Today many of us will sit down to a turkey dinner with all the trimmings in celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Football games and parades will be on our televisions. Yes, I admit it, that is what I am doing now, watching the Vikings/Lions game. But, before all of the commercialization, bounty, and ease, there was struggle, hardship, and hope for a freedom that was lacking in most people's lives. On this day perhaps we ought to remember how we came to be. Because we seem to be watching the slow dismantling of so many things put in place to afford us that bounty, ease, and freedom we hold so dear.
What follows is a short video of the first Pilgrims who, in their wisdom, put together an agreement to see them through the hardships they were to endure in their new world. It was really a lesson in working together for the greater good, which we could certainly use today. It is an old video, but I felt it got the point across very well.
To be followed shortly by "How Donald Trump ruined Christmas", "How Donald Trump grabbed Easter by the p*ssy", "How Donald Trump mangled Memorial Day", "How Donald Trump belaboured Labour Day". Four years is a lot of days to keep the whinge fest going. Better get creative.
Lynnette, sorry your Thanksgiving plans fell through. Hope you had good one. I've watched about half your video (in between writing an essay on XUV flares in M dwarfs -- just thought I'd mention that to get a rise out of Lee). I wonder does the video say as much or more about the time it was made than the time it portrays?
P.S. Obviously Thanksgiving is a non-event here. But judging by the fact that "Black Friday" has totally infected our shops and (as I mentioned) that Halloween is now about "trick or treating", I've no doubt that Thanksgiving turkeys will be on sale in a few years time. We'll have to retrospectively invent some Pilgrims to go with them. I think our first European settlers arrived about 9,000 years ago, so we can pretty much concoct whatever story we like about them without fear of contradiction ;-)
[Marcus]: "PeteS, feel free to weigh in here. When it comes to math and science in general I see you as the most proficient in this small circle we've got goin' here."
Why, how nice!
"You're a deluded liberal in many cases but you DO know math."
Oops. I spoke too soon.
"When the numbers are there I would think you're the most qualified person here to crunch them."
Ah, but the issue here is not really about the numbers. This is seen from yourself and Lee arguing cross-purposes (even on the rare occasions when he gets his numbers right. I see he's now giving us figures to seven decimal places, LOL. A reminder about the difference between precision and accuracy seems apt :-)
Ok, here's how it is. Before you crunch any numbers you have to decide what hypothesis you want to test. Here are three possibles (there may be more, but I think these cover the positions that three of us here would take).
You: the ratio of white people killed by black people to black people killed by white people multiplied by the ratio of white people to black people in the population. The first ratio involves two independent numbers whose ratio is no more significant than the ratio of million-dollar mortgages issued to Coca Colas sold. I think I know what you think it signifies but I think you are wrong. It's not a competition to see who can do the most interracial killings. We know black people commit more violent crimes in general so you would expect them to kill more of everybody. If you want to see who has the highest propensity to do an interracial homicide then ... well, we'll come to that when we get to me.
Lee: Lee has flip-flopped on what he's trying to measure since he got backed into a corner on his last bunch of nonsense figures. But his latest approach is to take the proportion of the white population killed by black people and compare it to the proportion of the black population killed by white people. That's not a very sensible number either. It does indeed yield the odds of being killed in an interracial killing depending on your colour ... but so what?
Me: I continue to believe that the figure Marcus thought he was coming up with was the propensity of people to carry out interracial killings. As far as I'm concerned the only way to do that is: for each demographic, look at the total number of killings they carry out. Then take the proportion of those which are interracial killings. This gives you the likelihood of an interracial killing independent of the absolute number of killings carried out by that demographic.
I can't vouch for the numbers because I long since ceased caring about the argument, but I think Marcus's article mentioned blacks being over 90% likely to be killed by another black person, but whites only being 80-something percent to be killed by another white person. Which presumably means there is a slightly higher ratio of interracial killings as a proportion of all killings done by black people than the same calculation done for white people. Not eleven times as Marcus computes, nor 2.5 times in the other direction as Lee computes. And there are all sorts of possible explanations for it, other than Marcus's "murderous black man" hypothesis which I put down to sloppy racism.
And, no Marcus; he's not gonna help you out with your math. He's not going that far into nonsense I don't reckon; too easy to call him on it. Ain't an allegiance to the truth that stops him, but it'd be too easy to call him on it if he tried to back you up, so he'll feign disinterest instead.
On a more gracious note… I will offer a suggestion you can actually use. If they're teaching you any math these days (gawd knows you could use that), you might have them explain the concept of ‛significant figures’ and how it differs from mere decimal placement. I think a functional acquaintance with the concept of ‘significant figures’ might have saved you from babbling on about ‘precision and accuracy’ above.
Moving right along to a subject with perhaps more potential… I notice that folks in Turkey are beginning to call for Turkey's withdrawal from NATO. I think this is probably not new, but it seems that the Turkish government isn't tamping down on the talk this time. Al-Monitor Personally, I would think it would be unwise to discourage such talk from the Turks. (Of course, I think we should begin preparations to withdraw ourselves, so I'm inclined to let the Europeans decide for themselves whether they want to remain allied up with the Turks.)
Pete: "Not eleven times as Marcus computes, nor 2.5 times in the other direction as Lee computes. And there are all sorts of possible explanations for it, other than Marcus's "murderous black man" hypothesis which I put down to sloppy racism."
But Pete. If blacks kill 500 whites in one year and blacks are 13% of the population. And whites kill 230 blacks in one year and whites are 65% of the population. How do you fault my math?
That any individual black is 11 times more likely to kill a white than any individual white is to kill a black in the USA in that given year?
I KNOW you are uncomfortable with some of these FACTS but they're still facts. Based on the stats we've got and crunched in numbers to show where we're at.
I'm dissapointed in you Pete, I thought you were about science, math and hard truths. Turns out you're just another ideologue after all.
"Moving right along to a subject with perhaps more potential… I notice that folks in Turkey are beginning to call for Turkey's withdrawal from NATO. I think this is probably not new, but it seems that the Turkish government isn't tamping down on the talk this time. Al-Monitor Personally, I would think it would be unwise to discourage such talk from the Turks. (Of course, I think we should begin preparations to withdraw ourselves, so I'm inclined to let the Europeans decide for themselves whether they want to remain allied up with the Turks.)"
I actually don't think this has much at all to do with "europeans". It's about the Turks feeling like NATO is suddenly siding too much with the Kurds. And the "eurpopeans" never ran NATO anyway.
That said, by all means, rid NATO of the Turks. They were only ever an ally of convenience against the Soviets anyway.
"They even managed to throw in a close call at the end."
They tried to lose that game a couple of times, but were not successful.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ These are not equivalent statements.
"1. …a white man is more likely to be shot by a black than vice versa."
"2. …any individual black is…more likely to kill a white than any individual white is to kill a black…"
Circle ten white men around a barrel with a fish and have them take turns shooting at the fish in the barrel. Odds approach 100% that the fish in the barrel will be shot by one of the men. Odds are only 10% that any individual man will shoot the fish in the barrel.
Actually it was rather pleasant. I watched the Vikings and had a more or less traditional dinner(turkey, potatoes w/gravy, baked squash, spinach salad, fresh cooked cranberries & a nice Chardonnay, with ice cream for dessert) with my Mom. After that we watched an old movie, Home Alone, which was listed as one of the top holiday films. It was relaxing.
I wonder does the video say as much or more about the time it was made than the time it portrays?
I don't know, I'd have to try to do some research on that. But it looks kind of like it was done sometime in the 1940's or so, judging by the black and white film. Actually that's kind of why I liked it. It has the appearance of age and given the subject matter it seemed appropriate from an artistic stand point. I took film appreciation in college and I think some of it rubbed off on me. ;) Not to mention it was short relative to others I saw. I got a little push back from the peanut gallery the last time I posted lengthy videos. lol!
But judging by the fact that "Black Friday" has totally infected our shops...
Oh! How horrible for you! My condolences. I was just out and about today doing some errands, but I managed to skirt around the edges of the well traveled malls and their congested parking lots. Although our Black Fridays have crept into our Thanksgiving Thursday with quite a few stores opening later in the day, there are still crowds to be found on Friday.
Now the grocery store is rather pleasant to visit after Thanksgiving. Nice and quiet. :)
They tried to lose that game a couple of times, but were not successful.
Yup, it's the story of the Vikings. When you're ahead try to get behind. Penalties work quite well for that. Although the one call for unsportsmanlike conduct on the QB was a little iffy. It looked like he was just flipping the ball, not actually throwing it at anyone.
That's the sort of temps we should be having. Instead I was scraping ice off the windscreen today. At least I discovered a use for the new student card ;-)
Didn't affect me in the slightest. I don't frequent busy shops any time, let alone Black Whatever. In any case, the last two Fridays have both been spent at funerals of young friends. Kinda puts shopping in perspective.
[Marcus]: "But Pete. If blacks kill 500 whites in one year and blacks are 13% of the population. And whites kill 230 blacks in one year and whites are 65% of the population. How do you fault my math? ... That any individual black is 11 times more likely to kill a white than any individual white is to kill a black in the USA in that given year?"
I'm more concerned with your conclusion than your maths. Suppose you go out hunting bison. But it turns out there are seven times as many antelopes as there are bison and you gotta shoot whatever's available. Seems natural that the thing that gets shot the most is the thing that's most available. Now suppose you are out hunting with your black best friend. He's a much better shot than you. But regardless of how many animals you each shoot, you are both gonna shoot mostly antelopes.
Keep your eyes peeled for a fight breaking out over who is or is not the ‘Acting Director’ of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The current director (until close of business today when his resignation became effective) appointed his chief of staff as Deputy Director. The Deputy Director becomes ‘Acting Director’ by operation of law when the current director resigns.
Shorthands just appointed somebody else as ‘Acting Director’ anyway, ‛cause he didn't want the one who'd already assumed that spot by operation of law. One more fight he really doesn't need, but now has. The courts will probably have to sort this one out.
Antelope are smaller, faster, are inclined to zig-zag when taking flight, and are much less likely to let ya get close enough to take a shot in the first place. This aside from them not being anywhere close to seven times as numerous.
[Lynnette]: "I don't know, I'd have to try to do some research on that. But it looks kind of like it was done sometime in the 1940's or so, judging by the black and white film. Actually that's kind of why I liked it. It has the appearance of age and given the subject matter it seemed appropriate from an artistic stand point."
I agree it looks older, but it's made in 1955. The professor of history from Northwestern University who consulted on it only died ten years ago. I imagine Northwestern in the 1950s was still a fairly conservative place in the mainline Methodist tradition. Although the Mayflower Pilgrims predate Methodism, they have vaguely similar roots in dissenting Protestantism. I can see why the film might be done with a bit of "soft focus".
Actually, the different strands of Protestant dissenters mostly hated each other. Within a generation of the Mayflower, their Puritan offspring were hanging Quakers on Boston Common. The most infamous Puritan in Ireland had his conversion experience just around the time of the second Mayflower. Interesting documentary here that explains why Thanksgiving might not have much traction in Ireland. Our memories of a Puritan plantation aren't quite as fond as in the US ;-)
In any case, the last two Fridays have both been spent at funerals of young friends. Kinda puts shopping in perspective.
It does indeed. I lost someone in August and I am finding that things, unless they are real needs, aren't really that important.
It's strange this subject came up, because I was just reading a book that touched on a less materialistic philosophy of life.
But Ben was different, and he made her see things differently. He had no desire to possess things or to accumulate wealth. It was enough, he said, that he was able to get himself from one place to the next. His parents had worked on archaeological digs in the Far East when he was a boy and he'd realized then that the possessions people coveted in he fleeting present were destined to disappear; if not to turn to dirt, then to lie buried beneath it, awaiting the curiosity of future generations. His father had unearthed many such items, he said, beautiful objects that would once have been fought over. "And they all ended up lost or discarded, the people who'd owned them dead and gone. All that matters to me are people and experience. Connection-that's the thing. That flicker of electricity between people, the invisible tie." The Lake House by Kate Morton.
