Facebook

Generally I don't watch football so I'm not required to answer this...

User: "Who's your daddy?"
Siri: "You are. Can we get back to work now?"

No, but that would just beg the question of what timezone. Unless the plan is for a rolling wave of rapture across the Earth.

Funny you should mention that. I was describing that dinosaur to my son the other night. I think he thought I was making it up.

If Sequester is now the preferred GOP path, they should own it, not blame Dems. They should also own the economic consequences, good or bad. http://t.co/4Qft5fNnwN

Even if it's not good now, it's clearly the future and it will only get better.

In a capitalist society, you vote with your wallet.

Political factions exploit religion to control and motivate their followers. This has pretty much always been true, across all religions and across all of history. There are certainly political factions using Islam to incite violence against the U.S. (which may or may not have anything to do with Boston). I'm all for monitoring and intervening against these factions. Just less inclined to blame it on religion per se.

FYI -> NABWAD = Not A Bug, Works As Designed

...which is a charitable way of saying I'm not one of the cool kids. {:-)

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't eat shellfish or wear mixed fiber clothing either... {;-)

Getting religion out of politics isn't just a better idea. It is the idea. I don't want the GOP to be more Christian (although that would be an improvement), I want Christians to nullify their power to wield Christianity in political battle. I want them to have to defend their positions from facts, or from Objectivism, or failing that, defend them as the teachings of some obscure Social Darwinian Goddess. Sans the Christian underpants, they'd be run out of town on a rail by dawn.

Yeah, I wasn't advocating the specific policies as much as the overall model of looking at the long term economic benefit of investing in people rather than just leaving them on their own and telling them to work harder. Ultimately, society has to deal with all the people it leaves behind, and that is often far more expensive than investing in them and enabling them in the first place.

John Vaeth, Taking a job at Fox might be one of the few things that could scuttle my upcoming nuptials...

I'm sure no one is as relieved as Paula Deen to hear there's no more racism.

Yes Mistress... (hangs head)

Agreed Leon, but the phrase "or he may even be in violation of section 798 of the Espionage Act" just didn't roll off the tongue, and the phrase "or he may even be a leaker" tends to suggest an incontinence problem. My apologies for over-exercising my literary license, which MB revoked earlier anyway. {;-)

I'm a little unclear what your point is. If it's that political policy on both sides often results in corruption and abuse because there are always people playing the system, then yeah, duh. But neither the article nor I am arguing for any particular policy solution. This is about accepting the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming. We can't have any meaningful discussion of a solution until there is an agreement the problem exists. We don't have a policy problem (yet), we have a reality problem.

Clearly your position is unalterable. (I recognize a good paranoid conspiratorist when I see one.) If it helps, I hope you're correct and science is all nonsense. Especially that gravity thing. After all, we don't really understand that either, we can't control it, and besides, I've always wanted to fly.

Given this is Dubai, this will likely be deemed the woman's fault... maybe the monkey's.

The vampires know he was real...

Can I sue the pizzeria when my pants don't fit? They should know better than to keep delivering pies.

I do wish they'd pass a budget too. But the debt ceiling is about paying bills from budgets they've already passed. It is the wrong lever to stand on.

In a strict black & white sense, sure. Any market subject to regulation isn't truly free. That's pretty much all of them. But any market not truly free isn't socialist either. The world is much grayer than that.

Good parents set limits and rules to teach lessons kids need to learn to live independently in the future. God's fundamental "rule" is to love him genuinely and with all your heart or he will torture you indefinitely. That sounds a lot more like extortion than a life lesson.

"Everyone" apparently does not include the City of Rochester...

Some really helpful perspective on the implications of the ruling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/15/11-questions-you-were-too-afraid-to-ask-about-net-neutrality/

I think you maybe missed the interesting point. A man is a father at the moment of conception and has no legal way out. A woman can choose. It's about choice, which is rather the whole point of "Pro-Choice". She gets one. He doesn't. Now I don't think these are entirely equivalent (but they are closely related), nor do I think this is an argument for revoking a woman's right to choose. But it does open the door for an interesting discussion about a Pro-Choice movement for men.

Keep in mind that both companies have been greasing the government skids such that left alone this merger is likely a slam dunk approval. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198350-comcast-time-warner-execs-have-been-big-obama-supporters#ixzz2tEJNDcqk

Thanks Bill. I find your view more optimistic than I'm feeling, and I'm encouraged by that. Maybe there is more hope than I'm seeing from my vantage point.

With apologies, there were some numerical errors in the original post. They have been corrected...

Well Bill R., as I alluded to, allowing the creation of a large, impoverished, and desperate economic underclass will get you a revolution. But I do think most of us are hoping for a less brutal solution to the "corrupt capitalist... owner class" problem.

I thought the salient observation was that forces outside conventional supply & demand market dynamics (government and otherwise) are in play across the compensation spectrum. Secondarily, the people most concerned about non market driven rates at the low end of the labor spectrum are often the advocates and beneficiaries of non-market drivers on their own compensation.

I think Reich is trying to make his positions accessible to the public rather than proving them to experts. As to CEOs, I've worked with and known many. There are a rare few who deserve the sky high pay. Executive pay rises by multiples from even the top end of professional pay. Its insane, and indefensible for the vast majority of them. And no, I wasn't saying executive pay was because of minimum wage. Only that both are examples of compensation being driven by non-market forces.

Well to be fair, they are only saying you have to sleep with your husband, not everyone's.

By all means, go leave your thoughts on this issue at http://fcc.gov/comments and please bear with the crappy response time of the site. I'd like to blame the ISPs for that, but it seems that all you netizens are just flooding it with your thoughts. Keep up the good work!

I'm certainly not trying to defend one party as more noble than the other in this regard. Ultimately, the goal of any party is to gain/retain power. And in the current system, that isn't feasible without the moneyed influence of the 1%. That such influence has an effect when that party is in power should surprise no one. As to policy, the GOP is staunchly in favor of unlimited campaign spending by corporations and PACs. They favor reduced taxes on the 1% giving them more disposable income to "speak" with. And also support deregulation and reduced government influence on commerce and the economy which inherently favors the continued dominance of major market players.

I'm not at all confident that putting the Democrats in power across the board will fix this problem. But the article's tone suggests that Democrats should be blamed for it, presumably meaning we should support the GOP as an alternative. The only advantage I see to putting the GOP policies in place is that it might sooner bring about the grassroots revolt that reclaims a government by the people by driving us faster into true oligarchy.

Agreed. Regulations can promote either end. But history is pretty clear that unregulated capitalism yields oligarchy. It only works well when government provides a balance. Right now, the oligarchy controls both sides.

I'm not endorsing Libertarianism as a whole. Just on the militarism issue it makes sense. And personally, I don't think this means we never intervene. I'd just like intervention to be interpreted more broadly than air strikes.

It went down like this... http://youtu.be/_xGNA7U54Qw

It's part of my new series called "Dark Optimism".

Full title of the article (which is likely all you need to know): "Attention Kim Kardashian: You Can't Sue Another Woman For Having A Big Ass And An Instagram Account"

The Internet is a toll road today, but to extend your toll road analogy... imagine a toll road, but one where the speed limit was determined by how big a toll you paid. Who are we to deny them? We are citizens in a society dependent on a crucial shared resource. It's not at all unreasonable for us to demand that everyone have equivalent access to that utility.

Big digital content businesses do already pay "trucker taxes" in the form of the large pipes they pay for to get their content onto the Internet backbone. They should not have to pay extra to get TWC or Comcast to deliver it to your house. That's what you pay them for.

And no, I don't see that we need to socialize the Internet any more than we have socialized the telecom or electrical utility infrastructures. But there's a reason utility industries are carefully regulated.

Yeah, it's so weird. Universal healthcare is popular in every country that has it, and nearly every OCED nation has it but us. What a bunch of rubes...

Dammit Jim, I'm a terrorist not a geologist!

Who could've seen this coming? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/how-fox-news-dismissed-todays-benghazi-report-in-less-than-30-seconds/

Single payer systems in the rest of the world operate at about half the per capita cost of US healthcare. That's the value. If you could recover the amount employers pay today for employee healthcare, you'd more than cover the cost of a single payer system covering every citizen.

Ummm... mighty socialist of you, but sure!

I never thought I'd be citing Ben Carson as the voice of reason. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/231545-ben-carson-backs-vaccines

Oh SNAP! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iran-joins-denunciations-republican-senators-nuke-talks-letter-n320221

It's about shared sacrifice. It's easy to send "The Army" into harm's way when it's just some abstract bad-ass force. It's a lot harder to know you are sending your kids into that situation. Put another way, the list of things most people are personally willing to die for is an awful lot shorter than the list of things they are willing to have statistical "soldiers" die for.

Slogan suggestion: "Holds more husbands per pile than peat moss" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/manure-trade-shows-slogan-contest-133923925.html

C'mon people! ...Is this thing on?

It's important to keep in mind that "theory" in common usage means something different than it does in science. An everyday theory is just a hunch or an idea. But in science, a theory is an accepted rigorous framework or explanation for a set of observations or facts. Theories may get modified or even tossed altogether, some theories are better accepted than others, and some may even compete with each other. But they are not as ephemeral as the common usage of the term might suggest. Further, theories may change, but the facts and observations don't. Gravity is a theory too, and it might someday be totally revised. But that hammer is still going to fall toward the ground when you let go of it.

