts.” Boy sure didn’t see or hear that on TV last night. Seems the dems, without reading or hearing from Mr Muller, aren’t in the mood to heal. Of course they never are. Trump wins, they rally and resisted. Trump was accused before the election of not being willing to live with the result. Muller report? Watch!!!! Again I’ve always said let’s see what he finds…. hopefully. The gal loses the governship in GA and she still is yelling foul. I could continue….. But I digress.

    Dems aren’t in a mood to heal?

    Are you suggesting that the Democrats are somehow unique in their reaction to President that they don’t like?

    If not, then please change your remark to something a little less partisan like “Every President has to deal with hostility from the other party”.

    Until you clarify, it really isn’t worth responding to this part of your post.

    If Muller found nothing are you going to move on? Retract?

    You’ll have to define nothing.

    I’ve asked you several times to identify when you were willing to reassess your support of Trump. The last one was your suggestion that Trump declaring a National Emergency would be that point. He did and you like most Republicans were silent.

    Trump has lived up to many of his promises. If he only lived up to one, appointment of conservative judges, I would be happy. He’s done far more.

    Now you have narrowed the criteria of your support to the single fact that he has successfully nominated conservative judges. Is that it? Can he really do anything else that he wants as long as he continues to nominate conservative judges? This single statement is the basic problem with democracy today.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The inverted yield curve recession signal spooked the stock market enough that it lost almost 2%.

    The fed has already signaled that they think the economy is too weak for them to continue to raise interest rates at least until the end of the year.

    In the meantime, the Trump administration, who previously said that reckless tax cut would generate 4%+ growth for as far as the eye could see (any you believed them) are now saying that they are going to need another tax cut, and an infrastructure bill, and more deregulation, and for good measure kicking some more people off Medicaid just to sustain 3% growth.

    To achieve about 3 percent growth for the next decade, Trump would need a big infrastructure bill, more tax cuts, additional deregulation, and policies that transition more people off government aid and into full-time jobs, according to the 2019 Economic Report of the President, released Tuesday by Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers.

    Even if he got all of these things and the predicted growth and the draconian cuts in domestic spending, his budget STILL projects $1T deficits for at least the next three years.

    Even with the cuts in Trump’s budget, the spending plan predicts annual deficits to top $1 trillion from 2019 through 2022, a threshold that has caused consternation within GOP ranks for weeks and only came into sharp focus on Monday.

    If Trump manages to stay in office through 2024, his BEST CASE estimate is that he will add over $9T to the national debt which is the same amount of money that Obama added to the national debt.

    Just to put the current losses in perspective, the monthly deficit in February was $234B. That set a record for a one month deficit. The last record was in February, 2012. The 2012 deficit was because of high spending to combat the recession. This deficit is the result of a steep decline in corporate taxes, significant refunds going out to corporations, and a 9% increase in government spending.

    Five months in to the current government fiscal year, the deficit is already at $544B.

    The difference, of course, is that Obama began his term dealing with meltdown of the global financial system. He ended his term paying down the debt as a percentage of GDP. Trump started his term with a growing economy and historically low unemployment.

    The likelihood that this economy is going to go another 5 years without a recession is as low as the projection that the debt being generated from the current tax cuts somehow be less than what is currently forecast. What is more likely is that there will be a recession. Tax receipts will go down. The debt will go up even faster and Trump will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history.

    Still think a handful of conservative judges was worth the cost of potentially bankrupting the country?

  9. Keith says:

    No collision

    Not evidence to prosecute obstruction

    How many will be held accountable for their reckless comments over the last two and one half years? Will we revisit who started all this? Will we just heal and go forward? Will you.

    I’ll get to your economic comments above.

  10. Keith says:

    It took all of 45 mins. Barr is Trumps lackey. He is not to be trusted.

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    No collision

    Not evidence to prosecute obstruction

    How many will be held accountable for their reckless comments over the last two and one half years? Will we revisit who started all this? Will we just heal and go forward? Will you.

    I think the accurate description was that AG William Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstien concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense. From what I’ve read Mueller said that there was evidence, but the decision to indict was up to the AG. If there were no evidence, Trump would have been cleared on the obstruction of justice claim in the same way that he was cleared on the collusion claim.

    So let’s see the rest of the report before deciding what that means.

    As far a holding people accountable for reckless comments, what specifically are you suggesting?

    Clearly one reckless comment was that this was a complete and total witch hunt. If that were true, there would have been a recommendation for an indictment on both counts.

    If anyone deserves an apology, it is Mueller and the apology should come from Trump. But I’m not going to hold me breath.

    As far as revisiting who started this, it was Trump firing Comey and then suggesting that it was because Comey wouldn’t back off on the Flynn investigation. AG Sessions had recused himself, so Deputy AG Rosenstien appointed a special prosecutor to figure out what happened. The special prosecutor found that there was sufficient evidence to indict 27 people. As far as I can recall, all who have had trials so far have been found guilty. The results of those who were indicted indicate that there WAS substance to the claims of misconduct by those associated with the Trump campaign. Mueller just didn’t find enough evidence to connect any of the crimes those people committed to Trump.

    The go forward at this point is going to be in the hands of Congress and the various states where there are ongoing investigations and court cases that are progressing. The Mueller report will likely provide Congress a roadmap to investigate further if they determine that it is justified. Clearly the Cohen testimony revealed numerous avenues of investigation including claims of bank and insurance fraud in addition to the original claims of election fraud. I suspect that process will continue to turn up more questions than answers for a while. The Mueller report will likely have little impact on the other investigations or court cases that are already in motion.

    In other words, this is just the end of the first act, it is not the end of the play.

    Heck, we just learned that Jared and Ivanka have been using private email and private encrypted message applications to conduct government business. The Republicans are still claiming that the FBI shouldn’t have given Clinton a pass on her private email use. She stepped down as secretary of state six years ago. How do you think Congress SHOULD deal with claims that Jared and Ivanka did the same thing?

    I also find it interesting that you are calling for healing now, but you were unwilling to accept the FBI’s finding that Clinton was innocent. Please tell me how you manage to square that circle.

    IMHO, healing will occur when all of the potential areas of misconduct by this President are investigated. BTW, if you are inclined to suggest that ongoing investigations of misconduct are motivated solely by politics, I point you back to the 27 indictments and numerous guilty pleas as evidence that there HAS been misconduct by people associated with Trump. This is not just smoke. It IS fire, just not enough fire to implicate Trump. But certainly enough fire to support additional investigations into questions that Mueller didn’t answer.

    Since he has left such a broad trail of “mischief”, this is likely going to continue right up until the 2020 election. If Trump wins the nomination again, then voters will have an opportunity to vote on whether he has earned another four years. They will also have an opportunity to vote on whether or not the Democrats have used their majority wisely.

    The outcome of that election will likely be when the healing might start. We’ll see.