I would probably modify that somewhat. I still believe that one needs to be able to take care of one's basic needs and to be able to have a little freedom to do things and experiences things. That does take some accumulation of wealth. But the stuff people trample all over each other to acquire isn't worth all that much.
But my sincere condolences on your losses. It's always hard to lose someone young.
Keep your eyes peeled for a fight breaking out over who is or is not the ‘Acting Director’ of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Yes, that's all over the news at the moment. I'm not sure if this guy (Trump) is just totally incompetent or really believes that the president governs by fiat.
Actually, the different strands of Protestant dissenters mostly hated each other. Within a generation of the Mayflower, their Puritan offspring were hanging Quakers on Boston Common.
How quickly they forgot. Sounds familiar. That documentary looks very interesting. I've run across Cromwell in various books, but haven't really had time to read enough about him. I will have to watch that when I have a little more time.
1955? Off by about 10 years. It was the black and white that threw me off. I suppose we were still in a transition period from black and white to color that took a little longer than I was thinking.
The ones who forgot were the Quakers; they forgot to avoid Boston. The Puritans would have hung Quakers earlier if they'd found any wandering around loose.
"... I was just reading a book that touched on a less materialistic philosophy of life."
Reminds me ... I've just been reading about fancy Advent calendars. When we were kids they were just cheap cardboard things where you opened a little door each day to reveal a picture. Apparently you can now spend $13,000 on a version that reveals a different rare whiskey every day. There are also expensive beauty versions, as well as cheaper chocolate or cheese ones. I got a bit of a laugh out of the promotion for an Advent calendar from Gregg's bakery, which did draw come complaints and got withdrawn (though probably less complaints than if you tried to replace Muhammad with a sausage roll :-)
"The recent attack on the mosque in Egypt comes to mind."
An apt analogy. I had thought about making it before. Contrary to the popular fables sold to grade schoolers, the Puritans weren't looking for religious freedom when they came here. They were looking to create a theocracy; their theocracy. They were the Christian Taliban of their day. Petes neglects to mention it, but they didn't like Catholics even more than they didn't like other Protestants. And they didn't like other Protestants more than most.
[Lynnette]: "Sad to say that sounds like something we hear of today. The recent attack on the mosque in Egypt comes to mind."
It's odd that some reportage has steered away completely from mentioning that this was a sectarian attack. The NYT mentions it was a Sufi mosque, but the BBC weirdly omitted it, even in a discussion about IS attacks on mosques being a new development. You would have thought it the number one most relevant fact in such a conversation. It's also interesting that IS's pet hates in the Muslim world are the sects that emphasise peace, justice and holiness, such as Sufism and Ahmadiyya. I guess they see pacifism as unwelcome competition for their brand of violent jihad.
It's odd that some reportage has steered away completely from mentioning that this was a sectarian attack.
Yes, they did mention it here, not just in the New York Times. The extremists don't like Sufis.
I was reading a book the other day, I know I know it's what I've been doing lately, but this was written by a Muslim who works for one of our law enforcement agencies and was instrumental in stopping a major attack in Canada. I think part of why he wrote the book was to try to make clear that for so many Muslims it is very painful what Daesh or AQ has done to their religion. He makes the point that within the Quran itself it explicitly says that "he who slays a soul on earth shall be as if he had slain all of mankind, and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind." But that is ignored by those who follow an extremist path.
Contrary to the popular fables sold to grade schoolers, the Puritans weren't looking for religious freedom when they came here. They were looking to create a theocracy; their theocracy.
Now this is an interesting point. These were people who wanted their religion to be supreme, yet we are not living in a theocracy. At least not yet, anyway. So this begs the question of, why not?
Pete: "I'm more concerned with your conclusion than your maths. Suppose you go out hunting bison. But it turns out there are seven times as many antelopes as there are bison and you gotta shoot whatever's available. Seems natural that the thing that gets shot the most is the thing that's most available. Now suppose you are out hunting with your black best friend. He's a much better shot than you. But regardless of how many animals you each shoot, you are both gonna shoot mostly antelopes."
But if I go hunting with 4 of my black best friends it stands to reason they should put down more game than I do. If it turns out I STILL manage to put down more than double their combined numbers of... whatever, antilopes I guess, then there's good reason to think that I am more likely to pull the trigger than they are. No?
Just when I think Trump has finished surprising me…: We discover that Trump is in the process of convincing himself that the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape which has him bragging about being able to ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’, and which tape he has previously acknowledged is genuine, now he's in process of convincing himself that the tape is a fake. TheHill We have a President who's living in his own fantasies, not living in the real world. He's withdrawn to a fantasy world that exists inside his own head. That oughta scare even Petes and Marcus. My guess is they will nevertheless manage to convince themselves that it's all fine.
And Lee. There's no reason to include the population numbers in America to do your math. You have the kill-numbers 500 and 230, and you have the proportions 65% and 13%. Going the roundabout way and include population numbers is unnessesary. You'd know that if you knew math.
Might as well just do: (230/13) / (500/65) = 2,3
Very easy.
That was what you ended up with even with all those unnecessary decimals. But that answers the question:
"How likely is a black to GET KILLED by a white compared to vice versa"
And yes. Any given black is indeed 2,3 times more likely to get killed by a white than the other way around.
But I asked the question:
"How likely is a black to KILL a white compared to vice versa"
And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims of deadly violence but by a far greater extent more likely culprits.
"There's no reason to include the population numbers in America to do your math."
Of course there was. It was done so that you could see the correct way to use those percentage figures you tossed out. I had hoped you'd be able to figure out from the raw data how it was that you came to the wrong conclusion.
"But I asked the question: ‘How likely is a black to KILL a white compared to vice versa’"
No, you did not. At least, not in connection with our dispute. Rather, you made the statement that:
"…a white man is more likely to be shot by a black than vice versa." Marcus @ Mon Nov 20, 02:17:00 pm
That statement was incorrect. I called you, specifically on that one and only on that one @ Mon Nov 20, 03:25:00 pm
Lee: "That statement was incorrect. I called you, specifically on that one and only on that one @ Mon Nov 20, 03:25:00 pm"
Yes it was (and is) and I stand corrected. I phrased that wrong. This however still stands:
"And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims (2.3 times) of deadly violence but by a far greater extent more likely culprits (13 times)."
And no, there was no mathemathical reason for you to bring in yet another variable, the US population numbers, when you had all the necessary data to put up your equation.
"This however still stands: ‛And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims …but by a far greater extent more likely culprits (13 times).’"
[Marcus]: "But if I go hunting with 4 of my black best friends it stands to reason they should put down more game than I do. If it turns out I STILL manage to put down more than double their combined numbers of... whatever, antilopes I guess, then there's good reason to think that I am more likely to pull the trigger than they are. No?"
Yes, absolutely. But the fact that you shoot more antelopes than bison will still be because antelopes are more abundant, not because you like antelopes better than your black friends.
P.S. Marcus, the fact that black people commit proportionally more violent crime was never disputed. Here is more grist for your mill if that's what you want.
Here it is Monday morning and there's no TrumpTweets about the NFL players takin’ a knee (which they're still doin’ at the rate of ‛bout a couple dozen per weekend, if we include those who don't show up for the anthem at all).
I forgot to mention the other day, Petes, that I watched the Cromwell video. It seems that people have done some very terrible things in the name of religion. It is not just Daesh who has used that excuse.
There was talk about the Senate starting ‛debate’, that's what they call it, tomorrow, Tuesday, on their pending tax-cuts-for-the-rich plan. However, it now seems more likely that Trump will address the Republican Senate caucus tomorrow, and the bill will not go to the floor for debate until Wednesday at the earliest.
"I forgot to mention the other day, Petes, that I watched the Cromwell video. It seems that people have done some very terrible things in the name of religion. It is not just Daesh who has used that excuse."
Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism.
Pete: "P.S. Marcus, the fact that black people commit proportionally more violent crime was never disputed. Here is more grist for your mill if that's what you want."
Well, grits for my mill, I dunno 'bout that. But I started this debate by pointing out the hypocricy of the kneeling ball-tossers, which are part of the whole BLM ruse (and used politically against Trump).
I felt to point out that it's a fat fucking lie that whites, and white cops in particular, across 'Merica are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin left and right.
And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling when the anthem is played is complete bullshit.
That was my starting point. And from there we went into "do them balltossers have a legitimate beef" and to prove they have not I presented some facts, crunched some numbers, and now you did too, so thanks for that I guess.
You sometimes seem to think I am about hating on blacks for the colour of skin. (BTW: how long do you think it'll take for the term "black" to be considered racist?)
It is not about that. It's just that some of this faux BLM bullshit needs to be countered and some REAL probles need highlighing instead.
"…it's a fat fucking lie that…white cops in particular, across 'Merica are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin…"
That is officially illegal, so they almost never claim (never admit?) to killing blacks ‘for the colour of their skin’. On the other hand, they do kill black detainees at a ratio three times higher than whites, and they shoot blacks in the back at a ratio four (4) times higher than whites, and I think I recall a published study that said they shoot unarmed blacks at a ratio of six (6) times higher.
But, not for ‘the colour of their skin’, not officially anyway, and certainly not ‘left and right’, whatever that's supposed to mean.
[Marcus]: "I felt to point out that it's a fat fucking lie that whites, and white cops in particular, across 'Merica are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin left and right."
No disagreement from me there.
[Marcus]: "And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling when the anthem is played is complete bullshit."
Well they probably do have some valid statistics to point at. But there are various possible explanations other than institutionalised racism. If, for instance, black crime rates translate into a corresponding increase in encounters with police, and that in turn increases the likelihood of meeting a poorly trained or nasty cop pro rata, then the numbers are probably about what would be expected. It doesn't exonerate poorly trained or nasty cops, mind.
"You sometimes seem to think I am about hating on blacks for the colour of skin."
Not just "sometimes". Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority.
"And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling when the anthem is played is complete bullshit."
I happen to believe that black footballers, or anyone else for that matter, should be free to kneel or not, as they damn well please, when the national anthem is played, so long as they do not disrupt those people who choose to otherwise engage in the mass ritual.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Mennonites, most but not all Quakers, et al. do not stand in the event of a confrontation by the national anthem.
Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism.
By what means? And is that still valid today?
Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority.
Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism? Is any one form of protest more respected than another? Are only the lower income members of society allowed to protest violence?
"…tax cuts for the rich have moved another step forward."
They have indeed. I've seen it written that the only thing worse for the Republicans, long-term, than failing to pass a tax reform package will be passing this tax cut package in its stead.
It's likely to work out poorly for Trump as well. The ‛establishment’ Republicans will have much less use for him once this deal is done (assuming this deal gets done).
Pete: "Not just "sometimes". Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority."
Ah, so you think my thoughts are racist in general, because I say things like: there are different races and they are different in various areas including in intelligence?
In fact them black balltossers are not inferior but superior when it comes down to what they do for a living.
OK, let's get back to basics here. Why is every Olympic swimming medalist white? Why is almost every short track medalist originated from west Africa? Why is every long run runner from East Africa?
You DO see that physical differences set us apart based on race, right?
Why is it then a foregone conclusion that mental differences are not biological but due to "racism" while physical differences obviously ARE based on genetics?
Can you answer that? Then we can move on.
(This is a case where Pete's adopted worldview, prolly based in his religion, contrasts with his analytical prowess - It'll be interesting to see which side wins out)
Lee: "I happen to believe that black footballers, or anyone else for that matter, should be free to kneel or not, as they damn well please, when the national anthem is played, so long as they do not disrupt those people who choose to otherwise engage in the mass ritual."
Of course they are free to do that. And of course they also should be free to do that. But what will they accomplish? Driving the core supporters that in the end pay their salaries away, is what.