Good point, but what about the personal safety side of that? There are poor people who can't afford a good sidearm, much less an assault rifle. Isn't that also unfair? And if so, how do you make it fair?

Yeah, but some people believe that too. The whole point here is that a popular domestic position on how to deal with crazy people who have weapons is to arm everyone else. The last thing we would do is restrict anyone's right to get those weapons. But often the same people who believe that believe that on the international stage we have to preemptively act to keep weapons away from crazy countries. I honestly don't get why those two positions are not at complete odds with one another.

Interesting. This was basically the argument for limiting high capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. So I guess the question is really just how many people are too much collateral damage.

Sorry Dan, but if your business is open to the public, then you have an obligation to provide services to anyone. You don't have to like them, approve of their life, or know anything about them. But you don't get to discriminate. This means the local diner can't refuse to serve poor people, the store can't refuse to let Blacks shop, the hardware store has to answer questions asked by women, and the bakery has to bake cakes for gay people. If you can't abide by that, you shouldn't be in that business. People are certainly entitled to whatever prejudices they like (and most believe their prejudices to be morally founded). But we are a society built on the notion that all people are created equal--in the public square and under the eyes of the law. No man's equality should be lessened by another's bigotry, no matter how morally justified he may feel about it.

Judges and JPs? Yes. But churches and pastors, no. Under current law (and frequently upheld by the courts) religious organizations and private clubs are given a wide berth when it comes to institutionalized bigotry. So your church is pretty free to ostracize any group they like, just like Jesus intended.

It's unclear where this thread went off the rails, but there seems to be some confusion about US action against ISIS/Daesh. Since Aug. 2014, as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US has launched over 6.3k strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. The rest of the coalition has led an additional 1.7k. This is over 8k strikes destroying over 13k targets (tanks, buildings, camps, etc.), and resulting in a loss of about 25% of territory ISIS once controlled. France got another strike in yesterday, and good for them. They needed to send a personal message after Paris. But this notion that somehow France acted because we were too impotent is simply wrong. Further, the only viable strategy for having ISIS "put out of their misery" is to launch a full-on ground assault and occupation of a sizable chunk of the region. Something we know (from our experience with the Taliban and Al Qaeda) there's no viable exit strategy for. Once you leave, something worse crops up. So if you're going to advocate for a very hawkish solution, make sure you're prepared to commit the hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars necessary follow through on your plans to colonize and control the Middle East. And good luck with that.

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read. In fairness, I'm uncertain how well worn the term is, but the concept is old. I'll need to look for some better references.

As to "political aims", it seems to me that the Planned Parenthood attacks have a political aim. It's domestic vs foreign, but I think the goal is to frighten people into political change. That sounds like terrorism in the conventional sense.

Stochastic terrorism would not include most gang violence or even most of the recent school shootings and the like. Those have no political bent (to your earlier point). Nor are they largely inspired by popular, religious, or political rhetoric. Gun violence in general is an issue in this country, but it is not stochastic terrorism. So I think the term is useful, if only to call attention to those inciting the actions. This isn't substantively different than ISIL leaders inspiring violence indirectly. The difference being they take credit for the acts of their minions. But both are terrorism just the same.

I'm not sure I'd advocate for genericizing the term terrorism that much. I do agree that some gang violence is intended to induce fear. But so is a lot of domestic violence. I'm not sure if I'd characterize a wife beater as a terrorist. But he certainly creates terror. I guess we have to draw the line somewhere.

Also, here's a good recap of violence against abortion providers. There's been quite a lot. http://www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9808224/abortion-clinic-violence-history

I take your point, and there's obviously a lot of grey area in the definition. But I do think if a mentally unstable Muslim shot up a shopping mall, they would widely be considered a terrorist.

It looks like the term "stochastic terrorism" was coined back in 2011, possibly in response to the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona. However, the concept of propaganda inciting violence (which is the basic concept of stochastic terrorism) is well researched and documented in history. As just one example, consider this academic paper (PDF) studying the practice in Croatia in the 1990s. The references section lists a lot of other related research.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=053002104002075118008000019094089125051050049050065025125085068031073107010004094110057117049061018023008102017095002013006102016012037013093002115102070103097073037039043009089067111110122123098026113118119002099110103087113022002101002074102126029&EXT=pdf

It doesn't with regard to the primary perpetrator. The possible advantage to stochastic terrorism is it also holds those inciting the violence through rhetoric responsible.

It's hard to work toward a solution until you at least get consensus there is a problem to solve. So maybe the question should be, when will we admit we have a gun violence problem?

I was watching Fox News last night, and they have pretty much already called this as Islamic Terrorism. Most everyone else seems to be a little more cautious about jumping to that conclusion.

The whole thing doesn't add up for me yet. Acts of jihad don't typically happen against known targets (e.g. your work colleagues), and don't usually involve an escape plan. But disgruntled workers don't often use this level of planning, much less accomplices.

I switched over to watch Hogan's Heroes. It's more realistic... and I don't yell at the TV as much.

If this truly succeeds in curbing Chinese currency manipulation, that should be goodness all the way around.

This would almost seem to support the notion that something other than high wages is driving the export deficiency. Ultimately, i agree. We need a new economic model that helps us move forward. We can learn from the past, but we can't just decide to go there.

I suppose the other side of that is we get less for our exports. I'm unsure either is good or bad. It's just a trade off and the key is finding the optimal balance point. Which maybe then begs the question of what metrics we optimize on.

OK, yes. Our exports cost more, so we get more for them individually. But it makes them less competitive so we tend to sell less or our companies tend to just produce them overseas.

You have eloquently made my point. Christians understand that the Planned Parenthood shooter was not acting like a true Christian. Just like Muslims understand that the San Bernardino shooter was not acting like a true Muslim. And each group harbors a lot of people ignorant about the other.

But it is what he's saying. He explicitly distinguishes between rights as abstract concepts (e.g. speech, assembly, privacy, etc.) and things that require "time, treasure, or talents". I'm not disagreeing with his distinction, I'm just pointing out that virtually everything the government does requires our time, treasure, or talent. This includes roads, schools, airports, the military, etc. These things are not rights any more than health care is. Rather, they are a common good. They are things we choose to collectively spend resources on because it helps society as a whole, even if every individual doesn't benefit directly.

I don't believe he's arguing that there are no common goods worth spending resources on. And once you agree that some things are common goods, then all we're disagreeing on is where the line is drawn. That's a worthy debate, but not something that rationally inspires hostility. The line moves based on societal needs, changing values, and availability of resources.

As an example, public schools came about because it was deemed a public good that we have an educated work force ready to be productive employees. It's a short hop to rationalize that having a healthy workforce is also worthwhile. So universal health care could easily be as much of a common good as public schools. The idea that one is obviously good and the other is an unthinkable abomination is irrational.

Basically, the author has drawn an arbitrary line between things we've always done, and things we haven't done, and is arguing that moving the line is nuts. This is inertia at rest, not some fundamental philosophy in danger of being violated.

I completely agree with that. I recognize there are those that try to position things like health care as a right. I don't buy that. But it doesn't mean it's not a common good or a reasonable idea.

If someone would like to pay me $2m/mo, I'd be happy to report back to you on that.

I said (in part) "when faced with the realities of Washington... ". This was not limited to the GOP. Rarely do administrations cede power granted them by earlier ones, regardless of party. This is why things like The Patriot Act are so dangerous. You never get the lid back on the can.

This issue really doesn't have anything to do with Apple, per se. Apple is just riding point on this for the whole tech industry because the shooter had an iPhone. On this issue, Apple is in the right.

The problem is that the safeguards that would need to be in place are not technological. They are legal and procedural. Apple (nor any private company) should not be in a position to decide if a situation warrants their help. That is typically a job for the courts (e.g. search warrants). But post-9/11, every time anyone even peeps "terrorist threat", the courts toss privacy concerns out the window. What would the uniqueness criteria be for this case? That the crime has already been committed? That the guy is dead? That it's terrorism related? No matter what you choose, there will be another situation that meets the criteria, and then this will not be the only phone. Our legal system is not designed to deal with "just this once".

I hadn't realized the county owned the phone. That's an interesting wrinkle.

While I get that a majority of Americans believe that Apple's position is unnecessarily hindering a legitimate terrorism investigation, what most Americans don't get is that if Apple does what the FBI is asking, they will be creating a "backdoor" tool that could then be used on any iPhone. Apple can't open just this phone. If/when that tool gets out in the wild, iPhones belonging to politicians, executives, diplomats, etc. will all be vulnerable to hackers. To preserve its business, Apple will almost certainly have to redesign key elements of iOS and upgrade its entire user base to nullify the backdoor. Which will only be useful until the government once again forces it to build another backdoor.

This is a situation that seems easy and obvious on the surface. But in reality it is an expensive proposition for Apple and other tech companies and ultimately starts us down a path that compromises the security of everyone. No one is really arguing that the FBI should not have access to Farook's phone. What we're arguing is that hackers (FBI or otherwise) should not have access to all our phones.

Fair enough...

As to the question of why it will get out in the wild... because it's useful, it's valuable, it's easily copied, and highly unlikely (once it exists) to be destroyed. Minimally, there will be teams of people at both Apple and the FBI with access to it. All it takes is one security breach for it to leak, and once it's loose it will be everywhere. It's not a matter of if it will get out. It's a matter of when.