    From a political perspective, this is probably better for the Democrats. There aren’t sufficient votes in the Senate at this point to impeach Trump. There likely is sufficient evidence in the Mueller report to support additional investigations at least in the House. We are already seeing the White House stonewalling on requests for information. The courts will get involved and determine if there is sufficient cause to compel the White House to comply. Some of that will end up in the Supreme Court which will create it’s own drama.

    As long as the House can continue to pass legislation that a majority of the Americans support, if the White House and Republicans prevent passage AND appear to be obstructing reasonable investigations – then voters will have a chance to decide if they want another 4 years of this or not.

    And then there is the real possibility that we’ll see a recession starting next winter.

    Should be interesting.

  12. Keith says:

    Senator Coons I just heard him on CNN say he will not say there was no collusion. If anything that should be off the table. Can’t wait to hear from Adam “substantial evidence” Schiff.

    Sorry but firing Commey isn’t where this started. This started in 2016.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Senator Coons I just heard him on CNN say he will not say there was no collusion. If anything that should be off the table. Can’t wait to hear from Adam “substantial evidence” Schiff.

    Let’s all read the report first.

    BTW, Trump supporters including elected representatives are still chanting “lock her up”. You’d think they had lost the 2016 election. So please don’t suggest that obsessive behavior is just a Democratic thing.

    Sorry but firing Commey isn’t where this started. This started in 2016.

    Oh yeah. I forgot. This was all some big deep state conspiracy. PLEEEEZE.

    Sessions had to recuse himself because he LIED to the Senate about contacts with Russians during the Trump campaign. If Trump didn’t fire Comey, there would have been no Mueller. In fact, if Trump had just kept his mouth shut and not bragged to the Russians that things were going to be OK now that Comey is gone, there likely would have been no Mueller investigation. The reason there WAS a Mueller investigation is because of MAJORITY of Republicans in the Senate were sufficiently scared about how the public was reacting to Comey’s firing that they agreed to support a special investigation.

    That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  14. Keith says:

    Sessions lies about Russian contacts. Maybe a review of those contacts is in order for you. Lord, or so brief it didn’t matter or remember. See Jeff every Russian became a “Russian contact.” Everyone has them!!!! I have them!!!

  15. Keith says:

    “Given mr Barr’s public record of bias against the special prosecutor….. “

    They you have it. The first of the lefts talking point. I’ve now heard it several times.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Sessions lies about Russian contacts. Maybe a review of those contacts is in order for you. Lord, or so brief it didn’t matter or remember. See Jeff every Russian became a “Russian contact.” Everyone has them!!!! I have them!!!

    Nope that’s not how it was.

    Sessions did not get in trouble because he had Russian friends. He got in trouble because he lied about meeting with those Russian friends during the Trump campaign.

    If I asked you if you met with any of your Russian friends in the past year, you probably could answer honestly. Or you could at least say something along the lines that you met one of them at a party, but you’d have to check your calendar to determine the exact date.

    Instead when asked by Al Franken if he had any meetings with any Russian officials during the Trump campaign, Sessions said no. In fact Sessions had met twice with the Russian Ambassador to the United States.

    We may never know whether or not he was told to lie. But he admitted that he should have told the truth and took responsibility for the consequences.

    Here’s a link to the NYT story.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    “Given mr Barr’s public record of bias against the special prosecutor….. “

    They you have it. The first of the lefts talking point. I’ve now heard it several times.

    Not sure why this is so bothersome for you. If this is a news story from the NYT or the Wash Post, then please post a link. If it is something you heard some talking head suggest, then I’m not interested. As I’ve said, broadcast news is corrupt.

    This characterization of “left” or “right” talking points is not productive. Everyone has talking points. They don’t convince anyone. They are only intended to encourage people to keep watching whatever channel they are watching by stoking the outrage machine. I’m really not interested.

    If Barr starts acting is ways that suggest partisanship, then perhaps we may have something to talk about. As long as he delivers the Mueller report to Congress we’ll be fine.

  18. Keith says:

    The Barr line is from elected officials, talking heads and former government officials. Whig is that important. I just heard a line that 42% of Americans believe trump colluded with the Russians to get elected. I hooked that number and I can’t find it exactly. I found links to where it’s even higher. One thing we know from all this today is Muller said no collusion. So if that’s true where did the influence come from that nearly half of us believe he did? Answer the media. Period end of story.

  19. Keith says:

    If there is no underlining crime, how can there be obstruction? Shouldn’t that be it? Geez you weren’t curious about Bill Clinton getting on Miss Lynch’s airplane for 45 mins to talk about their grandchildren. You weren’t digging for the truth there. Sorry had to throw that in there. 😂

  20. Keith says:

    No evidence of collusion. So go back to the beginning and let’s understand just what evidence the Obama, should I bring up his name?, FBI and DOJ had to start this?

    The dossier charged trump of collusion with the Russians to throw the election? The FISA were issued based on what evidence? Muller found NONE. So who had what evidence? Mr Schiff you’re up…

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    If there is no underlining crime, how can there be obstruction? Shouldn’t that be it? Geez you weren’t curious about Bill Clinton getting on Miss Lynch’s airplane for 45 mins to talk about their grandchildren. You weren’t digging for the truth there. Sorry had to throw that in there. 😂

    Several problems with this statement.

    “there is no underlying crime” isn’t accurate. There were crimes committed. That’s why people either pleaded guilty or are heading to trials. Mueller concluded that he couldn’t find evidence that Trump or any of his aides purposefully colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 campaign. Indictments indicate that Russia DID attempt to influence the 2016 campaign for the benefit of Trump. Wikileaks, Roger Stone, and Jerome Coursi, among others were involved.

    Obstructing justice is attempting to interfere with an ongoing investigation regardless of whether that investigation results in findings to support an indictment or the investigation exonerates those being investigated.

    Bill Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair with an intern. He was impeached because he lied to grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky (perjury) AND he advised Monica Lewinsky to lie in her testimony to the grand jury (obstruction of justice).

    As far as Clinton and Lynch, that is a good example of the difference between a crime and an indictment. It is certainly possible that Lynch and Bill Clinton may have had a conversation about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t investigated because, other than your distrust of both parties, there was no proof that it was anything more than the conversation that both Lynch and Clinton claimed it was. No one has come forward to suggest that anything else was going on. Neither party took additional actions which would suggest that there was some sort of deal that was cut.

    Now contrast this to the evidence that got Roger Stone indicted, the timing of the releases from Wikileaks, the proof that these hacks were performed by the Russian government, the Trump tower meeting with Russian agents, Trump’s verbal support during the campaign for Russia, and his call TO THE RUSSIANS to find and release Clinton emails – and hopefully you can appreciate that this is cause for some concern and should have been investigated.

    BTW, there were consequences to the Lynch Clinton meeting. Because there WAS the appearance of potential impropriety, Lynch recused herself from any involvement in the FBI investigation. It’s that same appearance of impropriety that forced Sessions to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

    We’ll have to wait for the details in the report to learn more about what Mueller looked for and what he did or didn’t find. My guess on the collusion claim is that, just as with Clinton and Lynch, Mueller was unable to find an eye witness willing to testify that something more went on than has already been reported. Even if it turns out that Trump knew about the meeting ahead of time, as Cohen claimed, unless you can prove that there was some agreement to coordinate activities with the Russians at that meeting, that’s probably not enough to indict anyone.