If I own a company and a store I'm more or less free to have my employees go on the streets and say "fuck you motherfucker" to anyone shopping at my store. I doubt it'll boost my business though.
My prediction remains: them balltossers will end up being reined in. They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. Or they'll get cut. Bet that.
Lee: "Watching the North Koreans improve their missiles. Anybody want to hazard a guess ‛bout what Trump will do, or whether he'll do anything at all?"
Well, what can he do. What could any US President do? Attack now and accept the inevitable carnage, or do nothning and see NK improve its capabilities.
Any US president would face that same bleak choice.
Lynnette: "Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism? Is any one form of protest more respected than another? Are only the lower income members of society allowed to protest violence?"
And are whites allowed to protest violence against them selves? Like the FACT that in a couple years in Norway most assault-rapes were conducted against white Norwegian women, and ALL, 100%, of convicted rapists in those cases were immigrant men. Is that a fact we can take into account when we debate multiculturalism? Or would that be "racist" since the victims were white?
"Driving the core supporters that in the end pay their salaries away, is what."
The NFL owners have decided that the paying ‘core supporters’ are not being driven away. When I watch football I don't see any advertisements urging the audience to ‘buy gold’, or buy ‘liberty safes’, or ‘ouchless’ catheters, or any of the usual advertisers on Radio-Right-Wing. Nor do Trumpkins make up the majority of asses occupying seats in the stadiums (as I've pointed out before, the stadiums tend to be located in population centers--blue America territory).
There is no doubt that Trump is driving revenue down somewhat, how much is hard to gauge, but the NFL owners don't think it's as much as they'd lose if they pissed of the real ‘core supporters’, i.e. the ones who pay the bills, as opposed to the angrier and noisier ones who follow TrumpTweets.
The immediate losers are the owners, who by and large were Trump supporters, as the players get paid the same either way (at least until their contracts run out and they have to renegotiate, but by that time Trump will have moved on to another sore spot to pick at; he's already losing interest in this, for him, losing proposition). It will not be lost on other business titans that Trump bloodied up his own monied supporters here, and that the players got away mostly unscathed.
THIS particular President has been ranting on about unleashing ‘fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen’. I'm of the opinion that any other US President wouldn't make such threats lightly.
"They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. *** Bet that."
Currently the owners are instead talking about repealing the 2009 decision that had the players taking the field before the national anthem. (Prior to 2009 season they did the national anthem before the players came out.) They're seriously considering moving the playing of the anthem up to before the players come out as it used to be done. Trump has recently tweeted his displeasure with this possibility. It would be obvious that the owners are defying him.
They're more apt to continue to defy him than not. You should bet that instead.
I've noticed that Trump is already trying to blame a government shutdown on the Democrats. (Supposedly the cash runs out on 8 December at current burn rates.) This suggests that he doesn't expect that problem to get solved before 8 December.
[Petes]: "Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism."
[Lynnette]: "By what means? And is that still valid today?"
It's a long story. Look up the Peace of Westphalia. That probably freed up European forces from internal sectarianism to repel the Muslim invaders at the Battle of Vienna just a few years later. Islam did not share in this outbreak of pluralism -- it had to be pacified by the old reliable method of having the shit kicked out of it. The British Isles also implemented some of its most draconian sectarian laws after Westphalia, taking another two hundred years to repeal them. However, Christianity has been at least falteringly able to argue for pluralism from its own tenets.
[Lynnette]: "Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism?"
Certainly not. If you inferred that I called the ball tossers racists you've picked me up wrong. The only thing I've called them is idiots. They may be racists for all I know but I've no evidence of that. BLM is a different matter. BLM protests calling for white people to be killed are easily findable on youtube. Those people are out and out racists without a shadow of a doubt. (Nor do I accept that those were just a few mavericks and not the BLM organisation per se).
[Marcus]: "Ah, so you think my thoughts are racist in general, because I say things like: there are different races and they are different in various areas including in intelligence?" (... followed by putting other such words in my mouth).
Nope, didn't say that, wouldn't say that. You're a racist because you think African/black people are inferior. You want to use their genetic differences to stigmatise them, and you make unfounded assertions on that basis. To give one example, the bell curves of IQs cannot be validly used to argue that Africans are unsuitable for European jobs. Would/should you hire a European with an IQ of 90 over an African with an IQ of 120? Both are well within their relative distributions. Arguments from the point of view of cultural assimilability and the rights of indigenous populations are one thing. There's no need to pile racist nonsense on top of them.
And speaking of racist nonsense ... Trump is getting a lot of stick on this side of the pond for retweeting three videos from British far right group, Britain First. I don't know, but I suspect Trump saw "Britain First" and thought it gelled with his own attitude to "America first". Maybe I'm cutting him too much slack. Maybe he did know that they are a racist bunch of far right yahoos, with senior figures facing charges of incitement in court. Either way, Trump's been an ignorant dolt on this one. If he wants to command respect from others he needs to have more respect for his own office.
And while I'm shooting sacred cows, the Pope's a coward. He's in Myanmar exchanging leering grins with genocidal collaborator Aung San Suu Kyi, instead of putting her straight on what's what.
"Maybe he did know that they are a racist bunch of far right yahoos…"
The official White House position as of right now is that it doesn't matter if the vids were picked up from ‘a racist bunch of far right yahoos’. According to White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, such worries amount to "focusing on the wrong thing"; "the threat [from Muslims] is real; the threat needs to be addressed".
Well done, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You just proved the case for fake news. Tell Trump he can ease off CNN now that he's out-faked them. Oh, and maybe tell him that "taking care of" North Korean ICBMs might take a bit more than browsing youtube and Twitter in between golf games.
And, in addition to resurrecting the ‘Access Hollywood’ video as a possibly faked tape, Trump is said to again be flirting with ‛birther’ theories about Obama having been born in Kenya.
This brings to my mind Lynnette's earlier musings about Trump maybe not being up to the job mentally--that the constancy of the pressure of the job might just drive him over the edge. To which my response remains the same, ‘How would we know; how could we tell? What real difference could we expect to see?’)
"…tax cuts for the rich have moved another step forward."
I've been waiting all day for the news that the bill has been brought to the Senate floor so that it may be voted on tomorrow (the reconciliation rules provide for an open, minimum 20 hour debate and amendment period). The idea being that they'd have an extra day to work out any glitches if there were glitches; if taking a vote tomorrow won't work, there's still Friday. So far I've heard nothing about any progress happening today.
More ominously for the Republicans, I've been reading about how they're all pulling together and are all confident that they've worked out their differences and it'll all fall together here in just a few hours. That all sounds good for the Republicans who're busy as bees making these pronouncements. What I've not been hearing is numbers. If they've worked out their differences, what are the real numbers that go along with those final compromises? Nobody seems to know. I judge this to be a rather ominous development for the Republicans.
I still put their odds of pulling this off at no better than 50/50.
By the way… The Peace of Westphalia did not signal an outbreak of pluralism. It ratified segregation and the drawing of agreed upon lines to keep the sects apart, every prince got to declare and enforce the religion within his own particular principality.
Marcus: "My prediction remains: them balltossers will end up being reined in. They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. Or they'll get cut. Bet that."
Okay, there is something really weird with that link now. Maybe it will fix itself...or not.
This is what I wanted you to see:
On Wednesday, Jim Trotter and Jason Reid of ESPN.com reported the league made a proposal to players to contribute "at least $89 million over a seven-year period" to causes in African-American communities in an effort to end the protest movement.
I've seen it written that the only thing worse for the Republicans, long-term, than failing to pass a tax reform package will be passing this tax cut package in its stead.
I can see where that might be the case. I think there are things in there that will hurt far more than just the people directly affected. It's another one of those things that have ramifications that our legislators don't take into account, or don't care about.
And are whites allowed to protest violence against them selves?
Anyone can protest violence of any sort. If you are specifically talking about sexual violence against women, I think that is certainly a legitimate complaint, no matter the color of their skin, and no matter the perpetrators involved. You might be familiar with the #MeToo movement that has been started? I see no reason to limit this movement to accusing old, rich, white male perpetrators. It can certainly cover any type of sexual assault by any perpetrator.
Even more important than the territorial redistribution was the ecclesiastical settlement. The Peace of Westphalia confirmed the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which had granted Lutherans religious tolerance in the empire and which had been rescinded by the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II in his Edict of Restitution (1629). Moreover, the peace settlement extended the Peace of Augsburg’s provisions for religious toleration to the Reformed (Calvinist) church, thus securing toleration for the three great religious communities of the empire—Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist. Within these limits the member states of the empire were bound to allow at least private worship, liberty of conscience, and the right of emigration to all religious minorities and dissidents within their domains. These measures of toleration did not extend to non-Catholics in the hereditary lands of the house of Habsburg, however.
The difficult question of the ownership of spiritual lands was decided by a compromise.
But given the territorial settlement you still ended up with what both you and Lee mentioned.
Petes: "The British Isles also implemented some of its most draconian sectarian laws after Westphalia, taking another two hundred years to repeal them."
Lee C: "The Peace of Westphalia did not signal an outbreak of pluralism. It ratified segregation and the drawing of agreed upon lines to keep the sects apart, every prince got to declare and enforce the religion within his own particular principality."
So the Peace of Westphalia was only a start. Something else must have led to a more pluralistic society in the West. What happened next?
And removing the deduction for interest on college loans. The Republican Party has, in the last few years, grown noticeably hostile to higher education, ‛eggheads’ and the like. They believe colleges and universities are bastions of those hated twins, science and tolerance. (Not to mention the unfortunate emphasis on actual facts that are too often contrary to the revealed and accepted conservative ‛truths’.)
And they've been talking about implementing a tax on college endowments (uniquely among non-profit institutions, college endowments would be taxed, effectively canceling their charitable, tax-free status). I forgot to mention that one.
Petes: " BLM is a different matter. BLM protests calling for white people to be killed are easily findable on youtube. Those people are out and out racists without a shadow of a doubt. (Nor do I accept that those were just a few mavericks and not the BLM organisation per se)."
Of course the idea of killing anyone is wrong. But what proof do you have that the call to kill white people is the manifesto of the organizers of BLM and not the extremists who have attached themselves to the movement?
Petes: "Either way, Trump's been an ignorant dolt on this one. If he wants to command respect from others he needs to have more respect for his own office."
There now, I knew you would come to understand our feelings about our dear leader. :)
It would appear that you misunderstand his position on this question. He did not mention ‛proof’; he clearly designated his position on BLM to be a result of a what he deemed to be an acceptable ‛belief’. (I would again point out the tendency among conservatives to reject actual facts which they find either unacceptable or contrary to their revealed ‘truth’.)
The Republican Party has, in the last few years, grown noticeably hostile to higher education, ‛eggheads’ and the like. They believe colleges and universities are bastions of those hated twins, science and tolerance.
Sad. I never felt in the past that there was that much difference between the two parties when it came to higher learning. Is it just greed and selfishness that has allowed them to so blind themselves? Because I know many people who have voted Republican who are highly intelligent people. How could they let such ignorance pass?
"I know many people who have voted Republican who are highly intelligent people. How could they let such ignorance pass?"
Ask them to elaborate on their position regarding global warming. If they agree to explain it to you (not a member of their tribe; no sure bet they'll discuss it with you, but…) you may get a glimmer of how that works.
[Lynnette]: "But what proof do you have that the call to kill white people is the manifesto of the organizers of BLM and not the extremists who have attached themselves to the movement?"
The movement is decentralised by design (check the various statements to that effect on its Wikipedia page). So while I'm aware that those shouting racist slogans speak for themselves and not the whole movement (there is nobody that does that), there is a depressingly large racist element.
"There now, I knew you would come to understand our feelings about our dear leader. :) It also seems you are developing the same fondness for our dear leader's acolytes too. All it takes is time."