Based on my 30+ years of software R&D experience I respectfully disagree that such control is feasible or likely. It's not a tech problem, it's a people problem. Once it exists, it will not be destroyed... then eventually it will be replicated or leaked.

If I understand your question, you're asking if we might someday be able to invent security that only allows in the user as well as the government, when authorized. I suspect the answer is no. It's not a tech limitation, but a human problem. "The gov't" is an organization, not a person. Allowing access to an org. requires some sort of a key that is not tied to one person. That key has to be shareable. Moreover, the sharing can't be controlled by the user for it to be useful. So the gov't (even if a different branch/org) has to control the sharing. It is this limitation/control of organizational sharing of keys where the core weakness lies. Tech doesn't fix that.

Yeah, Oliver nailed this one.

If it's political revolution you're after, support Sanders. Trump is not an agent of change. He's an agent of chaos. He's driven only by his ridiculously outsized ego. I get the raw emotional spleen-venting appeal he has, but be careful what you ask for.

You guys pining for American freedom and the Constitution do get that those include freedom of and from religion, freedom of speech, being innocent until proven guilty, no cruel punishment, etc. Stuff Trump's words, policies, and actions don't align with. I suspect you really don't want to live in the world you are so desperately trying to usher in.

First, there's a lot of grey area between xenophobic policies and German immigration. Rejecting one extreme doesn't mean you're at the other.

Second, while there have been crime spikes related to refugees, the vast majority have been minor offenses. Still a concern, but not the danger i suspect you are imagining. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/644827/refugees-committed-crimes-Germany-migrant-crisis-last-year

Third, in general, crime in Germany is only a fraction of the US, so even allowing for the spikes, you're still safer there than here. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime

Lenore, we clearly live in two very different realities. That is not to discount the reality of the fear you feel, but neither does it validate the existence of the things you are afraid of.

Seriously? I'm not saying Hillary doesn't have issues, but if you're weighing Clinton vs. Trump on honesty and choose Trump, you are not doing your homework. Enjoy your Trump Steaks.

Your examples are analogous to "fears" on the right that socialized medicine and taxing the rich are bad. I don't think either side institutionally raises those fears to apocalyptic levels, nor is that the type of thing driving Trump's supporters. They fear Sharia law, ISIS as an existential threat to the US, Christianity and guns being outlawed, Mexicans stealing their jobs, etc. That's a whole different level of fear.

Yeah, but he talks out both sides of his mouth. He's also said he's Israel's best friend and will crush ISIS. It's unclear how he achieves any of his objectives without military intervention--unless he sends the Mexicans instead.

Not surprising, but Trump and Cruz both made statements playing completely to the desires of the terrorists. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-candidates-responses-brussels-terrorism-speak-volumes?cid=sm_fb_maddow

He did, and there are. This was just another nail in the coffin.

LOL!!

Agreed. I don't worry about what he won't do, I worry about what he will.

Well played...

Hillary is very different, as is every other GOP finalist. Keep in mind, this is not a policy issue. You may find her unlikeable or not trust she'll do what she's campaigning on, etc. But she is clearly qualified to hold the office. She has the disposition, the decision making ability, and she's willing to listen and learn. I disagree with most everything Cruz stands for, I would not want him to be President, but he was fundamentally qualified. Trump stands alone in this regard.

How is Trump not also a hypocritical liar? In this regard you could equate them, and lump in tons of other politicians as well. If that disqualifies someone in your book then you needn't even go to the polls in November.

I'm saying violation of rules that are widely broken is a systemic problem more than an individual one. Vilifying one person for it is just witch hunting.

Because all our other Presidents have been saints and we wouldn't want to sully the office?

That's being overly simplistic. It's not that black and white. It's about context. Fundamentally this is a transparency issue. And transparency issues exist for almost all administrations. I'm not saying we shouldn't care, but acting like this is some sort of unique Hillary defect is reacting out of proportion.

The fact checkers are going to be up all night. I hope Trump owns a pair of flame retardant pants.

President Donald Elizondo Cheetos Trump Camacho has spoken <insert mic drop here>

It's not just me, right? This repeated claim of how he'll be the "law and order President" scares the hell out of you too?

Would appreciate confirmation of that. It seems pretty widely reported and I haven't seen a retraction anywhere.

I'm curious. In '92, Ross Perot won 18.9% which is pretty close to your 20% target for inciting rapid change. Surely, close enough that some significant change would have occurred. What changes to either party between '92 and the present do you attribute to Perot??

For extra credit, compare and contrast Perot's influence to the impact of the Tea Party or the Bernie Movement within their respective parties.

Feel free to consider someone else. Maybe Teddy Roosevelt? Perot was just the best recent example I could come up with.

Sorry, but I'm just missing the connection you're trying to make here. Care to elaborate?

No, or at least that's not what I was intending to say. I'm saying that given the wide differences of policies, positions, and temperament between the two candidates I find it implausible that anyone aware of the distinction doesn't have a preference, if forced to choose between the two. You may well not like either, but you pretty much have to find one better than the other. I'm not saying you have agree with my choice, just that if you don't have one, you either aren't paying attention or don't care--and in that case, why are you bothering to vote at all?

I'm not questioning anyone's motives, abilities, or right to vote. I am asserting two things. Third-party votes are equivalent to not voting, which has a potential impact on the election, but not in the way the vote was intended. And. I find it inconceivable that 4 years with Trump and 4 years with Clinton are equally unappealing to anyone. The rest is just connecting dots between those two assertions.

Soooo... You're team Tim Kaine?

Yes. Voting for Johnson/Stein and not voting are the same relative to the outcome. This is the Kobayashi Maru. The no-win scenario. Deciding to play a different game isn't an option.

As I think about it, there is a "hail Mary" play that could be made using third-party votes. Although I'm pretty sure this isn't what the majority are thinking, but maybe some.

If Johnson finishes a strong third, and neither Clinton or Trump take 50%, the election goes to the House. The GOP House won't elect Clinton. They could reject Trump and throw the ball all the way to Johnson. This would install a Johnson/Pence administration, albeit one with a pall of illegitimacy hanging over it. But it is a path to get him in.

In this election, both parties are aware they are running candidates with unprecedented negatives. If Johnson finishes strong, I doubt the takeaway will be they need to adopt more Libertarian ideas. It will just be that they need to run better candidates on their platform.

You may well be in the minority who are voting Johnson because of your ideological alignment with the Libertarians. If so, then fine. None of this is aimed at you. But if Johnson is a protest vote, then I stand by my assertion that you are just ducking a choice that you would otherwise hold your nose and make. Gun to your head, Clinton vs. Trump. Would you really choose the bullet? Especially knowing that one of them was going to prevail anyway?

This post is not about my personal preference. Granted, anyone who follows me is pretty clear on the fact that I think Trump is completely unfit for the office. It's not even a policy choice. He lacks the judgment and stability to be in that position. Period.

There are two paths to a Trump Presidency. One, he simply gets 270 electoral votes on election night. If that happens, fine. I won't like it, but I do support the democratic process making choices I don't support. The second is that third-parties draw enough of of the vote that no one gets 270. The election of the President then goes to the GOP controlled House. These are the same people who wouldn't change the rules to oust Trump from their party's nomination to avoid dividing their base, coupled with the Tea Party contingent whose mission was essentially to put the governmental blender on Frappe and hope for the best. They actively want Trump to be President. So Trump is almost certain to win in a 3-way race. It is the latter scenario I'm cautioning against.

Unlike '92, where Perot drew votes almost entirely from Bush, thus handing the election to Bill Clinton, Johnson is positioned in '16 to draw protest votes from both sides. A strong Johnson finish is very likely to throw the race to the House, which is very likely to give the win to Trump. So I was wrong. Voting third-party isn't like not voting, it's like voting for Trump. If Trump wins through this path, I think the third-party voters need to own that.

BTW, here's a good explainer on why there are only 2 parties in the US. There's lots more like it available for the Googling. Bottom line, it's in the design of the system. There's lots of good arguments for why the system is not a good one, but given this system, we get 2 parties. They can be changed or exchanged for other parties. But the system only supports 2. http://m.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/political-parties/section2.rhtml

If it gets to the House, the Democrats are irrelevant. The GOP controls enough to make the decision on their own. Will they choose Johnson? Maybe. But Trump is likely to finish with bigger numbers so they'd go to Johnson against their base's wishes. Something they declined to do at their convention.

I would not expect 3rd party voters to vote Dem down the line. Assuming most vote Clinton for President and GOP for Congress, we wind up with 4 more years of deadlocked government struggling to keep the lights on. Hillary's agenda is largely dead.

Trump introduces a randomness to political and economic stability that isn't likely to be good. Change is good, but unpredictability is not.

Oops! and damn. Although maybe it was Freudian because Princess Sparklepony makes me think of horses.

I'm genuinely interested in any links to articles that think Clinton got off easy or that Trump was treated unfairly last night.

I certainly agree that attributing all the success or failure of the economy to the President is ridiculous. There are lots of other factors. My only point was that claims that the economy in recent years is a total disaster are wrong. It could certainly be better, and there's no certainty that where it's at is primarily attributable to Obama or Dem policies. But let's build from where we are rather than tossing it all and starting over as some are thinking. The economy likes a steady hand and gradual change.