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The Barr line is from elected officials, talking heads and former government officials. Whig is that important. I just heard a line that 42% of Americans believe trump colluded with the Russians to get elected. I hooked that number and I can’t find it exactly. I found links to where it’s even higher. One thing we know from all this today is Muller said no collusion. So if that’s true where did the influence come from that nearly half of us believe he did? Answer the media. Period end of story.

    I’d have to see what the survey asked. Clearly the Russians were involved in helping get Trump elected. What Mueller found is that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to accomplish that.

    As far as putting this at the feet of the media, what is your explanation for all the Rasmussen polls regarding the Clinton FBI investigation? As you recall, she was also exonerated. That was a conclusion that you disagreed with because of your political bias.

    A Rasmussen Reports poll published on Tuesday finds that 64 percent of likely U.S. voters say Clinton likely broke the law when she sent and received classified emails through her personal server while serving as secretary of State.

    Who are you going to blame for that?

    Or the Rasmuesson polls regarding the Deep State?

    Most voters say top Justice Department and FBI officials are likely to have acted criminally when they secretly discussed removing President Trump from office and think a special prosecutor is needed to investigate.

    Whose fault is that one?

    Common. We are in a partisan environment where most of the outlets that many voters use for information are corrupt.

    If you are willing to admit that Fox is a big part of the problem, then we can have a discussion. But if this is just the same old complaint about the NYT, Wash Post, etc., then please post a news article from any of them that you feel is biased and we can discuss it.

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    No evidence of collusion. So go back to the beginning and let’s understand just what evidence the Obama, should I bring up his name?, FBI and DOJ had to start this?

    The dossier charged trump of collusion with the Russians to throw the election? The FISA were issued based on what evidence? Muller found NONE. So who had what evidence? Mr Schiff you’re up…

    Please try to be a little more precise. There WAS Russian interference and there were US citizens loosely associated with the Trump campaign who have been indicted, received immunity, or plead guilty for their involvement with Russia. Mueller couldn’t prove that Trump or his direct reports were involved. We won’t know the details until we see the report.

    As far as the Deep State conspiracy theory, those are two different discussions.

    There has already been a lot of testimony from the FBI on the basis for the FISA request. The bottom line is that the FISA court approved whatever actions the FBI was requesting. Their request did not include the Steele dossier. Whatever the FBI came up with, Mueller had access to.

    If this was all as corrupt as you suggest, how to explain the results that Mueller delivered?

    Clearly members of Congress (at least John McCain) were familiar with the Steele dossier.

    And it is also possible that knowledge of the FISA investigation and the Steele dossier made it easier for Republicans to support the appointment of a special prosecutor.

    BUT

    All of this was known PRIOR to Trump’s election. Among other things, that’s why Senator Franken asked Sessions the questions that he did regarding ANY interaction with Russian officials during Sessions time as an adviser to the Trump campaign.

    There were calls for a special investigator prior to the revelation that Sessions had lied. These calls were related to information that was coming out about Flynn regarding his relationship with Russians. Here’s a timeline from the Wash Post to refresh your memory.

    But here’s the basic timeline.

    FBI opens an investigation into Carter Page’s activities and gets FISA court approval in October, 2106.

    Flynn resigned/fired in February after admitting that he had lied to the FBI about his involvement with Russians during the campaign.

    Sessions recused himself in March after it became known that he lied about meeting the Russian ambassador during his nomination hearings.

    Comey was fired May 9th which clearly put the investigation that the FBI was conducting into question.

    May 17th Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI investigation into whether or not members of the Trump campaign were involved with Russian attempts to influence the outcome of that election.

    NPR has a good timeline on this. It includes a good summary of the role the dossier played in the investigation.

    Hanging above it all were questions about the now-infamous, unverified Russia dossier that played a role in at least one warrant obtained by FBI investigators to collect the communications of Carter Page, a 2016 Trump campaign foreign policy adviser.

    The FBI and the Justice Department treated the material in the dossier as trustworthy enough to pursue their own inquiries about it behind the scenes, but it became internationally notorious after an unredacted copy was published in early 2017.

    NPR has not detailed the contents of the dossier because it was and remains unverified, but the document became the centerpiece of a political war because of the explosive allegations it makes about Trump and his 2016 campaign.

    Members of Congress attacked it and defended it, but only a few points about it have been established for certain. One is that investigators have verified only portions of what it says — although precisely which portions remains classified.

    Another is that the dossier wasn’t the origin of the Russia investigation. By the time it came along, the FBI already had begun looking into reports from an Australian diplomat in London who said an American on Trump’s campaign had told him the Russians had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    That led to the guilty plea by George Papadopoulos, a junior Trump campaign foreign policy aide, and inquiries into other members of the Trump camp, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort, national security adviser Michael Flynn and another junior foreign policy adviser, Carter Page.

    Papadopoulos, Manafort and Flynn all were convicted or have pleaded guilty in the course of the Russia investigation; Page so far has not faced any charge.

    You may find this accurate review of history unsatisfying since it rebuts your conspiracy theory regarding the dossier.

    But the facts remain that FBI based it’s FISA claim on a conversation that George Papadopoulos had at a London bar.

    Flynn lied to the FBI.

    Sessions recused himself because he lied.

    Trump fired Comey.

    Deputy AG with the support of Republicans and Democrats, appointed Mueller to take over the FBI investigation that had been going on for seven months or so.

    22 months later Mueller found that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump or his direct reports with collusion. He did find that there was evidence of obstruction of justice, but deferred to the AG to determine if that evidence was sufficient to prosecute.

    This is no different than when the FBI determined that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to indict Clinton for her use of a private email server. The FBI could not find sufficient evidence that Clinton used her personal email server with intent to commit a crime. Collusion requires some proof of explicit intent. Mueller could find that.

    If you feel that the Mueller recommendation on collusion is appropriate, then you also have to accept that Comey’s recommendation for Clinton was appropriate too.

  24. Keith says:

    Read your responses as I ate. No time to responded to these. However make sure in the future to stop saying Russia help Trump win. No one has ever said any evidence exists to support the claim that any votes were changed.

    Also I wasn’t looking for an explanation regarding bill and lynch. I was merely pointing out you had zero curiosity regarding their accidental meeting.

    Yes Fox is a part of the media “homering.” Just as NYT, Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Now, which has the bigger influence?

    Thanks for the conversation. Again I learn from it and enjoy it.

  25. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Read your responses as I ate. No time to responded to these. However make sure in the future to stop saying Russia help Trump win. No one has ever said any evidence exists to support the claim that any votes were changed.

    I’ll try to be more accurate going forward. How’s this? The Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to help get Trump elected.

    Also I wasn’t looking for an explanation regarding bill and lynch. I was merely pointing out you had zero curiosity regarding their accidental meeting.