LOL. Well, I never claimed to be a big fan of Trump. And I have to admit he's been sinking in my estimation. His latest is to send irate Tweets to Theresa May over Downing Street's reaction to his earlier Britain First retweets. Except he got the name of her Twitter account wrong. Oh, and the Netherlands' US embassy has pointed out to him that the perp in the video of a "Muslim immigrant" beating up a Dutch boy on crutches was actually born in the Netherlands.
But I still maintain that "the idea of Trump" is necessary in the USA today. Even if, shall we say, the man himself falls somewhat short. Oh alright then, very short. :)
Will have to get back to you about the pluralism question. Just taking a 6am breather from cramming for an exam.
Changing subjects before going down for the night…
Reports are circulating today that Mueller's Trump/Russia investigation had been interviewing Jared Kushner last month, specifically about Michael Flynn. Flynn was set to be dragged before the grand jury again this coming week, but that seems to have been postponed for unknown reasons and for an unknown amount of time.
I'm wondering if Mueller's people are giving Flynn time to consider the ramifications of Kushner maybe trying to hang all this shit on Flynn? Then they go back and question Flynn again after he's thought about himself getting set up to take the rap for stuff Kushner and Trump may have done.
Lee: "Currently the owners are instead talking about repealing the 2009 decision that had the players taking the field before the national anthem. (Prior to 2009 season they did the national anthem before the players came out.) They're seriously considering moving the playing of the anthem up to before the players come out as it used to be done. "
That would actually probably be the best way to deal with this from the owners' perspective.
There's another aspect of the Republicans' proposed tax cut that we've not much considered. The stock market is at an all time high, in saner moments stock analysts would call it a bubble, but they're not using that term these days. My reading of the market is that the Masters of the Universe are anticipating a profit-taking moment arising out of the Republicans' tax cut package. They've been bidding back and forth among themselves trying to be in the most favorable position for the big event. If the Republicans manage to pass the tax cuts then there will be a brief surge in prices over even the current highs. (Then it will become obvious that this was a bubble, and then comes the crash, but by then the Masters of the Universe will have again off loaded their stocks onto their clients.) If the tax cut package doesn't pass then the reckoning will not come as a crash but rather as a slower downturn as the Masters of the Universe off load their stocks on their clients more slowly. (I figure there'll probably be a fairly immediate hit on the stock market of what we might call ‛sub-crash’ proportions--one of those things they call a ‛correction’, then that'll be followed by a longer slower decline, or, if we're maybe lucky, a stagnation of prices.)
Mueller has charged Michael Flynn with one count of making false statements to the FBI. No surprises there, so far anyway.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on their tax-cuts-for-the-rich at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. I'm guessing they miss their target (maybe vote on it later today, maybe they try again next week).
The stock market is at an all time high, in saner moments stock analysts would call it a bubble, but they're not using that term these days.
I hear the market went crazy yesterday, going above 24,000. Maybe a good time to sell stock positions and go to bonds or cash? Or perhaps international stocks? They seem to be going up crazily too.
Mueller has charged Michael Flynn with one count of making false statements to the FBI. No surprises there, so far anyway.
It seems the White House's first response is that everyone lies in Washington. First, I don't think everyone lies to the FBI, and second they just admitted that they lie.
Off to do my endless rounds of errands, and chores. It's time to start Christmasing and to put the garden to bed. It seems the weather will be turning next week.
Pete: "To give one example [why I'm a rabid racist], the bell curves of IQs cannot be validly used to argue that Africans are unsuitable for European jobs.
Well there are indeed reports that the Bell curve differes among races, for one thing.
And we are in a very peculiar time when we are told by politicians we desperately need more "working people" to sustain an aging generation, and meanwhile from the Industrial side there are reports of automatisation and robitisation rendering hundreds of millions of jobs (globally) irrelevant in the near future.
I tend to believe the economists/industrialists over politicians. I thiink we are already "over productive" and the last thing we need is an influx of unskilled labour. They will end up leeching on society rather than contributing to it, which all current evidence also point to.
Pete: "Would/should you hire a European with an IQ of 90 over an African with an IQ of 120? Both are well within their relative distributions."
Of course not. But you well know that picking examples out of a larger group is dishonest arguing. And even if it was not, why should we "steal" the cream of the crop from Africa because we benefit from them economically? That'd amount to brain drain in Africa, or wouldn't you agree?
Pete: "Arguments from the point of view of cultural assimilability and the rights of indigenous populations are one thing. There's no need to pile racist nonsense on top of them."
How about culture being one issue and genetics another, and they both matter? Or does that, despite it being true, hurt your feelz?
"It seems the White House's first response is that everyone lies…"
Their first response should be fear. Flynn's now pled guilty to the single count charged. This is a open warning that he's rolled and is coöperating with the Mueller probe. Now it's a question of what he's got on whom, ‛cause he's givin’ folks up, else Mueller wouldn't be making a deal with him.
"Maybe a good time to sell stock positions and go to bonds or cash?"
I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said they were a bunch of crooks in there, serious professional crooks, big time stuff made his rackets in Chicago look like grade-schoolers grabbing lunch monies.
Lee: "I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said..."
I don't offer advice either other than to say when the market really rallies it's probably time to sell. And when there's gloom and doom all around it's probably time to buy.
That said, the timing is still a fickle thing.
For instance: I've been convinced for about 10 years now we had a serious housing bubble in Sweden that was about to come crashing down on us. And I have been "wrong" for all that time because it didn't crash but prices just kept climbing. Now they are at the levels that even if they fell 50% they might still be above prices when I thought we might have topped out. So perhaps I was just wrong, or perhaps the fall will be even steeper and I was right, just not right on timing.
An example: I bought my 83 SQM two bedroom apartment 11 years ago for 1.75M. And I was kinda afraid that I bought at the top of the market and did some serious thinking on wether I could actaully afford this place. A 35 SQM studio sold just the other day for 1.9M in the same building. Insane! Good for me, but still insane.
Mitch McConnell says he's got the votes. They're apparently doing a second rewrite on the proposal, the one they were going to go with at 11:00 am being superseded now. They say they'll finally get to vote on it later today.
The White House has canceled a scheduled photo-op for later today with the Libyan Prime Minister. They claim the schedule was in error and they never intended to offer a photo-op on the day that the Senate finally passes a tax cuts for the rich tax plan.
Quaere now: Has Trump been too frightened to tweet about Flynn rolling over on Team Trump? Or did his legal team somehow manage to intercept his personal twitterphone?
I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said...
Oh, sure enough, the game is rigged in someone's favor, and it isn't me. Like Marcus with Swedish real estate I have been thinking for some time that our stock market is in a bubble and should have corrected by now, but it just keeps going up. Eventually what goes up must come down, though. I just hope it isn't too fast.
As for advice, I always like to hear what other people think, but I usually make up my own mind as to what kind of investments are the best for me. Everybody's situation is different.
Has Trump been too frightened to tweet about Flynn rolling over on Team Trump? Or did his legal team somehow manage to intercept his personal twitterphone?
My bet is the latter. I really think Trump has deluded himself that he is invincible.
Current inside holders are still competing for position, competing for product (stocks) on hand or on order, to be able to unload onto the general population after the tax cuts pass. Much of this activity is leveraged (hope like hell we don't have to bail out the Masters of the Universe again).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Kushner is as close as you can get when it comes to Trump's deals."
Outside possible that Flynn can give them Trump himself, but I'm betting on it being Kushner that Flynn's offering up.
The Senate finally managed to pass their tax cuts for the rich bill. 51-49. This was supposed to be the easy part. They've gotta agree now on a version that can pass both the House and the Senate. I still give it 50/50 chance of final success. But, they needed to get this one first. The Senate especially needed to kick this back to the House. The Republican Senators took the rap for the failure of their repeal and whatever bill trying to kill ObamaCare, and they didn't want to be saddled with the failure of this one too. They'd much rather have it die somewhere else if it's gonna die.
Outside possible that Flynn can give them Trump himself, but I'm betting on it being Kushner that Flynn's offering up.
Speculation on CNN this morning was that Flynn could be giving up one of three people; Kushner, Donald Jr. or Bannon.
I don't think it's Bannon, he wouldn't have taken so much work. It's between Kushner and Donald Jr. I tend to agree with you about Kushner. I think of those two he is the low hanging fruit. He is also the more likely of the two to lead to Trump himself. It depends on how much time you might want to spend in jail for your father-in-law. Kushner doesn't strike me as the self sacrificing type.
Trumptweets "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI."
This implies that Trump fired Flynn partly because he lied to the FBI. That would mean Trump knew Flynn had been obstructing justice back when Flynn was doing it, and that Trump is part of an agreement to obstruct justice. The chances that Flynn can give them Trump seem to have suddenly increased. (He almost certainly did not run that one past his lawyers first.) They will argue that Trump didn't actually mean what he said (he never does except in the case of Trumpkins who want to believe whichever of his often conflicting stories sounds best to them). But, if Flynn comes out saying that he and Trump discussed this back when, that Trumptweet is gonna be useful against Trump.
[Lynnette]: "Oh, sure enough, the game is rigged in someone's favor, and it isn't me. Like Marcus with Swedish real estate I have been thinking for some time that our stock market is in a bubble and should have corrected by now, but it just keeps going up. Eventually what goes up must come down, though. I just hope it isn't too fast."
I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money).
The market may be in a bubble but the one thing you don't have to worry about is that Trump's tax bill is part of a plan to let the rich escape in advance of a planned collapse in the markets. That's conspiracy nuttery. The tax cuts don't in general apply to capital gains, except for short term investments. The bill may have other shortcomings but that's not one of them. Anyone claiming the rich are all going to exit stage left just to protect some of their last twelve months of gains is firmly in grips of the Trump Whinge Fest ;-)
"…one thing you don't have to worry about is that Trump's tax bill is part of a plan to let the rich escape [taxes] in advance of a planned collapse in the markets."
If that's what you thought I was suggesting then you need to read my comments a little closer. That ain't it.
"(He almost certainly did not run that one past his lawyers first.)"
I seem to have had that wrong. The White House is now claiming that the tweet was authored by Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd. (Not gonna make the rest of his legal team happy.) CBSNews
This implies that Trump fired Flynn partly because he lied to the FBI.
I was just going to mention that tweet. I should have known you would have seen it already. Trump is certainly determined to be proven guilty of something!
The White House is now claiming that the tweet was authored by Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd.
Aaaaaand he just loves to try to drag people down with him. Makes Mueller's job way easier. Whether or not our so called representatives will listen I don't know.
Yes, I suspect that personal attorney John Dowd Esq. has just earned himself a prominent place on the list of guests who'll soon be treated to the hospitality of Mr. Mueller's grand jury.
I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money).
I moved a little at that time, not all, so was able to ride the wave back up again to some extent. I tend not to change position's too extremely. So I probably won't get rich or get too broke. :)
Right now I just would like to avoid getting slapped too hard if a bubble does burst. So a little more balance between stocks and bonds is probably not a bad thing. Nor is fixing up the house.
Trump is going hyper this morning over some right-winger conspiracy theories about how the FBI agents working for Mueller are out to ‛get’ him. TrumpTweets
Serious playin’ to the base (and the crazier element of same) goin’ on here. This Russia thing seems to have him seriously rattled.
"If they have evidence that he has done something illegal they probably are."
E-mails have surfaced of correspondence between two of them (lovers, at least one married and therefore adulterous) that were critical of Trump before the election. It looks like personal communications between intimate persons to me (so far as I can see so far); I don't see that it implies a professional bias, but it will be seized upon.
Pete: "I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money)."
Don't feel foolish. There's to me no clear idea what and where to invest for the future these days. The safest bet was to clear awy all debt, that's done. Although in hindsight it would've been far more lucrative to keep the debt that was close to interest-free and invest in the stockmarket instead. I missed out on that.
Today however, if I have some money over every month, which I currrently do, where do I put them? Everything seems to be a bubble yet hoarding cash is not a great option either.