Shouldn't a black man at least get 3/5 of a gun? :-)

Details here: https://t.co/Kwzl7YxLJM

Trump tends to define his own PR. I doubt this will be a blip in all the crap that's gonna go down.

My apologies. I could be dead wrong. He could have spent lots of time studying this and then chose deliberately to misrepresent the facts. So yeah, you're absolutely right. It's more accurate to say he was either hasty or lying. Thanks for the clarification. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/06/the-inaccuracies-in-donald-trumps-air-force-one-tweet/

Agreed, it does send a message. Just a toothless one.

Even if it was already afire, isn't it better to put it out and work to rebuild the damage rather than running out for marshmallows and Hershey bars?

And Flint actually supports the case. It was such an unthinkable tragedy because everyone assumed clean water was table stakes.

This seems to proceed from a false choice--that you have to choose gov't or capitalism. Either one, as the only choice, would be horrible for the vast majority of us. Yes, capitalism created the prosperity that afforded the opportunity to create the infrastructure "floor" we enjoy. But unfettered capitalism would not have built the floor. Nor would gov't controlled industry have created the prosperity. It's all about balance, which is the core point. I'm not advocating that we're at the optimal balance point, just that nuking one side of the scale doesn't get us there.

Agree. Which is why I think Congress won't let him implement a lot of the nationalist economic policies.

Well, certainly "undocumented". Unfortunately, legal though. And the "extreme vetting" process of that time was basically, "Are they the right color?" and "Is there still room on the boat?"

The comical aspect of this is the notion that even if microwaves could be repurposed as spy tech, Trump would ever be close enough to one for it to matter.

Ok, I'll bite. What don't they get?

Fair point. And part of me does feel bad for these folks as individuals. And I don't remotely mean to gloat. But as a group, there is an aspect to their plight which is self inflicted. It's not like this is an isolated mistake. We all make those. But the last couple decades have shown a repeated pattern of people voting against their own self interest. I'm still determined to fight for these people, but part of me thinks we can only help them once we let them live for a bit in the world they so desperately want to live in so that they'll stop fighting the aid.

Yeah, you're probably right. I mean sure, it's worked in pretty much every other developed nation on the planet. But the US is probably too corrupt to pull it off. Except for Medicaid. Oh, and Medicare. Maybe the VA. But those are small programs that would never scale. So yeah, the gov't could never.

So why, in all these years, hasn't the free market done that? Why is per capita health cost in the US twice that in the rest of the world?

Ok, so has free market healthcare ever been a success anywhere? Ever? And if the core issue is health worker pay, how does free market solve that?

I agree that just because something works in Country A it won't necessarily succeed in Country B. But that's not where we're at. Every western economy starts with free market solutions to any market. Every other one but us has wound up implementing some form of gov't supplied health care or insurance because the free market failed to meet the need. As a result they have healthcare delivering similar outcomes to every citizen at about half the per capita cost in the US. It works -everywhere- else. Free market healthcare has worked no where else. Even here, Medicaid and Medicare exist because the free market failed to meet the needs of the elderly and the poor. The gov't didn't create these programs because they wanted to control a market that was otherwise working as desired via private enterprise. I'm not condemning the free market. In the vast majority of cases it works great and should always be the default. But where the free market fails to produce an essential product at a quality and a cost needed by the people, the gov't needs to step in. First to regulate, and failing that, to take over the service. That's the point of gov't. It balances capitalism. It fills the voids that the free market lacks incentive to fill.

At what cost, is probably the right question, but aimed the other way. If we think everyone should get care, then let's do it in a way that that works efficiently at a fraction of the cost. If we think they don't, then let's act that way. Stop treating people who can't afford it. This is about cost. Paying more for less seems absurd.

And I'm curious, do you have anything backing up your assertion that European GDP and unemployment are related to their healthcare systems? I've not heard that before.

Early reports are saying few or no casualties. This was a bloody nose for Assad. No more. Ok. He had that coming. But it's not going to change his behavior. At best, this was theater. At worst, it's a prelude to a deeper military involvement in the Middle East--again. Repeat after me. "What's wrong in the Middle East will not, cannot, be solved through military might."

Maybe. But not having access to healthcare might make you less able to work. And if this was a significant issue, it seems it would show up in the countries that do have universal care.

Perhaps, but historically it was industry's need of an educated workforce that drove adoption of the public education system we have today.

That's what Nixon thought. That worked out okay, right?

Yes. Google the Saturday night massacre. It lead directly to his downfall.

You know what they say about those who are ignorant of history... He's about as ignorant as you can get.

That was Nixon's Gambit. He assumed he could shut down the investigation. Instead he got an even angrier special prosecutor. Hopefully Trump is on the same glide path.

Disclose confidential info? Yes. Although on a technicality he can unclassify any info he wants, so he can retroactively unclassify it.

You may want to do some more research. It's been confirmed by multiple news outlets, and this morning Trump basically confirmed it with his own Tweets.

Feel free to elaborate on your point.

Ok, I get your point. But business doesn't actually work that way in general. Marginal projects don't get shelved because of lack of cash. They get shelved because they're marginal and Shareholder's would rather have dividends. Not to mention, there are lots and lots of companies currently sitting on lots and lots of cash. If these projects were just waiting for funding, they'd already be off the shelf.

Further, none of this addresses the demand side. Sure, some of these projects might be to increase profit margin on existing products. No demand change needed for those. But if I'm going to sell more widgets or a new kind of widget, I need demand. Adding a cash infusion to a business doesn't change the market in a direct enough way to justify the investment.

Incremental market demand. You're not going to build more widgets unless you can sell more widgets.

Maybe. The "daughter" was 20 yrs old, so everyone involved here was an adult. The "attack" involved hair pulling and shoving, so no one was in obvious life threatening danger. And this was in a Wal-Mart, not some dark alley late at night. The gun seems an over-reaction. Yes, she didn't shoot, but when someone points a gun at you, you assume they intend to. If she had pulled that gun out, aimed at another shopper, and an off-duty cop was nearby, she'd have been justifiably shot by the cop.

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as a situation that demanded a weapon. They were inside a crowded store. Yes, it seems the gun did end the situation in this case, but imagine the chaos if everyone involved had also been armed. Who was the good guy and who was the bad guy here? Yeah, the daughter got her hair pulled, but it seems she tried to grab the notebook in the first place. At what point is brandishing a gun warranted? And by whom?

And while yes, guns can be used as a deterrent, that only works because the person at the business end assumes you'll actually use it. So anytime you pull it out, its fair to treat this is a situation that warranted the use of deadly force. Whether you pulled the trigger or not, you would have.

Had this headline read instead, "Three killed in Wal-Mart shootout over school supplies" would you still be defending this? Because this easily could have been the alternate ending to this tale.

The issue is that the growth projected by Corp tax cuts comes from the $$ the new employees inject into the market. That's where the incremental demand comes from. But the demand doesn't materialize from one's own employees. It comes from the aggregate of all the new employees. So lots of companies have to make this investment for many of them to see the demand show up. That's a pretty indirect relationship to get any one company to invest.

If latent demand was there, but I lacked the capacity to produce goods, or if I knew how to cut my costs to take market from my competitors, those projects would largely be funded already. Most big companies are not presently cash constrained. I would already have the capacity to invest in things I was pretty sure would make me money.

I'm not arguing that cash infusions through tax reductions wouldn't cause a change in the businesses. But the standard line on why we need to spend this money is because it will create jobs, jobs, jobs. For this to be worth it, the job creation has to be significant. Stimulus should see a solid economic return. Otherwise you're just handing out cash. What I'm saying is there is no direct line causality between injecting this cash and seeing companies hire more or raise existing wages. There aren't solid data correlations for this effect either. Do we need tax reform? Sure. Will dropping the tax rate result in a boon to consumers through jobs and wages? Highly doubtful. If anyone wants to argue it will, I need someone to connect the dots for me to explain how that works.

I'm not remotely defending the current tax policy. I rather like the idea of a consumption tax or VAT type model. My only point is that cutting corp. taxes doesn't lead to significant economy boosting job creation. There may be lots of other good reasons to restructure taxes. This just isn't one of them.

I haven't studied it in detail, but the stock going up makes sense. I don't see why actual wages would go up. But there could be factors that tweak other levers that cause effective purchasing power or disposable income to go up. If that's the real wage they are talking about, then maybe. It depends on where you recover the tax revenue from. And I don't see why GDP leaps. The article doesn't seem to say why any of this stuff happens. Just that it will.

No, but okay. It makes the assertion "Higher capital per worker means higher labor productivity and, thus,
higher real wages." As this is your reference, please translate that and explain why that extra capital gets spent as increased wages (presumably in after the new wage tax dollars).

Thanks. So this is confirming my earlier supposition. Wages don't change, but the purchase power does. I'm still unclear on why tax changes have this effect. Why does it drive a productivity change? Either way, it's not an assertion that it drives job growth. But as I said before, there may well be other economic benefit.

Ok. Fair point. That likely would drive demand, which could in turn drive job growth. So... I guess we now have to understand why tax code changes drive productivity. Do you?