    Not sure that was accurate. I didn’t have zero curiosity. Just recognized that, in the absence of any other witnesses, this was a private conversation. When both participants in the conversation say that it was about the same thing, it is going to be difficult to prove anything else. AND Lynch did recuse herself in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Compare that conversation to Comey’s dinner meeting with Trump before he was fired. They both give very different versions of that conversation. Comey did take actions after that conversation that support his version of it. Trump also took actions after that conversation (firing Comey) that also support Comey’s version of it. But in a court of law, that is all just circumstantial evidence. Even Trump’s statement saying that the firing was because of that “Russian thing” may not be enough proof if Trump simply said that he misspoke. There would need to be other people who were willing to testify that Trump told them that he was firing Comey because Comey was unwilling to “give Flynn a break”. We’ll see what evidence exists in the Mueller report.

    Yes Fox is a part of the media “homering.” Just as NYT, Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Now, which has the bigger influence?

    Here’s what a Wash Post Poll said regarding Fox News.

    Partisans split in trust for Fox News and CNN, with Fox volunteered as the most trusted by 22 percent of Republicans but just 1 percent of Democrats, while CNN is most trusted by 19 percent of Democrats but only 3 percent of Republicans. MSNBC is mentioned by 3 percent of Democrats as most trustworthy, while no Republican respondents mention the network.

    The Post Fact Checker poll makes it clear that no news organization has a monopoly on trust in political news, with fewer than 1 in 8 trusting any one individual source and nearly 8 in 10 picking a source other than cable news. Among the other most trusted sources, the Post Fact Checker poll finds 6 percent of Americans overall mentioning NPR, within the survey’s 4.5-point error margin as most-trusted, along with Fox News. A similar 7 percent mention newspapers, including 4 percent mentioning the New York Times specifically. Just 2 percent say they most trust local TV.

    If these polls are to be believed, Fox has the biggest influence on Republicans. CNN has the biggest influence on Democrats. As a second source, NPR and Fox tied at 6%. The NYT was the most trusted newspaper with 4%.

    Overall, clearly, Fox has the biggest influence of all sources of information. This is consistent with Fox having the highest rating. Fox also appears to be the most corrupt, if you believe the expose in the NY Magazine.

    Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the author of “Messengers of the Right,” a history of the conservative media’s impact on American politics, says of Fox, “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”

    Hemmer argues that Fox—which, as the most watched cable news network, generates about $2.7 billion a year for its parent company, 21st Century Fox—acts as a force multiplier for Trump, solidifying his hold over the Republican Party and intensifying his support. “Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature,” she says. “It’s a radicalization model.” For both Trump and Fox, “fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.” As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead. All day long, Trump retweets claims made on the network; his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has largely stopped holding press conferences, but she has made some thirty appearances on such shows as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” Trump, Hemmer says, has “almost become a programmer.”

  26. Keith says:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

    See #5 about sessions. I’ve always been uncotwith how freely you throw around the word liar.

    The influence of Fox on politics statements above are interesting and certainly interesting in her analysis/conclusions. The writers bias is coming through loud and clear.

    As predicted Sunday afternoon, Barr is now the enemy.

  27. Keith says:

    In other news.

    https://apple.news/AVaLxPnwYQ7i2sLsi4djrKg

    “Unfair, they are asking us to vote on my bill which will save the planet.” Lol

    As I told you before I am fascinated by AOC, agree with nothing she says but I am fascinated by her.

  28. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

    Not interested in anything that the Daily Caller has to say, particularly when they create a list of the failings of other outlets while remaining mum on their numerous offenses.

    See #5 about sessions. I’ve always been uncotwith how freely you throw around the word liar.

    Here’s what Politifact had to say about it.

    At the Jan. 10 hearing, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., asked Sessions about allegations that associates of the Trump campaign corresponded with Russian government intermediaries. In his response, Sessions said he didn’t communicate with any Russians.

    Sessions spokesperson said that Sessions understood Franken to be asking about Russian contacts while he was acting in his role as an adviser to Trump rather than in his role as a senator.

    Senator Leahy asked the following question in a written interview.

    “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

    Sessions answered no.

    Months later he said that the FBI had advised him when he was filling out the questionnaire that he didn’t have to list meetings that would have occurred in his role as senator.

    A truthful answer to both questions would have been, as a Senator, I had several meetings with Russians. As an adviser to the Trump campaign I have had none. The answer he gave was deliberately untruthful. Politifact said less than totally candid. How would you describe his response?

  29. Jeff Beamsley says:

    In other news.

    https://apple.news/AVaLxPnwYQ7i2sLsi4djrKg

    “Unfair, they are asking us to vote on my bill which will save the planet.” Lol

    As I told you before I am fascinated by AOC, agree with nothing she says but I am fascinated by her.

    Here’s the original VOX article that Fox quoted.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/3/26/18281323/green-new-deal-democrats-vote

    You can see that tone of that article was very different than the Vox article.

    Fox also deleted a sentence from their quote which puts the rest of the quote in context.

    What AOC was complaining about is that McConnell didn’t schedule any committee hearings on the measure. He wasn’t scheduling any committee hearings because all he is interested in is forcing Democrats to cast a vote that Republicans might be able to use against them in 2020 rather than working out a compromise bill that might have a chance to get some Republican votes. As the Vox article states, most democrats plan to vote “present” on the bill which will deprive Republican of some of the ammunition they had hoped to obtain.

    As I have said before AOC is a smart politician.

    Millennials are going to be looking for leader to emerge from their ranks. AOC could very well be the Kennedy of our children’s generation.

  30. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, David Brooks probably wrote the column that answers your questions regarding apologies.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-collusion.html

    Here are a couple a salient passages.

    Democrats might approach this moment with an attitude of humility and honest self-examination. It’s clear that many Democrats made grievous accusations against the president that are not supported by the evidence. It’s clear that people like Beto O’Rourke and John Brennan owe Donald Trump a public apology. If you call someone a traitor and it turns out you lacked the evidence for that charge, then the only decent thing to do is apologize.

    Republicans and the Sean Hannity-style Trumpians might also approach this moment with an attitude of humility and honest self-examination. For two years they’ve been calling the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. For two years they’ve been spreading the libel that there are no honest brokers in Washington. It’s all a deep-state conspiracy, a swamp. They should apologize for peddling the sort of deep cynicism that undermines our country’s institutions.

    And what about the rest of us? What about all the hours we spent speculating about the Mueller report, fantasizing about the Trump ruin or watching and reading speculation about these things? What about the superstructure of scandal politics we have built and live in today?

    and

    The nation’s underlying divides are still ideological, but we rarely fight them honestly as philosophical differences. We just accuse the other side of corruption. Politics is no longer a debate; it’s an attempt to destroy lives through accusation.

    IMHO, he’s right. We are all guilty.