I'd like to buy a vacation home with some acreage of forest but damn it that TOO is in the bubble realm and insanely priced.
Condo in Spain to use twice a year and have as a retreat for old age? Bubbly-priced too.
More follow up on that ‛admission’ tweet on TrumpTweets: Now it turns out the tweet was posted by White House aide Dan Scavino (who writes many of Trump's tweets for him) and they will not say whether or not it was reviewed by Trump prior to posting (the customary practice for Scavino-posted TrumpTweets).
So,…. Yeah, John Dowd, Esq. has almost certainly earned himself a non-expense paid invitation to Mueller's grand jury.
Hmmm...those TrumpTweets links in your comment, Lee, just get me back to the comments section, only enlarged.
Yeah, John Dowd, Esq. has almost certainly earned himself a non-expense paid invitation to Mueller's grand jury.
I think he was trying to weasel his way out of that by saying he got sloppy. If that's the case I would have to question his ability as well as his honesty.
"I think he was trying to weasel his way out of that by saying he got sloppy."
He's apparently found a couple of ‘clarifications’ of his story to be in order already today. It's one thing to keep trying out new stories with the press. It's quite another thing to get sworn in before a grand jury and have a story keep changing.
So, I'm expecting Mueller's people to want to pin him down on that one, under oath.
He may even have an entirely different story to tell once he's sworn.
I read somewhere that the reason Trump didn't react to the Flynn story until Saturday was because it wasn't on Fox and Friends that morning. Then nobody in the White House really wanted to tell him about it (and Hannity was mostly avoiding it Friday night), so he didn't find out that Flynn had rolled on him until Saturday morning FoxNews.
The host of ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" got into a Twitter spat with the Alabama Republican over a stunt that Kimmel's show had orchestrated on Wednesday at a Moore event. Kimmel had even more to say about the Twitter feud on his show Thursday night. ".@jimmykimmel If you want to mock our Christian values, come down here to Alabama and do it man to man. #ALSen," Moore had tweeted earlier in the day. Kimmel read the tweet during his opening monologue. "And I responded, and he responded back, and I responded again. It's all on Twitter, but the bottom line is this: I accept the invitation. I will come down there."
Ooooo, now this is good. I want very much to see that meeting.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday it was "absurd" to suggest that the phone conversation could have influenced Putin's decision and added that "such requests couldn't have been passed on" to him.
"The president makes his own decisions, guided solely by Russia's national interests," Peskov told reporters. "Flynn couldn't have asked Sergei Ivanovich (Kislyak) about anything, and, what's more such requests couldn't have been passed on to the Russian president."
"“Well, I feel badly for Gen. Flynn. I feel very badly. *** …it's like they ruined his live. It's very unfair.” Trump waxing sentimental re: Flynn this morning
I think that folks will be able to see a pattern similar to this developing in Trump's mentions of disgraced sheriff Joe Arapio, before Trump pardoned Arapio.
I suspect this speech was intended to be heard and interpreted by Flynn as a promise of a pardon to come.
"Trump is still hoping to come out of this whole."
Yep. Just today his lawyers have tried to resurrect the old Richard Nixon defense of ‘the President can't be charged with Obstruction of Justice’, just in case Mueller thinks he's gonna make such a charge in the case of Trump pardons Flynn.
"President Trump’s personal lawyer said Sunday that the president knew in late January that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had probably given FBI agents the same inaccurate account he provided to Vice President Pence about a call with the Russian ambassador. "Trump lawyer John Dowd said the information was passed to Trump by White House counsel Donald McGahn, who had been warned about Flynn’s statement to the vice president by a senior Justice Department official. The vice president said publicly at the time that Flynn had told him he had not discussed sanctions with the Russian diplomat…. "Trump was aware of the issue a couple of weeks before a conversation with then-FBI Director James B. Comey in which Comey said the president asked him if he could be lenient while investigating Flynn, whom Trump had just fired for misleading Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian. *** A person close to the White House involved in the case termed the Saturday tweet ‛a screw-up of historic proportions’ that has ‘caused enormous consternation in the White House.’" WaPo (Yes, Marcus, real Washington Post link this time. emphasis added)
[Lynnette]: "Maybe hoarding cash isn't such a bad idea then. I know there is no return, but sometimes taking money off the table is the best way to save."
I agree. Low interest rates are driving a lot of people to put their savings in risk assets, contributing to the bubble. But consider that when interest rates are high, so is the rate of inflation. It depends where you live, but for a lot of people the differential between interest rates and inflation is at an all time low right now. Instead of complaining that their money is earning nothing they should be appreciating that risk-free money is being eroded more slowly than usual.
Sounds like Baghdad and Ankara are colluding to cut the Kurds out of oil money.
Iraq plans Kirkuk pipeline bypassing KRG
Iraq plans to build a crude oil export pipeline from Baiji to Fishkhabur on the Turkish border that will carry crude from Kirkuk field for export from the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Iraq’s Oil Ministry instructed interested companies and government agencies to prepare the papers required to participate in the project, which will be offered on a build-operate-transfer basis.
The pipeline will replace a line damaged by repeated sabotage and out of commission since 2014, bypassing a pipeline controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Iraqi forces last month reclaimed Kirkuk from the KRG. Turkey has threatened to close its portion of the pipeline if Kurdish independence proceeds.
About 580,000 b/d of oil produced in Iraqi Kurdistan, half from Kirkuk field, now flows through two spurs in Kurdish territory that link with the trans-Turkey pipeline at Fishkhabur, according to the International Energy Agency. (OGJ)
Paul Manafort has been busted ghost-writing a proposed Op-Ed piece with the assistance of Russian intelligence, intended to help shape public opinion of the Trump/Russia investigation. CBSNews This would be a violation of the trial court's gag order (bigly), and now Mueller's office is challenging Manafort's efforts to get released on bail.
I'd be real interested in knowing who they thought they would be their beard on this one, i.e. whose name was supposed to go on the article, and what media did they expect to carry it?
Lynnette: "Maybe hoarding cash isn't such a bad idea then. I know there is no return, but sometimes taking money off the table is the best way to save."
Probably you're quite right. I only regret that I came to that conclusion too early and missed out on the last two years booming stock markets.
On the other hand I could just regret that I didn't go all in into Apple in 2005 and kept buying, now with hindsight.
No, cash is probably not such a bad idea right now. I managed to find a bank account that pays 0.7% no srings attached, that's at least something.
Pete: "Sounds like Baghdad and Ankara are colluding to cut the Kurds out of oil money."
That's one more powderkeg in global politics. I would think the Kurds think they sided with all the right players and were instrumental in keeping back Daesh and they might feel they are due a reward. And I don't think that reward is forthcoming. So prolly some pissed off Kurds in the near future.
So prolly some pissed off Kurds in the near future.
I'm thinking you are right there. Unfortunately they live in a very tough neighborhood where people are very intent on keeping the power status quo, and will do just about anything to do so.
Turkey has threatened to close its portion of the pipeline if Kurdish independence proceeds.
If I were a Kurd, though, I would have seen this coming. So I wonder what they have up their sleeves to combat this?
Just today his lawyers have tried to resurrect the old Richard Nixon defense of ‘the President can't be charged with Obstruction of Justice’, just in case Mueller thinks he's gonna make such a charge in the case of Trump pardons Flynn.
So many other things about this remind me of Watergate that it isn't a surprise that this defense would be brought up.
This is going to get dirty in a hurry, I'm thinking. Once Trump realizes that he may actually be in real legal danger.
I only regret that I came to that conclusion too early and missed out on the last two years booming stock markets.
That's why I don't take extreme positions. I realize that bonds(bond funds that is) aren't paying much and are at risk because of possible rising interest rates, but they still add ballast to a portfolio.
Yes, I know, if I really had ESP I would have bought all sorts of stocks way back when and become independently wealthy. But that's not the case so I just follow a moderate path in hopes of having enough to afford the necessities of life and have a little fun as well.
"So many other things about this remind me of Watergate…"
I have resisted that analogy up to now, but I was starting to think the same thing over the weekend. I suppose it's the relentless, drip, drip, drip of details as the inside parties begin leaking information (usually a sign of insiders jockying for advantage against one another, although it's likely that most of this is coming from defense lawyers).
I've begun to believe that the noise coming from Trump's lawyers about Trump can't obstruct justice because Trump is justice (or, at least, the executive head of the government and thus the head prosecutor), that probably means that they happen to know that Mueller already has enough to indict Trump on such a charge (or, issue an impeachment recommendation in lieu of indictment). That would tend to suggest that the weekend disaster, John Dowd, Esq. dropping that ‘Flynn lied to the FBI’ information may have also been less than it seems. Everybody's been playing that up as a great mistake for Dowd to have made, but it may instead tell us that Mueller already knew that much against Trump, and Trump's legal team knew that Mueller had that much already. So, Mueller already knew; and they knew he knew; just the rest of us who didn't know.
What that tells us is that Flynn can probably give them Trump himself, not just Kushner. (Maybe Kushner as well, but not just Kushner.)
I think this is rapidly becoming a public relations, political defense rather than a legal one. And that's probably because…
The congressional investigations don't seem to be going much of anywhere. The Senate Intelligence Committee was only one that was ever serious about discovering what influence Russia actually managed to exercise during our last presidential elections, and it's sorta on hold now with the Republicans on the committee more than happy to defer the investigations to Robert Mueller and his crew. As for the other committees supposedly investigating the matter, it doesn't appear to me that any of the Republican chairmen were ever interested in anything other than burying the questions behind a pretense of investigation. Quite simply, the Republicans in Congress were at one point getting to where they weren't afraid of Trump, and then a couple of them crossed him, and they got slapped down by the Republican ‘base’ voters. The guys who got slapped down, got slapped hard; they aren't even running for reelection now. The rest ‛em figured it out real fast; the Republican voter ‘base’ is solid behind Trump, notwithstanding Trump's dismal approval ratings overall, the base is still with him. And as long as the base is behind Trump any Republican not sufficiently deferential is lookin’ to get taken out in the next primary, won't make it to the general election.
So, the idea that they're gonna cross Trump, as in possibly impeach him, that's not gettin’ any traction at all. They've got to get through the next primaries; that's the first and most important thing to them. Helping to impeach Trump ain't gonna help them get through the primaries. That's just how it is. They got no appetite for an impeachment and they ain't gonna get an appetite for it after Mueller's report comes in. Can't tell how things might go after the 2018 mid-term elections. But that's how things stand now.
So, I'm still holding out a far-fetched hope that Mueller decides to indict Trump's ass. (Good chance that'll fail for lack of support from the Republican Congress, but it's probably our best bet for holding Trump accountable for collusion with the Russians--assuming, of course, that Mueller turns up the evidence for that.)
It seems the Republicans are playing hard to their base.
"House Republican leaders have promised conservatives that they won't grant concessions to Democrats to get enough votes for a stopgap spending bill…." Politico.Com
(Basically, this is a ‛we will crush them’ promise. It's probably necessary to help quell any Republican uprising against the tax cuts for the rich proposal now going into a conference committee prior to a final version to be voted on by both chambers. And, that brings up another thing…)
The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans now have the whip hand and are very likely to pass their tax cuts proposals in short order. I, on the other hand, am a contrarian on this question. I still think their odds are 50/50 at best. I think their various factions have largely accepted things they didn't like in order to pass the buck to the other chamber and let the thing die there if it's gonna die. They intend to dig in and make demands for the final version. Conventional wisdom be damned; they're gonna make it look extremely dicey for passage these next couple of weeks. That doesn't mean they won't pass it; I still figure the odds at 50/50; could go either way. But, it will look a lot less like a sure thing in a couple of weeks. Remember, the Republicans passed something like 60 bills repealing ObamaCare, content in the knowledge that none of those would become law, and then couldn't pass a real one when the time came. When they're looking at something that might become law their calculations change.