Curiously, this kind of loops us back to the start, where I'm not sure the theory comports with reality. The theory is contingent on companies sitting on all these viable projects they just don't have funding for. In such a world, yes, suddenly having more operating capital would see the launch of lots of new business opportunities. But lots of larger companies have seen huge cash boons over the last decade. They are sitting on lots of the stuff. The point of the original article is that by and large what they are doing with the cash is buying back stock, compensating executives, and paying dividends. None of this has the desired economic growth effect.

My personal experience is that making business cases to execs is difficult. Especially with large companies, they are risk averse, regardless of the amount of cash on hand.

So yes, I get the theory. I just don't see any indication business actually works the way the model predicts.

Stop it. You're playing at reductio ad absurdum, and you know it doesn't work that way. For corporate tax cuts to be effective policy, it has to influence most of the players in the desired direction. That it might help a few is nice for them, but generally a lousy return on our investment as a society. There would be better ways to use the money.

I spent years working on business cases for offshoring operations for different companies. Tax rate never came up as a factor. Remember, the effective rate most large companies pay is nowhere near 35%. The US is a top destination for foreign investment. Companies (by and large) are cash rich now, and have been for most of the last decade. And there are other ways of getting foreign profits repatriated other than slashing domestic rates. Many of these are not permanent conditions, and certainly there are companies that are exceptions to the above. But cutting tax rates in the current economy doesn't get you the aggregate boost in jobs its purporters claim.

What I'm assuming you know doesn't work is making reductionist arguments at the extreme. I've never asserted there would be 0 benefit, or that there would be no reinvestment. Further, I've never argued foreign profits shouldn't be repatriated or that that the tax code shouldn't be simplified and have loopholes closed so that the actual and effective rates were closer. What I'm asking you to stop is asserting I'm claiming things I've not said. That doesn't seem unreasonable. My claim here is only that reducing corporate taxes won't result in an economy changing boon of jobs or higher wages.

Your fresh water study assumed that taxes were reformed such that tax revenues remained constant. I'm not sure I believe their numbers (8-10% GDP growth is huge), but directionally, I'm in favor of tax reform and simplification. I think taxing income is too complicated and it has spawned an army of accountants, lawyers, and gov't agencies that are pretty much wasted money. I don't think we're disagreeing on any of that. But I also haven't seen any real-world proposals for tax reforms that come anywhere close to this.

What passes for tax reform inevitably manifests as rate cuts resulting in lower tax revenue. The net for companies isn't a change in incentives, it's "Here's more cash". My point is that absent any change in incentives or the market, there's not a good case for executives to spend that windfall on new factories, new product lines, or other economy boosting investments as opposed to stock buybacks, bonuses, and dividends. Once you start futzing with other levers, then the incentives and the business cases change. Note that I'm not saying none of the money will be spent usefully, but for this to an economy changing program, most of it needs to be.

My personal experience, the article that started this whole thread, and the state of Kansas all stand in testament to the real world not bearing out the economic theory that these cuts produce job growth. There are ample models both for and against tax cuts as an economy booster. But corp execs don't read economic papers. Their decision making process is pretty simple and often pretty short term focused.

Again, I'm not at all saying there aren't ways to incent investment or that the current tax structure is doing the economy any favors. Only that simply slashing rates doesn't yield the desired effect.

Sorry, but Trump is incapable of bringing attention to a situation, only himself.

Yes, and they can also form a cogent sentence. This guy ain't them.

For reference, this screenshot is for a typical ISP in Portugal, a country without Net Neutrality. Note how Internet access is priced. It's by the services you want access to. Also note that the ISP's music, video, and email service is included in the base. But if you want access to Spotify, Netflix, and GMail, well that's an extra 15 Euros/mo. It's beyond naive to think that something like this can't happen here.

Yes, not #FakeNews

I think that was part of it. I think part was also that voters think (perhaps unconsciously) that no matter what they do at the polls, the system just veers a little left or right, but never goes off the rails. Hopefully this is at least a wake-up call that elections really do have consequences.

I'm curious... Having seen Trump in action for a 1yr now, if you could wave a magic wand, would you swear in Trump instead of Obama back in '08 for an 8-yr term? Do you think we'd be better off today if that had happened?

Well, you guys are clearly eager for and deserve whatever the next few years bring. I hope it's something wonderful, or at least Fox News is able to convince you it is.

The Fox comment was uncalled for. More triggered by Mike who seemed to be singing from their hymnal. Apologies.

I'm open to being horribly wrong. Maybe unregulated capitalism will protect workers and the environment. Maybe tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Maybe closing out borders won't isolate us from the world and deplete our population and talent pool. However, I don't think history, math, and human nature support those outcomes. I'm okay being wrong, and I'll gladly grant you guys credit if I am. Best of luck.

Unfortunately Mike, we are in a situation where useful dialog isn't really possible because we don't share enough reality. I doubt we disagree substantively on what we want for the country. We likely disagree on what policies will get us there, but that could be a useful discussion topic. However, and most importantly, we disagree on what's actually happening and/or has happened. That's problematic. Without a shared reality, conversation just becomes noise. I know you think I live in fake news land, and I think you live in a conservative bubble. History will judge one of us poorly.

In broad stokes, I want a stable country with a thriving economy, where everyone lives in relative safety and has the opportunity to better their lot through hard work and talent. I want infrastructure and policy in support of businesses, but with a focus on long term growth and sustainability over short-term profit. I want us to be a leading force in the world in terms of technical innovation and economic prowess, backed by a strong military and diplomatic core to exert stability and protect our national interests. And you?

They can ask... 😀

1. Really not sure what you're asking here.
2. I assume you're suggesting that what drives the high mass shooting rate in the US is a cultural failure of people to be responsible. I suppose it's a possibility. I've never seen any data showing US citizens are significantly more irresponsible. Do you have a source?
3, Switzerland is on the high end of gun violence, but still nowhere near the US. The Swiss also have extremely restrictive gun laws and mandatory military training. Yes, lots of homes have assault weapons. But they don't have ammo. That's kept in a central munitions repository. The US adopting Swiss-style laws sounds like an excellent 1st step. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Meaning there are violent people everywhere, and they are going to try to harm people. Not providing them access to guns to increase their kill rate would seem to make good sense.

Ok, so I think you're point is that people intent on mass murder will find a way regardless of the method. If this is true, we should see that mass murder (by any means) in all similar countries is roughly equal (adjusting for population). That might be reasonable. Anybody have any data that supports that?

This is data for intentional homicides (any means). This should include mass murder, but doesn't break it out. The US is still way above other developed countries, but middle of the pack overall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Moore is a very strong advocate of gun control, so I think it's unlikely he thinks firearm regs are not part of the solution, but I take your point. An additional cultural point he emphasizes is that so much of being American is based on fear. Fear sells. We are inundated with marketing of ideas and goods based on fear.

What I have trouble reconciling is that so much of our media is also consumed by other countries. You would expect that countries like the UK and Canada would trend with us on the mass murder scale given the overlap of media. But they don't.

So what aspect of US culture that we don't export to other countries would be driving this?

So if those numbers were available, how would/might that change things?

But why? How would you interpret that? Let's say that 85% of MMs use legal guns worldwide. What does that tell you? Or make up whatever assumption you want. What are you looking for or speculating?

So would you be speculating that the US has more access to illegal guns than other countries and that's why our MM rates are so high?

I did discover that the UK has rules expressly forbidding ads that play on anxiety. Maybe something like that would help here. Although I think we'd have to figure out how to extend that to political ads and news coverage. That's a dicey area to regulate, but directionally seems a reasonable goal. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/marketing-fear-using-dread-sell-everything-cleaning-products-deodorants/927623

That's not quite how it works. There's no such thing as "all the data" on any topic. There was a question posed: "Why is the US MM rate so much higher than other comparable countries?" We than make hypotheses about that and determine what data proves or disproves a hypothesis. You're suggesting we collect specific data. There needs to be a reason for that. You are hoping that data supports or debunks a hypothesis. I'm asking what that hypothesis is, and how you will interpret the data to prove/disprove it.

I think you're misreading the initial article's data. Look at the 2nd chart. It plots guns/capita to mass shooters/capita. This is population adjusted data. In fact, most of the data presented is statistically adjusted for country size (albeit, not the 1st chart). So now that you have the data, do you wish to take a stab at the initial question? Why is the rate of MMs in the US so starkly out of line with the rest of the world?

Interesting. You are essentially calculating a ratio of MM/gun, leaving the people side out of it. It does seem the data shows that France has a significantly higher (43%) mm/gun ratio than the US. Canada is 21% lower. Meanwhile Afghanistan is 1471% higher and Iraq is 72% lower. What do you think we should conclude from this?

Sure, this would seem to say there's low correlation between raw number of guns and raw number of MMs. But you were emphasizing just a few posts ago how important it was to consider per capita data. Then you factored that out. I think your data combined with the original shows that guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Thank you!

Sam Nunberg. Not sure if he's his type, but they're clearly cut from the same cloth.

You've just crossed over into... The Tinfoil Hat Zone (Ba-Pa-Bum)

Agree. Business ethics at the organization level is an oxymoron. But at the professional level, perhaps Comp Sci's need to act more like doctors, physicists, biologists, civil eng's and consider if their talent is being used ethically. Great Twitter thread on that here: https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016

Absolutely. The point is, you can tell. So merely opening the case or doing something unrelated shoudln't void the warranty.

The "FBI" never said that. Peter Strzok, an FBI agent, said that. There were also several agents in the NYC FBI office who were openly anti-Hillary. The recent IG investigation concluded the FBI showed no organization bias.