  31. Jeff Beamsley says:

    btw

    Here’s a like to a factcheck.org article that holds Democratic Rep Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Committee Chairman) accountable for mistatements regarding Trump and the Russian investigation.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/nadler-gets-the-facts-wrong-on-russia-probe/

    This is to disprove your claim that the fact checkers only fact check Republicans.

  32. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW BTW, here’s a Wash Post article detailing the claims that some Democrats made regarding the outcome of the Mueller report that were proved untrue. Just another example of what ethical sources of news do. If Fox News was an ethical news source, they would be posting a similar piece detailing the number of times the Mueller investigation was criticized as being biased in news reports that they broadcast. Let me know if you can find one of those on the Fox site.

    The last two paragraphs were particularly interesting.

    While some news reports about the Russia investigation were wrong, the total coverage was overwhelmingly accurate, which meant that much of what Barr wrote in his summary of Mueller’s report on Sunday was not new information.

    But even if it did contain new information — aside from the conclusions on the issues of conspiracy and obstruction — it is unlikely that it would have changed voters’ minds: 41 percent of registered voters told Fox News this month that nothing in Mueller’s report would change their minds about Trump.

    Looking at the poll on the Fox News site, here’s how that 41% breaks out between Democrats and Republicans.

    More Democrats (47 percent) than Republicans (39 percent) say there is no chance they will change their view of Trump.

    In other words, almost half of Democrats have already decided that Trump is corrupt even if this report doesn’t find sufficient evidence to indict. On the other hand 60% of Republicans were willing to consider changing their views about Trump if the report revealed damaging information.

    IMHO this reveals that Trump is still in a very vulnerable position regarding 2020 if any more bad news comes to light regarding his behavior or the results of his policies. Unlike you, 60% of Republicans are not satisfied with what he has accomplished so far. Other polls have shown that Trump’s overall approval rating among Democrats is about 4%, so there aren’t a lot of votes for him there. His political future is going to depend on two things. First, his ability to improve his standing among Republicans who are not necessarily his base, and his ability to suppress the votes of everyone else who want to vote him out of office.

  33. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW BTW BTW, here’s a great article on why AOC is the real deal. Her response to the Green New Deal being called elitist is classic. I think people like the fact that she has passion and she doesn’t come from money or have much money herself.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal/index.html

    BTW, in response to the criticisms that she has received regarding her clothes; she shared that some designers will lend her clothes to wear because they know that photographs of her are widely distributed. She does not get to keep those clothes. Once the pictures have been taken, the designers get the clothes back.

    Her sharp response on twitter was:

    “The actual fear driving the attacks on my clothes, my checking account, my rent, isn’t that these folks are scared that I should represent people in Congress,” she tweeted. “It’s fear that they’ve allowed their riches, their privileges, + their bias to put them at a point where they can’t.”

  34. Keith says:

    Sessions answer? He answered in context of the “Trump team” and in involvemen with the election. Incidental regular contact wasn’t on his mind.
    I Believed it at the time also. I also don’t know that as no one but Jeff Sessions knows what context he was answering.

    I am very careful about calling someone a liar.

  35. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Sessions answer? He answered in context of the “Trump team” and in involvemen with the election. Incidental regular contact wasn’t on his mind.

    Then why didn’t he say that? He had two chances. Once in person and once in a written response.

    I Believed it at the time also. I also don’t know that as no one but Jeff Sessions knows what context he was answering.

    Not surprised that you believed him, but I doubt that you knew when he answered no, that he was only referencing his role as a representative of the Trump campaign. Bottom line is that he recused himself BECAUSE he had not answered honestly. As a result, he could not be trusted to oversee the FBI investigation into the Trump administration.

    I am very careful about calling someone a liar.

    Sorry but your comment history does support this claim. You are ONLY careful when the person who has been lying is a Republican. You have no problem calling Democrats liars.

    I’d be curious to know when Hillary asked for forgiveness. She has said she made mistakes but I don’t recall her asking for forgiveness. Example – she said using her email was a mistake. However, she purposely lied about it and continues to until this day.

    Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

    After the Fox interview and her press conference the other day it should
    be front page above the fold news. She lied, told untruths. was reckless,
    and continues to lie about it….

    What I find different is she lies at US!!!! I will wait until Trump is president and lies to us, under oath, to classify him as I do Hillary. From the moment she was asked at the United Nations about her emails she lied, publicly, and she hasn’t stopped. Period. I have no such experience with Trump. He very well may. I KNOW SHE WILL!!!

    Obama didn’t write the ACA, it wasn’t his. He was the person that ran on it, got elected on it and got it passed. He didn’t write the bill. That’s what a leader does. He wanted healthcare reform. He got it. It’s also NOT what they wanted but what they could get. They lied to get it. But none the less they got it. This is LEADERSHIP!!!! What they want, and will get, is universal healthcare.

    Comey confirmed she lied about several things. Stop changing the subject. I posted the exact details of that exchange with Gowdy asking specific questions about specific answers Hillary gave to questions she was asked. (Mind you, she also did this consistently over the last year and a half.) She lied. Knowingly. If you think she is extremely stupid, ignorant, and unprepared, I will give you that she believed she was being truthful. However, I don’t believe she is extremely stupid, ignorant or unprepared.

    I found this cometary interesting. Would anyone else survive this? Would you? Would I? We know for a fact a few things Jeff, she didn’t turn over all emails. She destroyed emails. She lied about what she had or hadn’t done. This amount other things. Keep those few things in mind as you read.

    Hillary only merely lied about her email. Laughable again. National security. Why?

    Hillary has clearly broke the rules. She signed on to how her emails should be handled. Then she withheld them. She also lied about that and continues to do so. Those are facts. Jeff if our leaders don’t have to be held to the rules, then why should anyone else. If President Obama can pick and choose which laws to enforce then why can’t I also.

    I didn’t defend Chaney. You said he lied when he said we’d be greeted as libaraters. I merely said he didn’t lie as he was predicting what would happen. He was wrong that’s different then a lie.

    Also to the ACA I will stand by these facts. He lied about it not being a tax. If words mean things then Judge Roberts should not have said its a tax Sonora ok. Also of words mean things he wouldn’t have decided the way he did a couple of weeks ago. Prior to the act passing of the sleep walking American public would have been informed that THEIR insurence was going to be effected, then they would have thought differently. But since no one read it, Nancy famous line, there was no one to tell them. Cant change those facts my good friend but thankfully you have me to point out facts to you.

    Her records, which include emails, were subpeanaed by the house as far back as 2012 ..It’s appears she “cleaned” her server after her records were subpoenaed. If that is the case this is illegal…. Different case then just what happened when she left office as Sec of State. This isn’t about Hillary hate… She is required to turn over EVERYTHING when subpeanaed. It is not up to her to choose. She is clearly in the wrong, has at best lied, she used multiple pieces of technology. (at worst, was running a parallel govt while acting as sec state, how’s that for nut job theory?) And just kidding. What they were doing is taking money from all over the world.

    Not sure I do. Obama may not have been re-elected. The ACA would may be gone by now. Romney was just wrong, Obama willfully and knowingly lied. And lied about 18% or whatever of the economy.