(And, if this attempt dies, they'll just try again next year. It's not going to go away.)
No, none of this is going to go away as long as the Republicans are in control. And that won't go away until the American people stand up and vote them out. Sad, but true, that we actually can't count on that last bit. Judging by the lead of someone like Roy Moore in the polls I an again disappointed and disheartened by the American voters of today.
So, I'm still holding out a far-fetched hope that Mueller decides to indict Trump's ass.
Agreed. It would actually be nice to see the swamp really drained.
"…Roy Moore…I am again disappointed and disheartened by the American voters of today."
Ya gotta remember, this is Alabama we're talking about here. Hasn't been a Democrat win in Alabama almost since 1964 when the Democrats pushed through the first of the Civil Rights legislations. Ain't a single Democrat holding any statewide office in Alabama today.
The part that dismays me is that the Republicans in Washington DC are again embrassing Roy Moore. They've started pumping money back into getting him elected, and all that talk about refusing to seat him has gone away. They want that Republican vote.
On the brighter side, now they're gonna be saddled as the party of Trump and Moore. The Dems have the Al Franken problem, but he's not done anything on a level even remotely approaching those two, and he's maybe even gonna get forgiven on account of being appropriately remorseful (in public anyway) and begging forgiveness. So, he may not be the drag on them that he might otherwise be (especially given that the Dems ran the much more powerful John Conyers out of office).
So, the Republicans are again playing to their base. They got lucky with that last time; Trump's election was a fluke. But, they're doing their damn level best to try to lock themselves into that position and that's gonna kill ‛em off is what that's gonna do. Just not gonna kill ‛em off until after the 2018 elections is the immediate problem.
By the way, TheGuardian is suggesting that there are hints that Trump may be making game changing moves, including preparations for the sacrifice of Jared Kushner, in the hopes of isolating the Russia problem.
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere. Before the Trumps were even in the White House, he tried to set up a backchannel to communicate with the Russians. He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. Then there were the secret reassurances to the Russians that the Obama sanctions were nothing to worry about once Trump took office. Kushner was behind those machinations, too.
They still haven't asked the most important question, why? But, perhaps Mueller has.
The part that dismays me is that the Republicans in Washington DC are again embrassing Roy Moore. They've started pumping money back into getting him elected, and all that talk about refusing to seat him has gone away. They want that Republican vote.
Yup. It may very well be their undoing. Depends on how much the American public are hurt by the legislation they are pushing through. And how much they really understand the true cause.
Lynette: I'm thinking you are right there. Unfortunately they live in a very tough neighborhood where people are very intent on keeping the power status quo, and will do just about anything to do so."
They live as a distinct people spread out across various nation states in the ME.
Why then do they just not "assimilate"?
After all we're in the west told that incoming migrants are a great thing and they will assimilate. Come to sweden - you're a swede. Come to America -you're an Aerican. Right?
"So I wonder what they have up their sleeves to combat this?"
They may have overplayed their hand this time and don't have anything up their sleeve. The Barzani clan (PUK) has long time had the support of Tehran over the Talibani clan (KDP). When the Iraqi forces approached Kirkuk after the referendum, the Barzani clan suddenly withdrew their forces from the front lines, leaving the Talibani affiliated Peshmurga exposed on their flanks; the word is a deal was struck leaving Talibani exposed. The Talibani affiliated soldiers were quickly compelled to withdraw. Talibani may not have anything up his sleeve this time, nothing that will work what with the other Kurdish power clan now in league with Tehran.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The Arabs and the Turks, and probably the Persians too, although I know less about their inclinations, they have the same sort of attitude about integration as does Marcus the Swede, and have long felt that way. This would explain why the Kurds have not assimilated in the Middle East. And, if the rest of Sweden comes to share Marcus' inclinations, the Kurds will never assimilate in Sweden either.
A culture has to be welcoming and tolerant to really encourage, and succeed at, assimilation. Lee is right, Marcus, people have to want to assimilate, and they won't want to do that in a culture that rejects them. It is what we will see start to happen here in the US if Trump's policies are permanent. We will lose a piece of what really has made America great. Sad, very sad.
This lack of feeling included also leads to a desire for a country of "their own". A country that will accept them. Why do you think Israel came to be?
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Franken has just resigned. I can't seem to get the video of his speech to play properly here. I will have to listen tonight.
It's a sad day for our country when we lose someone who has done an otherwise good job. Yet we will have others who have committed the same types of offenses, if not more so, still in office or about to take office.
This will put this Senate seat up for grabs in 2018 and get rid of a staunch opponent of Donald J. Trump. A very sad day, indeed.
Well, for what it's worth… That seventh allegation, the anonymous accuser who claimed he pounced on her and claimed it was his ‛right as an entertainer’…; that one never rang true. I was dubious about that one before he later denied that one. I strongly suspected that was a hit job, still suspect that for that matter. Perhaps somebody'll eventually put a name on that anonymous source and we'll learn more about that one.
That said, that was the seventh allegation against him, and there has been another; there are more out there probably. Usually sexual predators will strike against women they work with, and Franken doesn't seem to have followed that pattern. I suspect he thought of his offenses as harmless indulgences, probably the same thing George H.W. Bush's ‛cop-a-feel’ joke was to Bush. Franken wasn't a predator, just a self-indulgent boor. Problem is, guys who're engaged in such adolescent self-indulgence don't bother to think through how it might feel to their victim. It can, doesn't always, but can feel overwhelming, frightening, make a list….
Well, he's paid his price. Moving right along… (Or, are we actually moving along here?)
Lee: "And, if the rest of Sweden comes to share Marcus' inclinations, the Kurds will never assimilate in Sweden either."
What about the Kurds' own willingness to assimilate? Is that a non-factor here?
Lynnette: "A culture has to be welcoming and tolerant to really encourage, and succeed at, assimilation. Lee is right, Marcus, people have to want to assimilate"
That might be the carrot end of things. The whip is probably needed too. As in "assimilate or GTFO!".
That being said we're not supposed to advocate assimilation here, but integration - something even much less likely to be successful.
Lynnette: "This lack of feeling included also leads to a desire for a country of "their own"."
Funny you should mention that, because I think a desire for a nation for your own is a pretty universal wish. I sure wish for one, and having been brought up in one I am not all that keen on seeing it turning into something entirely different with this whole multiculturalism ballyhoo. Lots of cons so far, not a lot of pros, IMO.
What's yall's take on Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israels capitol and planning a move of the US embassy there to hammer down the point?
In our media it gets serious thumbs down on the leftist more socialist side. Our establishment right media - the Liberals (you read that correct, here liberals have traditionally been considered to be the right of politics) are more cautiosly measured in their critizism because they are historically very pro Israel. But there too they are kinda like: well even if it's the right thing really Trump is being reckless.
Myself I am deliberatly detached from the whole Israel/Palestine issue, even though I realise it's of great importance, because I just can't find a realistic set of politics to get behind.
And about this whole #meetoo thing. There are degrees in hell.
We have a case in court in Sweden right about no where a woman was raped by upto 20 men. Yes she was a prostitute to begin with but she was lured by a "costomer" into a suburb of Stockholm. In a staircase of a tenant building they raped her over and over, banged her head against the stairs until she lost conciousness and also pulled a knife at her when she tried to resist them. Passersby declared to police later they "didn't want to get involved", it's that kinda neighborhood.
Wanna place a bet as to the ethnicity of the raped VS the rapers in this case?
Place your bets. Let's hear 'em. You'r best bets. You place your bets now and I'll download the courtfile when it's available.
Assimilation--- fuck that! ---it's about taking over and it always was.
"What about the Kurds' own willingness to assimilate? Is that a non-factor here?"
Yeah, pretty much a non-factor. Given the high number of non-Kurdish Swedes in comparison to the number of Kurds, the rest of you could pretty much compel assimilation. What you have to do is break up their enclaves. You don't want them broken up to the point that the Kurds don't have their own places to be. Almost all American cities have ghettos of sorts, Chinatowns, Italian districts, etc. But, you want the ethnic enclaves small enough that interaction between the Kurds and the main cultural group is inescapable. Their enclaves should be small enough that they are effectively overwhelmed and must deal with native Swedes on a regular basis. But, it is good, perhaps even necessary, for them to have places where they feel comfortable, so long as they don't feel like they've been able to withdraw from the larger society. In effect, you compel integration; after that, assimilation will follow of its own accord eventually.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "What's yall's take on Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israels capitol…"
Dumbass move. Even the Israeli weren't clamoring for it. He did that solely to score points with his Right-winger Bible Thumper support faction.
I bet you would not be asking for bets unless you were fairly certain that you knew the results would prove to be as you wanted them to be. In effect, you select your examples to bolster your position; it's called ‛cherry picking’. (Although you have made mistakes on that count before.)
Funny you should mention that, because I think a desire for a nation for your own is a pretty universal wish.
That could be taken as synonymous with wanting freedom in whatever country you call your own. And, yes, I agree that the desire for freedom is universal.
I had that wrong. Looks like these leaks are coming out of the House Intelligence Committee.
And, have you noticed the recent inclusion of K.T. McFarland among the ranks of the sinners? (May turn out to be almost as important as them gutting out Trump Jr.)
The Russian connections are looking like a definite threat to Trump these days. We can be sure Mueller's all over it; doin’ it quietly, but doin’ it.
201 comments:
1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»500 ÷ 201,500,000 = ~.0000025
230 ÷ 40,300,000 = ~.0000057
.0000057 > .0000025
30-23. Congrats.
NewYorkTimes thinks there's reason to believe that ex-National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is preparing to roll on Trump.
How Donald Trump ruined Thanksgiving.
To be followed shortly by "How Donald Trump ruined Christmas", "How Donald Trump grabbed Easter by the p*ssy", "How Donald Trump mangled Memorial Day", "How Donald Trump belaboured Labour Day". Four years is a lot of days to keep the whinge fest going. Better get creative.
I have my doubts about ‘Donald Trump Grabbed Easter…’.
Lynnette, sorry your Thanksgiving plans fell through. Hope you had good one. I've watched about half your video (in between writing an essay on XUV flares in M dwarfs -- just thought I'd mention that to get a rise out of Lee). I wonder does the video say as much or more about the time it was made than the time it portrays?
P.S. Obviously Thanksgiving is a non-event here. But judging by the fact that "Black Friday" has totally infected our shops and (as I mentioned) that Halloween is now about "trick or treating", I've no doubt that Thanksgiving turkeys will be on sale in a few years time. We'll have to retrospectively invent some Pilgrims to go with them. I think our first European settlers arrived about 9,000 years ago, so we can pretty much concoct whatever story we like about them without fear of contradiction ;-)
I'm mildly surprised that your instructor would choose to call it an ‛essay’, but, other than that…
[Marcus]: "PeteS, feel free to weigh in here. When it comes to math and science in general I see you as the most proficient in this small circle we've got goin' here."
Why, how nice!
"You're a deluded liberal in many cases but you DO know math."
Oops. I spoke too soon.
"When the numbers are there I would think you're the most qualified person here to crunch them."
Ah, but the issue here is not really about the numbers. This is seen from yourself and Lee arguing cross-purposes (even on the rare occasions when he gets his numbers right. I see he's now giving us figures to seven decimal places, LOL. A reminder about the difference between precision and accuracy seems apt :-)
Ok, here's how it is. Before you crunch any numbers you have to decide what hypothesis you want to test. Here are three possibles (there may be more, but I think these cover the positions that three of us here would take).
You: the ratio of white people killed by black people to black people killed by white people multiplied by the ratio of white people to black people in the population. The first ratio involves two independent numbers whose ratio is no more significant than the ratio of million-dollar mortgages issued to Coca Colas sold. I think I know what you think it signifies but I think you are wrong. It's not a competition to see who can do the most interracial killings. We know black people commit more violent crimes in general so you would expect them to kill more of everybody. If you want to see who has the highest propensity to do an interracial homicide then ... well, we'll come to that when we get to me.