Assuming you consider Russia a hostile foreign power, the Senate Intel Comm, CIA, NSA, and several other US Intel agencies as well as private company investigations from Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. all have concluded, publicly, that Russia interfered in Trump's favor. It is still unproven that Trump coordinated with Russia on this, but that's a different accusation.

Keith Mosher Yes, she was (I should have included her name too). But this was a private conversation, not a public statement. She was not speaking for the FBI. The FBI reprimanded her by reassigning her to HR and she since resigned as a result of this. The FBI as an organization clearly did not sanction her opinion, nor did she ever assert her statement was the position of the FBI.

Stay on topic... Rational discussion gets quickly lost if we spin off into unrelated tangents. You are asserting (I believe) that the personal bias of 2 FBI employees was evidence that the organization as a whole exhibited that bias. The recent DOJIG report explicitly refutes that in some detail. If evidence exists the IG report is wrong, then feel free to point us to that.

Would you care to be specific? Maybe cite a reference with evidence of your claim?

Ok. Yes, Steele is British (foreign) and was indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign. This is widely established fact. I guess I'm missing your point.

Those blinded by propaganda are rarely aware of their affliction, and often assume it is the rest of the world that is confounded.

These two were reprimanded and removed from the investigation as soon as the boss was uncovered. Meanwhile, multiple agents at the NYC field office we're openly insubordinate and leaked classified materials to Congress in an effort to tank Clinton. As far as I know, nothing has happened to them. Comey's pre election announcements likely cost Clinton the election. Nothing was said by the FBI against Trump during the election. What about this looks like an organizational boss against Trump?

*bias not boss...

Yeah, except they aren't. Illegal immigration peaked on '07 and has been dropping until this year. There's very little evidence MS-13 members are entering the country in any significant numbers. They are successfully recruiting domestically among unaccompanied minor refugees, a population Trump just increased with his zero-tolerance and child separation policy. But the vast majority of gang members were born here. Yes, there are bad immigrants. But statistically they commit major crimes at far lower rates than us natives. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/07/donald-trump/immigration-ms-13-and-crime-facts-behind-donald-tr/

Either way, you're in danger of publicly exposing your bits. 😁

In 2017, we imported over $17B of goods from Russia, including about $9B in fuel. If he's opposed to that, I haven't heard anything about it. Or is it that Russia isn't our enemy so it's ok? https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/product/enduse/imports/c4621.html

In 2015, broadband was reclassified under FCC Title II (same as phone companies) which required that connectivity be provided without regard to what was being connected to (essentially "net neutrality"). That was repealed in Dec, 2017 and broadband is again Title I, which basically allows for throttling, blocking, paid prioritization, etc.

Yes. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the meddling was to help Trump and hurt Clinton. Further, Putin confirmed during the press conference he wanted Trump to win. Some are saying he also confirmed that he instructed his people to help Trump win, but I think his meaning on that is less than clear.

Gary Hutchison A lot of the evidence is public. Quite a bit is detailed in the 30pg indictment.Mueller's office undoubtedly has lots more, but such evidence is never made public mid-investigation. That's just SOP.

Keith Mosher keep in mind that this is not just the conclusion of DOJ. It's the same conclusion reached by the CIA, NSA, DIA, and other intel agencies. It's the same conclusion the GOP controlled Senate reached. It's been corroborated by foreign gov'ts.

Keith Mosher Look at this another way. If all these organizations concluded there was a likelihood a passenger jet would get shot down next week we'd already be closing airports.

Then this should be very regular beer...

Printed guns will be unreliable and not hold up to repeated firings. The printer tech isn't there. Yet.

That was an epic bit of rationalization. "Yeah, yeah, that's it. I meant it as a joke."

Worth noting that in this case (and in the Ramirez case) other people were told at the time the assaults occurred. In all cases, people knew about the attacks years before Kavanaugh hit the national stage. It wasn't the police, but this still lends a lot of credibility to the allegations.

Well, the FCC made the national rules, then abolished them. I understand the FTC might have some say here too, but I'm unsure where the line is. Curious why that means the states lose control though? The EPA has emissions regs and CA has had even tougher ones in place for decades. My understanding was that the states couldn't violate the federal law, but then can augment it. Seems that's kinda what's happening here.

Could be. I'm unsure of the specific wording of the FCC rules, CA's rules or the basis of the suit. I'll have to wait for a good analysis. I'm arguably not wading through 100's of pages of statutes to sort this out myself!

Here's some more (arguably not unbiased) info on the CA lawsuit. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. It seems to hinge on whether the federal gov't can legislate a lack of regulation. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181001/06195740756/dojs-new-net-neutrality-lawsuit-is-giant-middle-finger-to-state-rights-consumers-competition-democratic-process.shtml

We clearly disagree on the definition of "more done".

I see that 80% number a lot. It seems to be attributed to the CDC circa 2012, but I can't find any source data that indicates that. What I do find is that gang homicides average about 2k/yr. Almost all of those are gun-related (which is about twice the average for non-gang homicide). There are about 12k/yr gun homicides total, so that's <20% gang-related. That's no trivial number, but it's not even close to 80%. Not to mention about 60% of gun-deaths are suicides. And I'm unsure what any of this has to do with terrorism or Democratic city admins. https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

Got a link to the data??

Um, how do you figure? Hillary was the subject of 9 Benghazi investigations and they are still chanting "lock her up" for the email mishandling despite being cleared by the FBI. Bill was impeached. Obama's repeated denials of being Kenyan or Muslim didn't deter Trump or his followers. I could be wrong, but exactly when did their denials let them off without investigation or consequence?

The FBI cleared her twice. https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/index.html

And I'm not at all suggesting Dems don't deny charges or lie. But I'm not able to come up with examples where denials have been just been accepted without further official inquiry. Trump has repeatedly accepted denials at face value: Roy Moore, Kavanaugh, Ailes, O'Reilly, Lewendowski, Porter, Putin, and now MBS. And he's adamant his own denials of collusion, sexual assault, etc. should similarly be accepted without further ado. Where's the Dem precedent for this? Who did he learn this from? Am I missing something here?

True, but the law doesn't require tangible results. Fraudulent fortune telling is expressly illegal. There's not a lot of daylight between staring into a crystal ball and saying, "I see you coming into great wealth," and most of what Prosperity Theology professes.

Who knew Louis Jordan was Canadian??

From what I'm seeing, over 1700 have applied for asylum in Mexico. Mexico did offer some sort of temporary work program to some, but not sure how many. However, international asylum laws don't require that you seek asylum from the next adjacent country. Why are you thinking it's political? Just from an economic standpoint, if you had a choice between resettling in the US or Mexico, where would you want to go? Of course, if I had to walk 1000mi to get to the US, Mexico would start to look pretty attractive. Which is why the actual number who will arrive at the Texas border will be a small fraction of the few thousand who started out.

And Michigan sends the 1st Muslim woman to Congress!

Just because it's a step in normalizing LGBTQ people as regular folks and not as some outside group. The same reason a black President was a big deal, and a woman President will be someday as well.

True. But it seems unlikely he got the job because he was gay. And if he's a lousy governor, it won't be because he's gay.

I have no words...
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/1060680647641952256

Um... the point is not Ivanka's emails. It became apparent during the 2016 campaign that use of private email was widespread across the gov't regardless of party. The point is the hypocrisy of Ivanka's emails, If hers don't matter, why did Hillary's? And don't say because Hillary's were classified. Her use of private email became a major thing long before anyone knew what was in them. And we don't know what was in Ivanka's either. And BTW, Ivanka's lawyers are sorting through the email to determine what should be turned over to the gov't. Just like Hillary's lawyers did.

Actually no. It is against gov't regs to not record all gov't business over email on a gov't server. Both ivanka and Hillary violated this. It isn't criminal, but is a violation. Clinton was raked over the coals for this alone for months before the FBI ever uncovered any classified email. No one is defending Clinton. The "fake news" gave her a ton of shit for it along with the GOP. Hillary was wrong for ever using the private server. As far as is known, Hillary's violation was more egregious. But Ivanka's dad ran on how wrong this was. And now both she and her husband have been busted for doing the same thing. It's the hypocricy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907

Maybe look at this a different way... let's assume the difference is just that Hillary had classified info in her private email. The only reason we know that is because her server was turned over to the FBI as part of an extensive FBI investigation into her use of email. Maybe none of Ivanka's and Jared's emails were classified, but we don't know. So, and check my math here, I think that means that if you're in the camp where the content of the emails is the difference, you have to be advocating for a full FBI investigation of Javanka's emails and server. Right?

I certainly agree that wasting money is bad, but doesn't that logic suggest we'd never investigate anything? After all, you don't know if there's a case until you investigate. Further, isn't the premise that Trump's DOJ doesn't suffer from the issues of Obama's DOJ? Didn't he fix that? So why wouldn't they act if they found something?

Fascinating. So, do I understand correctly that your position is that Democrats have destroyed the rule of law, therefore no one should have to comply? Do you think the GOP has a remedy for this or are we just to embrace the anarchy?

The entire FBI investigation was conducted by Obama's DOJ in 2015/2016 in response to stories published in the NYT and other MSM news media.