    MR) The ïf you like your insurance you can keep it, isn´t going away, sorry. dems can´t even explain it… He lied given your correct comments above. They knew this.

    Are you SURE, this will have no effect in ´14 especially since they now admit they lied about being able to keep your coverage?

    What we´ll have to see is how does this play out over the next year. Do people get feed up with paying more. Do they feel lied and cheated?

  36. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    Go back and read my comments over time. It is not often I call someone a liar. I hardly ever try and call anyone anything. I have mentioned this in the past. Mostly my comments are to counter yours. Trying to get you to see the other side. I have expressed my distaste for Republicans many many times.

    Back to Jeff Sessions. I heard the comments on the same night he made them. The whole matter was about the Trump team and the Russians and NOT about Jeff Sessions. I heard him and that is exactly I interpreted it as then. That isn’t splitting hairs.

    Context context context!!!!

    Obama said “you didn’t build that.” The Republicans ran with that statement. In context of what he said I agree with him!!! Same with Turmp asking the Russians to find Hillary’s emails. I heard that live. Listen to the whole thing in context and he was mocking the media, and more then likely the govt. it was absolutely funny!!!!

    Also, don’t have time for much comment but you generalize way to much what you think I believe and am for. I will be clear. I am not FOR Trump. I will support what he does that I agree with, which is a lot. I was not am not for the progressive left. I will vote against them every time. There are thousands
    Of others I would rather see as president then him. Please remover that when you refer to me as a trump supporter. I prefer issues to candidates. I think most do.

  37. Keith says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/30/migrants-overflow-border-federal-facilities-local-strain-wall-trump/3309462002/

    I’m not beginning to claim to be knowledgeable are with complete understanding of everything that’s happening or all the laws involved.

    In my professional life ive sometimes inherited very messy situations with multimillion dollar a year losses. Probably 5-10 tons. After my first experience I learned that I wasn’t really interested any longer about spend much time talking about why or how or who’s responsible, once I’ve understood the matter. All I choose to exert time on his going forward. Reading this article I, the one comment in particular, “a complete collapse” is alarming. “Over run” doesn’t help either. This article is only about those seeking asylum and nothing of the more then a million illegals? In my professional life I’d say what ever we’re doing isn’t working.

    Is this a crisis, a nation emergency?

  38. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Go back and read my comments over time. It is not often I call someone a liar. I hardly ever try and call anyone anything. I have mentioned this in the past. Mostly my comments are to counter yours. Trying to get you to see the other side. I have expressed my distaste for Republicans many many times.

    You may think that, but your comments don’t reflect that. You seem to have no problem calling Hillary Clinton a liar.

    she purposely lied about it and continues to until this day.

    You were willing to give Cheney the benefit of the doubt regarding Iraq (of all things) because his statement regarding being treated as liberators in your estimation was aspirational. It just didn’t work out that way.

    You said he lied when he said we’d be greeted as libaraters. I merely said he didn’t lie as he was predicting what would happen.

    But you were unwilling to extend that same benefit of the doubt to Obama when he said that the ACA wasn’t a tax, but Roberts found otherwise.

    Also to the ACA I will stand by these facts. He lied about it not being a tax. If words mean things then Judge Roberts should not have said its a tax Sonora ok. Also of words mean things he wouldn’t have decided the way he did a couple of weeks ago.

    And I agree that words DO mean things. The problem is that when Trump (who is by all objective measures the biggest liar to ever occupy the White House) lies, you call it optimism.

    He’s a salesman, good or bad, that’s what he is. Optimism is a good thing by the way. You may choose to call it lying.

    You have a bias which you are unable or unwilling to admit. You talk about wanting to deal with issues and not parties, but you inherently trust Republicans and inherently distrust Democrats. Worse than that, you blame ME for this bias.

    Trump asks Russians to go find Hillary’s emails and you call it a joke. Funniest thing, they did. You still think it is a joke. But the Russian intervention into the 2016 election was not a joke and all indications are that now both the Russians AND the Chinese are continuing their efforts to destabilize our democracy because we are not holding them accountable. That’s the joke and that’s where this discussion moves directly into policy. Please tell me why Trump isn’t doing more to protect our country from cyberattacks?

    When the courts reverse one of Trump’s policies, using your “Obama” logic, shouldn’t that translate into you’re agreement that Trump lied? The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s claim that asylum seekers were illegally entering the country when they crossed the border at unauthorized locations. That means the Trump lied when he said these people were here illegally before the SCOTUS decision. Even worse, that also means that he has continued to lie about asylum seekers since that decision since he has continued to express his “opinion” that they are here illegally.

    From a policy perspective, the Trump administration has been violating the existing laws regarding treatment and due process for asylum seekers. My opinion is that no administration should ignore existing laws. If the current administration doesn’t like the laws, they should seek to change them rather than simply violate them. BTW, the Obama administration fell short regarding asylum seekers too, and laid some of the foundation for the vast and illegal expansion of a program by the Trump administration that includes detention, family separation, and illegal deportation of asylum seekers.

    Back to Jeff Sessions. I heard the comments on the same night he made them. The whole matter was about the Trump team and the Russians and NOT about Jeff Sessions. I heard him and that is exactly I interpreted it as then. That isn’t splitting hairs.

    Why did Sessions recuse himself if he was on solid ground with regard to his earlier testimony. There have been several AG and acting AG’s since who had expressed explicit opinions regarding the Mueller investigation that should have disqualified them from overseeing that investigation, yet they were all confirmed by Republicans. Why didn’t those same Republicans rally to Session’s support, particularly because he had previously been one of them?

    Also, don’t have time for much comment but you generalize way to much what you think I believe and am for. I will be clear. I am not FOR Trump. I will support what he does that I agree with, which is a lot. I was not am not for the progressive left. I will vote against them every time. There are thousands
    Of others I would rather see as president then him. Please remover that when you refer to me as a trump supporter. I prefer issues to candidates. I think most do.

    You SAY that you prefer issues to candidates, but even in this comment, you basically said that you disagree with EVERY issue that a progressive candidate would ever support. Sorry that’s partisan bias, not issue orientation.

    In a previous comment, you said that Trump’s nomination of conservative judges was sufficient to excuse all of the rest of the damage that he has done to the country. I responded that this attitude was dangerous to democracy. During the run up to WWII, Mussolini famously made the trains run on time in Italy. There is a monument in Chicago erected in 1933 when Mussolini gifted the city an ancient Roman column. Under Hitler’s dictatorship, unemployment dropped to record lows. He built more roads, dams, rail lines, and other infrastructure than in any other time in German history. Germany famously hosted the Olympics (summer and winter) for the first time in German history in 1936. There are plenty of examples of the good that dictators did while consolidating their power and eliminating opposition. I’m not suggesting that Trump has plans to become the next Mussolini or Hitler. I AM suggesting that it is dangerous to ignore the damage that he is doing to the country just because you like some of the other things that he is doing.

    Because you seem to have become a one issue voter, you can’t have it both ways.