Lee: Lee has flip-flopped on what he's trying to measure since he got backed into a corner on his last bunch of nonsense figures. But his latest approach is to take the proportion of the white population killed by black people and compare it to the proportion of the black population killed by white people. That's not a very sensible number either. It does indeed yield the odds of being killed in an interracial killing depending on your colour ... but so what?
Me: I continue to believe that the figure Marcus thought he was coming up with was the propensity of people to carry out interracial killings. As far as I'm concerned the only way to do that is: for each demographic, look at the total number of killings they carry out. Then take the proportion of those which are interracial killings. This gives you the likelihood of an interracial killing independent of the absolute number of killings carried out by that demographic.
I can't vouch for the numbers because I long since ceased caring about the argument, but I think Marcus's article mentioned blacks being over 90% likely to be killed by another black person, but whites only being 80-something percent to be killed by another white person. Which presumably means there is a slightly higher ratio of interracial killings as a proportion of all killings done by black people than the same calculation done for white people. Not eleven times as Marcus computes, nor 2.5 times in the other direction as Lee computes. And there are all sorts of possible explanations for it, other than Marcus's "murderous black man" hypothesis which I put down to sloppy racism.
"A reminder about the difference between precision and
accuracy seems apt :-)"
Or not. Rounding it back to two decimal places would get us
.00 > .00
Which is about as unenlightening as your comments on the subject so far.
"Lee has flip-flopped on what he's trying to measure…"
Lee is measuring that ratio that Marcus called out. I.e:
"…a white man is more likely to be shot by a black than vice versa."
Marcus @ Mon Nov 20, 02:17:00 pm
You're doing no better this time than last, where you tied yourself up into knots and ended up babbling into the darkness.
Actually, babbling nonsense into the darkness is a fairly apt description of that last post of yours, if I do say so myself. You're at it again.
And, no Marcus; he's not gonna help you out with your math. He's not going that far into nonsense I don't reckon; too easy to call him on it. Ain't an allegiance to the truth that stops him, but it'd be too easy to call him on it if he tried to back you up, so he'll feign disinterest instead.
Post Script for Petes:
On a more gracious note… I will offer a suggestion you can actually use.
If they're teaching you any math these days (gawd knows you could use that), you might have them explain the concept of ‛significant figures’ and how it differs from mere decimal placement. I think a functional acquaintance with the concept of ‘significant figures’ might have saved you from babbling on about ‘precision and accuracy’ above.
Moving right along to a subject with perhaps more potential… I notice that folks in Turkey are beginning to call for Turkey's withdrawal from NATO. I think this is probably not new, but it seems that the Turkish government isn't tamping down on the talk this time. Al-Monitor
Personally, I would think it would be unwise to discourage such talk from the Turks. (Of course, I think we should begin preparations to withdraw ourselves, so I'm inclined to let the Europeans decide for themselves whether they want to remain allied up with the Turks.)
Pete: "Not eleven times as Marcus computes, nor 2.5 times in the other direction as Lee computes. And there are all sorts of possible explanations for it, other than Marcus's "murderous black man" hypothesis which I put down to sloppy racism."
But Pete. If blacks kill 500 whites in one year and blacks are 13% of the population. And whites kill 230 blacks in one year and whites are 65% of the population. How do you fault my math?
Here's the input:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
How can you dispute that this math is correct:
(500*65)/(230*13) = 10,9
That any individual black is 11 times more likely to kill a white than any individual white is to kill a black in the USA in that given year?
I KNOW you are uncomfortable with some of these FACTS but they're still facts. Based on the stats we've got and crunched in numbers to show where we're at.
I'm dissapointed in you Pete, I thought you were about science, math and hard truths. Turns out you're just another ideologue after all.
Lee:
"Moving right along to a subject with perhaps more potential… I notice that folks in Turkey are beginning to call for Turkey's withdrawal from NATO. I think this is probably not new, but it seems that the Turkish government isn't tamping down on the talk this time. Al-Monitor
Personally, I would think it would be unwise to discourage such talk from the Turks. (Of course, I think we should begin preparations to withdraw ourselves, so I'm inclined to let the Europeans decide for themselves whether they want to remain allied up with the Turks.)"
I actually don't think this has much at all to do with "europeans". It's about the Turks feeling like NATO is suddenly siding too much with the Kurds. And the "eurpopeans" never ran NATO anyway.
That said, by all means, rid NATO of the Turks. They were only ever an ally of convenience against the Soviets anyway.
30-23. Congrats.
It was a good game. They even managed to throw in a close call at the end.
They've done good so far this season. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it continues. :)
NewYorkTimes thinks there's reason to believe that ex-National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is preparing to roll on Trump.
It does appear that he is going to cooperate with Mueller.
Trump's firing Comey wasn't going to end this. He was foolish to think it might.
"They even managed to throw in a close call at the end."
They tried to lose that game a couple of times, but were not successful.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
These are not equivalent statements.
"1. …a white man is more likely to be shot by a black than vice versa."
"2. …any individual black is…more likely to kill a white than any
individual white is to kill a black…"
Circle ten white men around a barrel with a fish and have them take turns shooting at the fish in the barrel. Odds approach 100% that the fish in the barrel will be shot by one of the men. Odds are only 10% that any individual man will shoot the fish in the barrel.
Four years is a lot of days to keep the whinge fest going. Better get creative.
We'll see, maybe we won't need to.
Kushner doesn't strike me as someone Trump can depend on to take rap and go down quietly.
Hope you had good one.
Actually it was rather pleasant. I watched the Vikings and had a more or less traditional dinner(turkey, potatoes w/gravy, baked squash, spinach salad, fresh cooked cranberries & a nice Chardonnay, with ice cream for dessert) with my Mom. After that we watched an old movie, Home Alone, which was listed as one of the top holiday films. It was relaxing.
I wonder does the video say as much or more about the time it was made than the time it portrays?
I don't know, I'd have to try to do some research on that. But it looks kind of like it was done sometime in the 1940's or so, judging by the black and white film. Actually that's kind of why I liked it. It has the appearance of age and given the subject matter it seemed appropriate from an artistic stand point. I took film appreciation in college and I think some of it rubbed off on me. ;) Not to mention it was short relative to others I saw. I got a little push back from the peanut gallery the last time I posted lengthy videos. lol!
But judging by the fact that "Black Friday" has totally infected our shops...
Oh! How horrible for you! My condolences. I was just out and about today doing some errands, but I managed to skirt around the edges of the well traveled malls and their congested parking lots. Although our Black Fridays have crept into our Thanksgiving Thursday with quite a few stores opening later in the day, there are still crowds to be found on Friday.
Now the grocery store is rather pleasant to visit after Thanksgiving. Nice and quiet. :)
They tried to lose that game a couple of times, but were not successful.
Yup, it's the story of the Vikings. When you're ahead try to get behind. Penalties work quite well for that. Although the one call for unsportsmanlike conduct on the QB was a little iffy. It looked like he was just flipping the ball, not actually throwing it at anyone.
Kushner doesn't strike me as someone Trump can depend on to take rap and go down quietly.
Not if it's his neck on the line.
Refs blew a couple of calls. I decided that the first team refs must have gotten the holiday off to spend with their families.
Marcus: You're a deluded liberal in many cases but you DO know math.
Petes: Oops. I spoke too soon.
Yes, always wait for the other shoe to drop.
It hit 60° here today. Very nice.
"It hit 60° here today. Very nice."
That's the sort of temps we should be having. Instead I was scraping ice off the windscreen today. At least I discovered a use for the new student card ;-)
"Oh! How horrible for you! My condolences."
Didn't affect me in the slightest. I don't frequent busy shops any time, let alone Black Whatever. In any case, the last two Fridays have both been spent at funerals of young friends. Kinda puts shopping in perspective.
[Marcus]: "But Pete. If blacks kill 500 whites in one year and blacks are 13% of the population. And whites kill 230 blacks in one year and whites are 65% of the population. How do you fault my math? ... That any individual black is 11 times more likely to kill a white than any individual white is to kill a black in the USA in that given year?"
I'm more concerned with your conclusion than your maths. Suppose you go out hunting bison. But it turns out there are seven times as many antelopes as there are bison and you gotta shoot whatever's available. Seems natural that the thing that gets shot the most is the thing that's most available. Now suppose you are out hunting with your black best friend. He's a much better shot than you. But regardless of how many animals you each shoot, you are both gonna shoot mostly antelopes.
@ Lynnette,
Keep your eyes peeled for a fight breaking out over who is or is not the ‘Acting Director’ of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The current director (until close of business today when his resignation became effective) appointed his chief of staff as Deputy Director. The Deputy Director becomes ‘Acting Director’ by operation of law when the current director resigns.
Shorthands just appointed somebody else as ‘Acting Director’ anyway, ‛cause he didn't want the one who'd already assumed that spot by operation of law. One more fight he really doesn't need, but now has. The courts will probably have to sort this one out.
Antelope are smaller, faster, are inclined to zig-zag when taking flight, and are much less likely to let ya get close enough to take a shot in the first place. This aside from them not being anywhere close to seven times as numerous.
[Lynnette]: "I don't know, I'd have to try to do some research on that. But it looks kind of like it was done sometime in the 1940's or so, judging by the black and white film. Actually that's kind of why I liked it. It has the appearance of age and given the subject matter it seemed appropriate from an artistic stand point."
I agree it looks older, but it's made in 1955. The professor of history from Northwestern University who consulted on it only died ten years ago. I imagine Northwestern in the 1950s was still a fairly conservative place in the mainline Methodist tradition. Although the Mayflower Pilgrims predate Methodism, they have vaguely similar roots in dissenting Protestantism. I can see why the film might be done with a bit of "soft focus".
Actually, the different strands of Protestant dissenters mostly hated each other. Within a generation of the Mayflower, their Puritan offspring were hanging Quakers on Boston Common. The most infamous Puritan in Ireland had his conversion experience just around the time of the second Mayflower. Interesting documentary here that explains why Thanksgiving might not have much traction in Ireland. Our memories of a Puritan plantation aren't quite as fond as in the US ;-)
In any case, the last two Fridays have both been spent at funerals of young friends. Kinda puts shopping in perspective.
It does indeed. I lost someone in August and I am finding that things, unless they are real needs, aren't really that important.
It's strange this subject came up, because I was just reading a book that touched on a less materialistic philosophy of life.
But Ben was different, and he made her see things differently. He had no desire to possess things or to accumulate wealth. It was enough, he said, that he was able to get himself from one place to the next. His parents had worked on archaeological digs in the Far East when he was a boy and he'd realized then that the possessions people coveted in he fleeting present were destined to disappear; if not to turn to dirt, then to lie buried beneath it, awaiting the curiosity of future generations. His father had unearthed many such items, he said, beautiful objects that would once have been fought over. "And they all ended up lost or discarded, the people who'd owned them dead and gone. All that matters to me are people and experience. Connection-that's the thing. That flicker of electricity between people, the invisible tie." The Lake House by Kate Morton.
I would probably modify that somewhat. I still believe that one needs to be able to take care of one's basic needs and to be able to have a little freedom to do things and experiences things. That does take some accumulation of wealth. But the stuff people trample all over each other to acquire isn't worth all that much.
But my sincere condolences on your losses. It's always hard to lose someone young.
Keep your eyes peeled for a fight breaking out over who is or is not the ‘Acting Director’ of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Yes, that's all over the news at the moment. I'm not sure if this guy (Trump) is just totally incompetent or really believes that the president governs by fiat.
Actually, the different strands of Protestant dissenters mostly hated each other. Within a generation of the Mayflower, their Puritan offspring were hanging Quakers on Boston Common.
How quickly they forgot. Sounds familiar. That documentary looks very interesting. I've run across Cromwell in various books, but haven't really had time to read enough about him. I will have to watch that when I have a little more time.