And kudos to Gowdy, but the whole point here is not about Hillary or the Dems. It's about the hypocrisy of anyone who chanted "lock her up" about Clinton, but is willing to dismiss Ivanka's email without a 2nd look. And this especially includes DJT who was apoplectic about Clinton's emails but has already declared Ivanka innocent. The left isn't particularly interested in locking Ivanka up over this. The outrage isn't over the emails. The outrage is over the hypocrisy. So if you want to refute the Left, then you need to show how this isn't hypocritical. We seem to have wandered away from that.

Quite a lot has been put on paper. Most of it goes nowhere. It hasn't for the last several admins. Reform is badly needed, but it's not going to get fixed in the next few weeks. He's waiting for that, we're all screwed.

Do you have a reference for either of them being "anti-gun"? And keep in mind that being for responsible gun ownership doesn't make you anti-gun any more than being a car guy makes you against driver's licenses.

Thanks, you've kinda made my point for me. Being opposed to civilians with assault weapons or being opposed to untrained people with concealed carry permits doesn't make you "anti-gun". Being pro pot legalization doesn't mean you think surgeons should be stoned at work. The whole point of appropriate regulation is to insure responsible people can enjoy a thing without compromising others' safety.

The slippery slope argument could apply to everything, as you say. But if you buy into that argument, it basically means government is untenable. If we let govt collect taxes why won't they confiscate all assets? Regulations are not evil. There can be bad ones, onerous ones, etc. But that doesn't make them all problematic. And none of them is just anarchy. It's about finding the right balance. We can disagree about where the best balance is, but that doesn't mean either of us is advocating for extremes.

Sure, as are others. It's marketing-speak for the next gen wireless tech. But there's no technical standard or even consensus at this point about what it actually is.

Brian Kayes I completely agree. It doesn't matter. Except to him. So at least this is a case where his failure can just be laughed at.

Does that really matter? If Trump rallies are inciting violence, isn't that a problem regardless of who's on the receiving end?

I'm not sure that's true Keith. I'm sure some would, but Dems seem to routinely turn on their own. Consider the fates of Al Franken, Anthony Wiener, Rod Blagojevich, John Edwards, Barney Frank, Eliot Spitzer. Compare them to Oliver North, Roy Moore, Mark Sanford, Tom DeLay. The right seem to rally around their guys while the left seems to sacrifice theirs on principle. There are exceptions, but there seem to be definitive trend lines here.

I assume you're referring to the F&F subpoena? If so, it took awhile, but the courts overruled the initial exec privilege claim (as they should have IMHO), and those docs were all released in 2014. https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

He was cited for contempt of Congress, but no charges were ever filed.

Fair enough. I editorialized a bit on the SCOTUS ruling.

Sorry, but I'm really unclear on your point. Are you advocating that the Mueller Report is just the airing of evil thoughts and crap that ran through people's minds?

I really encourage you to read it. I don't think it's what you're thinking it is.

It's mostly a continuation of the growth curve we've been on for 10 years, so not an anomaly. There are factors that tie to Trump's policies. A China trade deal looks more promising, but then he also started the trade war. Some is likely due to the corporate windfall from the tax cuts. Some probably due to Fed plan to stall rate hikes, which Trump favors, but I don't think it was done because it him. Admins always take credit for a good quarter. He should get to as well. If many of these get quarters get strung together, then we can say we're on a different curve, and cause may be more apparent.

As you note, it's too early. 2017/18 looks like 2014/15. If 2019 really stays high for the year then it looks more like something new.

Not sure what you mean. The gov't is supposed to be "we the people"

I don't have a person at this point. Just new blood. New ideas. Not promises to restore, but to build and grow.

I'm not pushing anything specific. Evolution is still forward. Revolution tends to be destabilizing, but there's a sweet-spot in there somewhere for stable progress. That's all. No larger message.

No, it's not equivalent, and not just because AOC doesn't lead the Dem party. You may think her ideas are idiotic or even that she's an idiot. But this isn't about Trump's policies or even his personality. So there's no equivalence there. This is not about Trump being a racist. This is about him using and stoking racism for political gain while almost the whole GOP either cheers or stands silently by. This is about being divisive; about being derogatory and dismissive of a large slice of citizens because they aren't white Christians; not only defining them as "others", but defining them as "less". If there's an equivalence for this on the left, I'm unaware of it.

This isn't a blue vs. red thing. This isn't an immigration thing. This is a people thing. This is about what it means to be a citizen of this country. The idea that we're all equal under the law is about as foundationally American as it gets. But Trump and the complicit GOP are pushing a different definition of "American". It's time to take a stand. And no, opposing the racism doesn't mean you have to embrace AOC or the Dems. You can hate the Red Sox and not be a Yankees fan. But if you keep showing up at Fenway, well... you get the idea.

Again, this has nothing to do with policy. Feel free to enlighten me on the Dem tactics and policies that divide citizens demographically. And I'm sure David Duke loves the country. It doesn't make him fit to be POTUS.

Kathy DeLorme Gowans Thanks, and kudos. You're owning the white nationalism. You've taken a side. Please wear your MAGA hat with pride.

Timothy Corbett Would you care to be specific? Maybe you could share your best example of a quote from one of "The Squad" exhibiting hatred, racism, and divisiveness?

Well, charges (Articles of Impeachment) have not been filed yet because we are still in the investigation phase. However, given that he has publicly admitted to seeking political favors from Ukraine, and this was corroborated by the WH's own call log as well as State Dept. employee text messages, his personal lawyer, and the Acting CoS, there is very little question a crime was committed (possibly up to 7 different felonies). This doesn't even consider him being an unindited co-conspirator in one of the crimes Cohen is already in jail for (also a felony), as well as multiple pretty clear counts of witness tampering and obstruction of justice (again, felonies). These are all situations where just the publicly known evidence would pretty much convict anyone who wasn't POTUS. I suppose you can argue that none of these crimes rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but remember that Clinton was impeached for a single instance of lying. So that ice is pretty thin. No one is looking for parking tickets here.

Much of the media are. And the proof is pretty damning. If you haven't read the call log and the text messages, you should. The public statements from the State Dept. people now testifying are also pretty damning. There's lots of evidence available directly for you to interpret without any media spin whatsoever.

It's important to recognize that the Bidens are not the other side of this coin. It's a separate coin. If there's evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens then that should be investigated and dealt with. But even if Joe Biden shot a guy on TV, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Trump committed crimes. If they are both guilty, then fine. They both go down. But it makes no sense for Trump to hide behind allegations that other people might be guilty as well. He's still accountable for his actions.

FWIW, if you'd like to start a separate thread on the Bidens, I'll be happy to address your questions there. But this thread is about Trump, and we can't allow "whataboutism" to drag us off on different topics.

Timothy Corbett No one claimed the article made a case for impeachment or conviction. It presents evidence that Trump's base is heavily influenced by Fox and the Evangelical church. The GOP Senate has been pretty reliably responsive to the base. Feel free to do your own math. If you have information to counter this, present it. If you just want to rant, then... well I guess you did.

Bill Dickerson Campaign Finance Violation, Bribery, Honest Services Fraud, Extortion, Witness Intimidation, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy. These are all crimes. There is at least some evidence Trump may have committed all of them. That does not mean he's guilty. But it means there's probable cause. That's how the Justice system works. Are you arguing that these aren't crimes or that Trump should be immune from investigation?

This is a reply to several different subthreads above, but I'm going to post this to the main thread rather than repeat it. Let's keep this focused. “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.” This is from the current FEC Chair, and she elaborates in a recent letter (http://bit.ly/2ByM35y). This is from the WH record of the call with Zelenskyy, "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ..."(http://bit.ly/2P5fMLg). Add to this the text messages (http://bit.ly/32E5WUm) from Trump's representatives in the region, where it's clear they are aware they are trying to thread a needle to keep the appearance of this legitimate.

None of what's above is partisan spin. These are Trump's own people and his admin's records. This alone does not prove guilt, but it more than clears the bar for probable cause for an investigation. And if you're thinking that's not true, please weigh it against the evidence for criminal wrongdoing by Biden, where you probably are advocating for an investigation.

That several of you are adamant there is no evidence, no crime, and nothing to see here strangely makes the case of the article. The support expressed for Trump is unwavering among the faithful, and it's clear that no amount of factual info is going to change that.

Maribeth Coffta I understand your concern, but I think this isn't a control or editorial decision as much as a business one. CNN sells its feed dirt cheap. It's why they are in most airports, hotels, etc. That's their marketing strategy. Fox, MSNBC, etc. cost more and so get put in pricier packages. Spectrum had benefited greatly from GOP policy. There's very little chance they have a hidden liberal agenda.

That's exactly the sort of "economic shock" I'm concerned about if this happens all at once. OTOH, keeping people in jobs is not really a good reason for the rest of us to absorb high HC costs. The economy adjusts to such changes, but it's best for that to happen slowly.

Lucky people, I guess.

FYI - this is not the way Clinton's trial went. Lewinsky testified (as did others) to the Senate.

This is a pretty good explainer of how it works. There's an awful lot of flexibility to structure it how you like as long as you can get 51 votes. But as you said, we'll need to wait and see. https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation

I don't think anyone would object to a legitimate unbiased investigation into the Bidens/Ukraine. But maybe it's worth asking why such an investigation is not already in progress? The events in question largely took place in 2015. They weren't secret. Biden's Ukraine deal was done with full knowledge of the gov't, our allies, and was widely covered by the press at the time. The GOP House could have objected/investigated, but did not. Trump has been in power for 3 years. DOJ could have opened an investigation. They didn't. They still haven't. The only "investigation" going on is by Giuliani. That's a curious provenance for a legitimate investigation. No?