    That’s because this isn’t a “normal” policy debate.

    When Trump promises to punish those who supported the Mueller investigation, that is dangerous. Then he promises that the FBI or the IRS will begin investigating those who oppose him, that is dangerous. When he labels the free press and enemies of the people, that is dangerous. When he refuses to accept the results of elections that don’t go his way, that is dangerous. When he promises that his followers may take the law into their own hands if he is removed from office, that is dangerous.

    Putting so much power in the hands of someone who seems to have little or no regard for the damage that power can do to democracy, goes WAY beyond the justification that he put a few conservative judges into power. It goes way beyond any reasonable discussion of policy. In practical terms, there IS no policy discussion with the Trump administration. Policy is whatever Trump decides it is on any particular day. THAT is also dangerous because clearly Trump is not constrained by HIS party’s philosophy or even his past promises either. As a result, he simply does whatever he feels is in his best interests on any particular day including, as we have recently learned, seriously considering dropping nukes on NK.

    This is NOT salesmanship. This is the terrible result of a worst case scenario of a minority electing a man who is completely unfit for the office. I can only hope that 2020 restores sanity and order.

  39. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/30/migrants-overflow-border-federal-facilities-local-strain-wall-trump/3309462002/

    I’m not beginning to claim to be knowledgeable are with complete understanding of everything that’s happening or all the laws involved.

    In my professional life ive sometimes inherited very messy situations with multimillion dollar a year losses. Probably 5-10 tons. After my first experience I learned that I wasn’t really interested any longer about spend much time talking about why or how or who’s responsible, once I’ve understood the matter. All I choose to exert time on his going forward. Reading this article I, the one comment in particular, “a complete collapse” is alarming. “Over run” doesn’t help either. This article is only about those seeking asylum and nothing of the more then a million illegals? In my professional life I’d say what ever we’re doing isn’t working.

    Is this a crisis, a nation emergency?

    What would make this a crisis or a national emergency?

    Under a bridge connecting the U.S. with Mexico, dozens of migrant families cram into a makeshift camp set up by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The families are there because permanent processing facilities have run out of room.

    Why have permanent processing facilities run out of room? Perhaps its because of choices this administration made with regard to asylum seekers. If that’s true, if this is a crisis, it is one of our own making.

    Here’s just one example, the Obama administration had a program which funded legal help for those making asylum claims. More than 90% of those asylum seekers release to relatives while waiting for their cases to be heard showed up for trial. The Trump administration eliminated that program and refused to increase the number of judges hearing cases. Instead they chose to detain asylum seekers and break up their families until their cases could be heard in an effort to deter future asylum seekers from attempting the same thing.

    Border Patrol officials were on pace in March for more than 100,000 apprehensions and encounters with migrants – the highest monthly tally in over a decade, he said. Around 90 percent of those – or 90,000 – crossed the border between legal ports of entry.

    The vast majority of those crossing between ports of entry turn themselves into Border Patrol agents, seeking asylum.

    What does that tell you? A wall isn’t going to work. These people are seeking asylum. They are not attempting to enter the country illegally. When they get into this country, they are giving themselves up. The only reason that they are NOT crossing at the legal points of entry is because the border guards are illegally turning asylum seekers away.

    Under U.S. law, Border Patrol is not supposed to hold any migrant for longer than 72 hours.

    Usually, Border Patrol hands them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which can detain families for up to 20 days. But all of those facilities are overcrowded, Brown said, leading Border Patrol to skip the transfer to ICE and release migrants to shelters en masse.

    Remember what this President said about what he called “catch and release”? Words do matter, but so do laws.

    This president swore an oath to uphold the law. He is FAILING to uphold the law. You can blame immigrants, but in truth this is a strategy of this administration to CREATE a crisis which they hope to use to allow them to change laws that they don’t like. Their responsibilities as outlined above are clear. They need to increase the capacity to process asylum seekers and in the meantime release them to their families or agencies who are able to provide them care and make sure that they show up for their court dates. They need more judges and they need to reinstate the program of providing them legal assistance in order to increase the number that do show up for their court cases.

    Rather than taking billions to build a wall, we should be getting FEMA involved in the same way that we would for any other natural disaster that creates a large homeless population.

    Medium term, we should invest in more judges and legal help to make sure that asylum claims are processed swiftly. Rather than punish those who have come here seeking asylum, we should honor our promise that they will get a fair and prompt hearing on their case.

    Long term, we should change the immigration laws as I’ve previously suggested to make this an employer/church/municipality funded system. As long as an employer can prove that they are unable to fill open jobs from the resident population, they can pay to bring workers across the border for a couple of years at a time. Those same employers are also responsible to pay for transportation to get workers back to their homes when their period of employment ends and document that this happens. The main reason why guest workers don’t return home is because they are unsure that they will be able to return. If the process is transparent and fair, those who respect our laws should have some priority when the reapply to their next job.

    Similarly churches and towns can sponsor individuals and families as long as they can prove that they have places for them to stay and are able to find them work. In this case, these people would be on a green card path rather than a guest worker path. This program would lead to a rebirth of rural america that has been losing population for decades. While it may be true that the children of these immigrants may not stay “on the farm”, these immigrant communities will help these small agricultural towns rebuild themselves.

    Let’s play a little mind game just for a minute.

    Instead of an influx of asylum seekers from Mexico, let’s assume that French speaking Quebec gains political control of Canada and passes all sorts of laws which replace English with French and make it impossible for anyone who doesn’t speak French to get a job or go to school. Then they also pass work requirements in order to qualify for medical care or any other government benefits. Then roving gangs of french gangsters start beating up and killing English speakers, kicking them out of their homes, and taking over their businesses.

    The result is that English speaking Canadians start pouring over our northern border looking for work and fleeing from the violence in Canada.

    What would we do?

    I’m telling you right now, that we would not treat the English speaking white skinned Canadians in the same way we are treating the Mexican speaking brown skinned Central Americans today.

    Instead we would figure out how to accept, process, and relocate as many of these people as quickly as we could.

    Why aren’t we doing that today?

    The ONLY reason is that Trump in particular and conservatives in general have chosen to demonize South American Immigrants.

    If you are tempted to dismiss this particular scenario as fanciful, let me tell a different sort of border crisis. In the near future is it possible that El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston will run out of water. One of of the things that could happen is, like the dust bowl, a large migration of people from those areas to other parts of the country where there is the possibility of work and water. LA and SLC are in trouble too. Both of those cities say that they can’t accept any more people because they don’t have enough water for the people that they have now. Atlanta says the same thing. How do we deal with 5M people who are fleeing a natural disaster where there is no possibility that they will be able to return?

    The migrations that we are seeing from Central America are due to political instability in those countries.

    Longer term ecological instability will likely cause MUCH larger migrations.

    IMHO the best longer term solutions are those that allow people to stay where they are. Where that is just not possible, however, we HAVE to start planning for ways to accommodate the movement of large numbers of people both within and across our borders. Building walls is not the answer. Draining the Great Lakes in order to sustain areas that climate change have rendered uninhabitable isn’t the answer either.

  40. Jeff Beamsley says:

    No evidence of collusion. So go back to the beginning and let’s understand just what evidence the Obama, should I bring up his name?, FBI and DOJ had to start this?

    The dossier charged trump of collusion with the Russians to throw the election? The FISA were issued based on what evidence? Muller found NONE. So who had what evidence? Mr Schiff you’re up…

    BTW, just a little more on this conspiracy theory regarding the dossier.

    Here are a couple of quotes from a Newsweek article detailing an interview on Fox News between Chris Wallace and Bill Hemmer.

    During an America’s Newsroom segment on Friday morning, Wallace agreed that Donald Trump “got a complete clean bill of health when it came to collusion and a kind of mixed bill of health when it came to obstruction” and noted that, when the report comes out that “Democrats are going to go after him again.”

    Wallace, however, fact-checked Limbaugh on the origins of the probe, noting that it may not be exactly what Fox News viewers would want to hear. “I know this is going to drive some of our viewers nuts. The Trump investigation did not start with the FISA warrant and Carter Page and even the dossier.”

    “It started in June and July of 2016 when George Papadopoulos had spoken to a Russian agent and spoke to an Australian diplomat and said he had heard they had information on –– dirt on Hillary Clinton,” the host continued. “That’s when the investigation started. So it wasn’t October, it wasn’t September. It was in July and it was George Papadopoulos. Not to say that the FISA warrant was a legitimate basis… for inquiry, but that is not where the investigation started. It’s just a fact.”

    Hemmer questioned Wallace’s comments, saying “I think we would add ‘we think’ in quotes because the story is not entirely yet revealed,” to which Wallace responded: “I don’t think there’s any doubt that they started investigating.”

    “Everybody agrees they started investigating in the summer of 2016. Look, I’m not saying that what they did was right or any of that, but we know that’s when the investigation started. There’s been documentation of that,” the host added.

    You going to believe me now that even Fox News is attempting to set the record straight?

  41. Keith says:

    YS)(isaid)Also, don’t have time for much comment but you generalize way to much what you think I believe and am for. I will be clear. I am not FOR Trump. I will support what he does that I agree with, which is a lot. I was not am not for the progressive left. I will vote against them every time. There are thousands
    Of others I would rather see as president then him. Please remover that when you refer to me as a trump supporter. I prefer issues to candidates. I think most do.

    (YS)You SAY that you prefer issues to candidates, but even in this comment, you basically said that you disagree with EVERY issue that a progressive candidate would ever support. Sorry that’s partisan bias, not issue orientation.

    MR)I did not say I disagree with progressives on every issue. I said/meant I will vote against progressive candidates every time. Huge difference. I saw the mayor of South Bend on Bill Maher ZFriday night. I agree with him on many things.

    Dick Chaney- you many times call wrong predictions lies. Huge difference.

    Liar. I can speak to the above on Hillary and President Obama. I said I “rarely” call someone names. In the case of the ACA it was a tax, so that was a fact. Everyone knew it was a tax. You knew it was a tax. If President Obama didn’t know you couldnt keep your own doctor or healthcare in some instances then he wasn’t involved in his own policy. If he did he lied.

    Hillary I have a particular bias with her from hello, you are correct. “I’m not some Tammy Whinett standing by her man.” Then the smartest women alive at the ripe old age of mid fourties only 10 years or less removed from Rose Law firm, a top 100 lawyers in America, I read that somewhere, said I don’t recall in testimony a million times. Then only a few years later told me to just relax its a right wing conspiracy. So yes I have called her a liar.

    Trump is a liar. He makes things up. He shoots from the hip, HE IS a carnival barker. (Watch the greatest showman. Wonderful movie)

    You also misunderstand what exactly I ment by he got me two judges. My intent was if all he did was that I am fine.

    Joe Biden I like. The guy from south bend I like. Kamala Harris I like. Cory Booker I like when he was mayor of Newark. The far left has somehow gotten control of the dems. That is crazy. AOc’s green new deal is laughable. But it’s more then that. It’s a distruction of everything. Its a nuclear bomb. It’s impossible. Then she was upset Mitch voted on it. That was funny.

    And yes Trump asking the Russians to find the emails was a joke and it was funny!!!!

    Finally I prefer Trump not to be President. I would prefer him to step down. And not run again. I will vote from him over Bernie Sanders for obvious reasons.

    What will you think if Trump gets a good deal with China?

  42. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I did not say I disagree with progressives on every issue. I said/meant I will vote against progressive candidates every time. Huge difference. I saw the mayor of South Bend on Bill Maher ZFriday night. I agree with him on many things.

    You may think that there is a huge difference, but ultimately there isn’t.

    Instead you appear to be engaging in a little bit of self righteousness. It isn’t a whole lot different from the bigot’s claim that they aren’t biased because they have African-american friends, but would never approve of their kids marrying someone of color.

    Here’s a little thought experiment for you.

    There are two candidates. One identifies as a conservative. The other identifies as a progressive. The conservative is vile, racist, promotes white nationalism, praises the way that Hitler rid Germany of inferior species, and blames all the country’s ills on immigrants and people of color.

    The progressive is really a moderate, but in comparison to this conservative, they are happy to call themselves a progressive. They are pro-life, but believe that the best solution to reduce the number of abortions is to invest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and increasing the availability of contraception solutions for both men and women. Their stated goal is to make abortion a medical procedure that women and their physicians choose only when health is an issue. They support access to skills training for every person that is interested in a better job. That skills training will be subsidized by unions and the employers who hire those workers. They also support an immigration plan where employers, municipalities, and community-based organizations can sponsor guest workers for jobs where employers have not been able to find enough workers in this country. It is the responsibility of those organizations (paying the government) to vet those workers before they enter the country, pay for their transportation, monitor their location while they are in the country, and pay for their return when their work permit expires. This person supports investing in streamlining the asylum process while at the same time helping those countries of origin to stabilize their economies/governments so that their citizens don’t feel that they need to flee. They support investing in solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change by taking a Manhattan Project approach. That means science and government working together to develop and test to identify the best solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change. This person promises to invest in healthcare solutions that are based on improving outcomes and reducing costs to the same levels that other industrialized economies across the world have achieved. This person also believes that a strong social safety net an essential component of a capitalist economy. You can’t have one without the other. As a result, those who benefit most from an unfettered business environment will subsidize the programs that protect workers from the disruptions that occur when businesses fail. They believe that we should return to the meritocracy that dominated the 60’s where the country made it easy to for our best and brightest to get a college education. Similar investments in infrastructure as appropriate given the state of economy. All of this is paid for by a more progressive tax structure AND a re-evaluation of what we are getting for our current investments in defense. This person also believes that we should pay down the debt by growing the economy faster than we are generating deficits.

    I could go on, but my question at this point is who are you going to vote for?

  43. Ron says:

    Excellent post, Jeff! Thank you.

Leave a Reply