True, but the GOP is both asserting the need for the investigation and has the power to conduct it via legitimate channels. The Dems might claim the investigation was unfair, but the GOP hasn't started it nonetheless. That is, unless the argument is that the GOP isn't investigating because they are worried the Dems won't find it credible, but that kinda doesn't pass muster as a reason.

Well that took the wind out of my sails... https://www.vox.com/2019/12/20/21031568/christianity-today-trump-evangelicals-editorial-removal?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about hating Trump or what he's done to me. It isn't personal. This is about the most corrupt admin in modern history and a President who is, at best, inept at his job. This is about the country. It's about democracy. It's about the rule of law, I get that many will never see it that way. But that doesn't make it untrue.

As I said before, this isn't about me. Relative to the country: He's tried to extort a foreign gov't to advantage him politically. He's started a trade war with China that has driven up prices, hasn't increased US mfg, and has badly damaged the farming industry requiring him to bail them out financially. He ordered the assassination of a member of a foreign gov't without cause or authorization, further exacerbating regional tensions already escalated by backing out of the JCPOA. That's 3.

The Bidens are a red herring. If there was wrongdoing by either of them I'm completely fine with them being investigated, prosecuted, and jailed. This would all start with DOJ opening an investigation to make a case. As of yet, they haven't. Why? Because Barr is unwilling? That seems unlikely. If there were a case to be made, there's every motivation for DOJ to pursue it. Also, even if the Bidens were already in jail, it doesn't have any bearing on the current Trump impeachment. Their guilt wouldn't make him innocent.

You really need to spend more time with the actual evidence that exists. What you're explaining is not what the evidence shows. If you or I were President, and the same evidence existed against us, we would be impeached. And we should be.

If Biden did something wrong, DOJ should open an investigation. If there's evidence to convict, he should be. Since he's not a sitting gov't official, this isn't a Congressional oversight question. Even if he's crooked as hell, that has no bearing on the charges made against Trump. Trump's guilt is in no way contingent on Biden's innocence.

There are channels for law enforcement organizations to get investigative aid from other countries. This happens all the time. If there was an FBI investigation and they needed help from Ukraine, they could have and should have asked. It's inappropriate for this to start with a Presidential request, and illegal to withhold Congressionally approved aid as a lever. And yes, it would have been just as wrong for Obama to do this. Also, the US goes to great lengths to not subject its citizens to foreign justice. If Ukraine indicted you, it's unlikely we'd extradite you without some sort of domestic investigation (if at all). And if you committed a US crime involving Ukraine, it would be wholly wrong to ask Ukraine to lead on the investigation. The process shouldn't be different for Biden.

The GOP has completely controlled the DOJ for 3 years. Even if you think the Dems were preventing an investigation under Obama, the only reason to not have one now is that there's no actual cause for one.

The other evil-brilliant operative aspect to this is it gets in front of Bolton's book and all the other new info that will doubtless come to light for as long as Trump is President. He can't be prosecuted. He can't be impeached. The only possible check on him is the threat of prosecution after his term is up... assuming that's still a thing.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Most people convicted of murder don't admit to their intent, but are still convicted. Still, even Sen Alexander admits the evidence presented shows he did it in part for political purposes (tweet 3/15 in the thread). Also, allegedly John Bolton heard him actually admit it, but I guess we'll need to wait for the book.

GAO classified the aid hold as a crime. He's an unnamed co-conspirator in the case Cohen is currently in jail for. Mueller had him on multiple counts of obstruction. He's almost certainly violated the emoluments clause. There's probable cause for tax fraud. I suppose one possibility is that the House just takes this as guidance, goes back and opens another impeachment investigation, and calls the WH bluff on releasing witnesses and docs. Then comes back with a list of crimes. Pretty sure that would work. Pretty sure that's not what the Senate was recommending.

Maribeth Coffta We've been 'round this barn before. If there's evidence against Biden, DOJ should open an investigation. If he's guilty, put his ass in jail. There's a process for this that the GOP has controlled for 3 years. There's no precedent for asking a foreign gov't to open an investigation into a US citizen. The US investigation may consult with and involve a foreign gov't, but that's not what happened here.

Bill Dickerson Yes. There treaty provides that they will help in our investigations and vice versa. If we had an investigation, DOJ could have requested Ukraine's help. No problem. That's not what happened. We didn't and don't have an investigation for them to help with.

Also, if this was being done under the cooperation treaty, why was it necessary to threaten then to get them to "cooperate"?

There is no clear consensus on the legal facts of his right to attack at will. By convention, POTUS always informs Congress except when there is an imminent situation (which this wasn't—and that's why it matters). POTUS is widely acknowledged to have broad latitude to execute limited strikes. But by cutting Congress out, it effectively gives POTUS the right to declare anyone an enemy and have the military take them out. There's a lot of gray area here. We need POTUS to be able to respond as the situation demands, but he still needs to be accountable, and that's Congress' job. It's insufficient to consider that everything that's not strictly illegal is just fine and dandy.

It would be a double standard, IF other Presidents did the same thing. Remember, while Soleimani was a bad guy, he was also an Iranian gov't official, a country we are not at war with. Please feel free to cite a previous example of a POTUS using overt military action to take out someone in the gov't of a country there is currently no Congressional authorization for use of force against, and no imminent threat from. Maybe I'm missing something.

Don't constrain yourself to just real numbers. You need to be thinking in hyperreal math. Sure, ignorance may be infinite, but you can always have larger infinities.

They've been using these in South Korea for at least a month. Very effective.

Keith Mosher Shhhhh...

In NY? Not much. But in other areas the scrubbing of voter roles, new voter registration and ID requirements, closing of voting locations, and shortening of voting hours have made it quite a bit more difficult over recent years.

It's the article attached to the post...

Amy Bielawski-Branch Many elections ultimately boil down to selecting the lesser of 2 evils. That Biden is the less evil is apparent regardless of whether he did this or not. But if true, it would be monumentally disappointing.

Brian Kayes I don't think that's true. I said, and Biden has said, that the claims should be investigated. She has made some verifiable claims about reporting harassment and filing a complaint. If those bear it, it makes her story more credible. In Kavanaugh's case the push was to not interview people and end the investigation quickly. How is that the same?

Brian Kayes Maybe compare this to E Jean Carroll's accusation against Trump. It's more recent than Kavanaugh's, and pits candidate against candidate. Is Trump calling for investigating anything?

I'm a bit unclear what you're defending here. It seems unreasonable to ask Biden to abide by investigation standards advocated by the left while Trump and Kavanaugh abide by standards of the right. If we go with the left, then Biden's investigation should continue, but so should investigations into Kav & Trump's multiple accusers. If we go with the right's standards, then Biden said he didn't do it, so we're done.

The left isn't giving Biden a free pass here. The right has control of the National archives where Reade's complaint should be filed. Biden's former staff has been open to interviews. What is it you're advocating for?

I appreciate your interest in fairness and justice. I guess I'm missing all the hypocrisy you're referring to. Sure, Biden has his ardent supporters, but so do Trump/Kav. I know from your other posts that you've been anxious for this story to hit the front page for weeks, and arguably, the MSM didn't bite on this as quickly as normal. But these aren't normal times. The media has been consumed with pandemic news, pretty much to the exclusion of any election news. But it's there now. The NYT has run multiple front page stories in the last week. Biden fans are calling for MSNBC's Chris Hayes to be fired over his coverage of the story. And this has been the lede on most every news show I've seen recently.

The breaking coverage of this has been comparable in scope to the recent E Jean Carrol rape accusation against Trump. But that story quickly faded into the background. Time will tell, but it seems far less likely this story will go away soon, if ever. The history here (Hillary's emails, Al Franken) suggests that absent Reade recanting the claim, this will be a persistent anchor around Biden. Which (if it happens) will be particularly ironic given all the outstanding sexual assault allegations against Trump and him running on the ticket that champions family values.

I'm pretty sure it's happened more recently than that. Still rare, but not entirely unusual.

Thomas Wiegand gotta give you that one. Well played.

I just Googled "Covid stats in India" and then for USA. They have 1.8% deaths/cases where we have 3%. They are also about 3 months behind us on the curve (based on when they hit the 20k cases mark) and their curve is trending up significantly. So they "have" a lower death rate, but it's unclear they will have had a lower rate when this is done. Also, they are a very different economy. Low testing rates, lots of slums, lots of highly urban and highly rural communities, unreported deaths, etc. So the quality of the data is suspect. Also, the state Mumbai is in is currently at a 3.2% rate, and Delhi at 2.7% So urban areas (where the data is presumably better) are not really doing better than us. It's probably best to compare to other OECD countries for a more apples-to-apples look at things.

Then there's a process for that, and it doesn't start by being pronounced guilty by POTUS. These accusations are 3+ years old. There have been multiple investigations on this by DOJ/FBI and not a single indictment. If there's a case to be made, convene a grand jury and have at it.

Bill Snyder No worries, if you put the belt across your face it doubles as a mask.

Bill Snyder I'm pretty sure most of these catchfarts think Albania is fictional.

🤣