1955? Off by about 10 years. It was the black and white that threw me off. I suppose we were still in a transition period from black and white to color that took a little longer than I was thinking.
"How quickly they forgot."
The ones who forgot were the Quakers; they forgot to avoid Boston. The Puritans would have hung Quakers earlier if they'd found any wandering around loose.
"... I was just reading a book that touched on a less materialistic philosophy of life."
Reminds me ... I've just been reading about fancy Advent calendars. When we were kids they were just cheap cardboard things where you opened a little door each day to reveal a picture. Apparently you can now spend $13,000 on a version that reveals a different rare whiskey every day. There are also expensive beauty versions, as well as cheaper chocolate or cheese ones. I got a bit of a laugh out of the promotion for an Advent calendar from Gregg's bakery, which did draw come complaints and got withdrawn (though probably less complaints than if you tried to replace Muhammad with a sausage roll :-)
Sorry, that was me.
lol! Now that's one thing I haven't seen here!
The Puritans would have hung Quakers earlier if they'd found any wandering around loose.
Sad to say that sounds like something we hear of today. The recent attack on the mosque in Egypt comes to mind.
"The recent attack on the mosque in Egypt comes to mind."
An apt analogy. I had thought about making it before.
Contrary to the popular fables sold to grade schoolers, the Puritans weren't looking for religious freedom when they came here. They were looking to create a theocracy; their theocracy. They were the Christian Taliban of their day. Petes neglects to mention it, but they didn't like Catholics even more than they didn't like other Protestants. And they didn't like other Protestants more than most.
[Lynnette]: "Sad to say that sounds like something we hear of today. The recent attack on the mosque in Egypt comes to mind."
It's odd that some reportage has steered away completely from mentioning that this was a sectarian attack. The NYT mentions it was a Sufi mosque, but the BBC weirdly omitted it, even in a discussion about IS attacks on mosques being a new development. You would have thought it the number one most relevant fact in such a conversation. It's also interesting that IS's pet hates in the Muslim world are the sects that emphasise peace, justice and holiness, such as Sufism and Ahmadiyya. I guess they see pacifism as unwelcome competition for their brand of violent jihad.
It's odd that some reportage has steered away completely from mentioning that this was a sectarian attack.
Yes, they did mention it here, not just in the New York Times. The extremists don't like Sufis.
I was reading a book the other day, I know I know it's what I've been doing lately, but this was written by a Muslim who works for one of our law enforcement agencies and was instrumental in stopping a major attack in Canada. I think part of why he wrote the book was to try to make clear that for so many Muslims it is very painful what Daesh or AQ has done to their religion. He makes the point that within the Quran itself it explicitly says that "he who slays a soul on earth shall be as if he had slain all of mankind, and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind." But that is ignored by those who follow an extremist path.
This is not his Islam or that of his parents.
Contrary to the popular fables sold to grade schoolers, the Puritans weren't looking for religious freedom when they came here. They were looking to create a theocracy; their theocracy.
Now this is an interesting point. These were people who wanted their religion to be supreme, yet we are not living in a theocracy. At least not yet, anyway. So this begs the question of, why not?
I am off to a play today and then to a belated Thanksgiving dinner.
Pete: "I'm more concerned with your conclusion than your maths. Suppose you go out hunting bison. But it turns out there are seven times as many antelopes as there are bison and you gotta shoot whatever's available. Seems natural that the thing that gets shot the most is the thing that's most available. Now suppose you are out hunting with your black best friend. He's a much better shot than you. But regardless of how many animals you each shoot, you are both gonna shoot mostly antelopes."
But if I go hunting with 4 of my black best friends it stands to reason they should put down more game than I do. If it turns out I STILL manage to put down more than double their combined numbers of... whatever, antilopes I guess, then there's good reason to think that I am more likely to pull the trigger than they are. No?
Just when I think Trump has finished surprising me…: We discover that Trump is in the process of convincing himself that the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape which has him bragging about being able to ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’, and which tape he has previously acknowledged is genuine, now he's in process of convincing himself that the tape is a fake. TheHill
We have a President who's living in his own fantasies, not living in the real world. He's withdrawn to a fantasy world that exists inside his own head. That oughta scare even Petes and Marcus. My guess is they will nevertheless manage to convince themselves that it's all fine.
And Lee. There's no reason to include the population numbers in America to do your math. You have the kill-numbers 500 and 230, and you have the proportions 65% and 13%. Going the roundabout way and include population numbers is unnessesary. You'd know that if you knew math.
Might as well just do: (230/13) / (500/65) = 2,3
Very easy.
That was what you ended up with even with all those unnecessary decimals. But that answers the question:
"How likely is a black to GET KILLED by a white compared to vice versa"
And yes. Any given black is indeed 2,3 times more likely to get killed by a white than the other way around.
But I asked the question:
"How likely is a black to KILL a white compared to vice versa"
And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims of deadly violence but by a far greater extent more likely culprits.
"There's no reason to include the population numbers in
America to do your math."
Of course there was. It was done so that you could see the correct way to use those percentage figures you tossed out. I had hoped you'd be able to figure out from the raw data how it was that you came to the wrong conclusion.
"But I asked the question:
‘How likely is a black to KILL a white compared to vice versa’"
No, you did not. At least, not in connection with our dispute. Rather, you made the statement that:
"…a white man is more likely to be shot by a black than vice versa."
Marcus @ Mon Nov 20, 02:17:00 pm
That statement was incorrect. I called you, specifically on that one and only on that one @ Mon Nov 20, 03:25:00 pm
And that statement is still incorrect.
Lee: "That statement was incorrect. I called you, specifically on that one and only on that one @ Mon Nov 20, 03:25:00 pm"
Yes it was (and is) and I stand corrected. I phrased that wrong. This however still stands:
"And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims (2.3 times) of deadly violence but by a far greater extent more likely culprits (13 times)."
And no, there was no mathemathical reason for you to bring in yet another variable, the US population numbers, when you had all the necessary data to put up your equation.
"This however still stands:
‛And the answer to that is 13 times more likely, as I have
demonstrated a few times now. Blacks are more likely victims
…but by a far greater extent more likely culprits (13 times).’"
Nope, that one's also wrong.
No it's not.
You're figuring that 500 white folks got killed by a black person. How many black persons did the killing? And how do you know?
[Marcus]: "But if I go hunting with 4 of my black best friends it stands to reason they should put down more game than I do. If it turns out I STILL manage to put down more than double their combined numbers of... whatever, antilopes I guess, then there's good reason to think that I am more likely to pull the trigger than they are. No?"
Yes, absolutely. But the fact that you shoot more antelopes than bison will still be because antelopes are more abundant, not because you like antelopes better than your black friends.
P.S. Marcus, the fact that black people commit proportionally more violent crime was never disputed. Here is more grist for your mill if that's what you want.
Here it is Monday morning and there's no TrumpTweets about the NFL players takin’ a knee (which they're still doin’ at the rate of ‛bout a couple dozen per weekend, if we include those who don't show up for the anthem at all).
He's missin’ a chance to take a shot here.
I forgot to mention the other day, Petes, that I watched the Cromwell video. It seems that people have done some very terrible things in the name of religion. It is not just Daesh who has used that excuse.
There was talk about the Senate starting ‛debate’, that's what they call it, tomorrow, Tuesday, on their pending tax-cuts-for-the-rich plan. However, it now seems more likely that Trump will address the Republican Senate caucus tomorrow, and the bill will not go to the floor for debate until Wednesday at the earliest.
"I forgot to mention the other day, Petes, that I watched the Cromwell video. It seems that people have done some very terrible things in the name of religion. It is not just Daesh who has used that excuse."
Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism.
Pete: "P.S. Marcus, the fact that black people commit proportionally more violent crime was never disputed. Here is more grist for your mill if that's what you want."
Well, grits for my mill, I dunno 'bout that. But I started this debate by pointing out the hypocricy of the kneeling ball-tossers, which are part of the whole BLM ruse (and used politically against Trump).
I felt to point out that it's a fat fucking lie that whites, and white cops in particular, across 'Merica are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin left and right.
And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling when the anthem is played is complete bullshit.
That was my starting point. And from there we went into "do them balltossers have a legitimate beef" and to prove they have not I presented some facts, crunched some numbers, and now you did too, so thanks for that I guess.
You sometimes seem to think I am about hating on blacks for the colour of skin. (BTW: how long do you think it'll take for the term "black" to be considered racist?)
It is not about that. It's just that some of this faux BLM bullshit needs to be countered and some REAL probles need highlighing instead.
"…it's a fat fucking lie that…white cops in particular, across 'Merica
are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin…"
That is officially illegal, so they almost never claim (never admit?) to killing blacks ‘for the colour of their skin’. On the other hand, they do kill black detainees at a ratio three times higher than whites, and they shoot blacks in the back at a ratio four (4) times higher than whites, and I think I recall a published study that said they shoot unarmed blacks at a ratio of six (6) times higher.
But, not for ‘the colour of their skin’, not officially anyway, and certainly not ‘left and right’, whatever that's supposed to mean.
And, they almost always get away with it--either not charged (the usual practice) or not convicted if charged.
[Marcus]: "I felt to point out that it's a fat fucking lie that whites, and white cops in particular, across 'Merica are just killing blacks for the colour of their skin left and right."
No disagreement from me there.
[Marcus]: "And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling when the anthem is played is complete bullshit."
Well they probably do have some valid statistics to point at. But there are various possible explanations other than institutionalised racism. If, for instance, black crime rates translate into a corresponding increase in encounters with police, and that in turn increases the likelihood of meeting a poorly trained or nasty cop pro rata, then the numbers are probably about what would be expected. It doesn't exonerate poorly trained or nasty cops, mind.
"You sometimes seem to think I am about hating on blacks for the colour of skin."
Not just "sometimes". Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority.
"And that black footballers should have any real reason for kneeling
when the anthem is played is complete bullshit."
I happen to believe that black footballers, or anyone else for that matter, should be free to kneel or not, as they damn well please, when the national anthem is played, so long as they do not disrupt those people who choose to otherwise engage in the mass ritual.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Mennonites, most but not all Quakers, et al. do not stand in the event of a confrontation by the national anthem.
Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism.
By what means? And is that still valid today?
Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority.
Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism? Is any one form of protest more respected than another? Are only the lower income members of society allowed to protest violence?
It seems that the tax cuts for the rich have moved another step forward.
"…tax cuts for the rich have moved another step forward."
They have indeed. I've seen it written that the only thing worse for the Republicans, long-term, than failing to pass a tax reform package will be passing this tax cut package in its stead.
It's likely to work out poorly for Trump as well. The ‛establishment’ Republicans will have much less use for him once this deal is done (assuming this deal gets done).
Watching the North Koreans improve their missiles. Anybody want to hazard a guess ‛bout what Trump will do, or whether he'll do anything at all?
Pete: "Not just "sometimes". Just 'cos I agree with you about the ball tossers and the BLM racists doesn't mean I hold any truck with your patently racist attitudes to Africans and their inferiority."
Ah, so you think my thoughts are racist in general, because I say things like: there are different races and they are different in various areas including in intelligence?
In fact them black balltossers are not inferior but superior when it comes down to what they do for a living.
OK, let's get back to basics here. Why is every Olympic swimming medalist white? Why is almost every short track medalist originated from west Africa? Why is every long run runner from East Africa?
You DO see that physical differences set us apart based on race, right?
Why is it then a foregone conclusion that mental differences are not biological but due to "racism" while physical differences obviously ARE based on genetics?
Can you answer that? Then we can move on.
(This is a case where Pete's adopted worldview, prolly based in his religion, contrasts with his analytical prowess - It'll be interesting to see which side wins out)
Lee: "I happen to believe that black footballers, or anyone else for that matter, should be free to kneel or not, as they damn well please, when the national anthem is played, so long as they do not disrupt those people who choose to otherwise engage in the mass ritual."
Of course they are free to do that. And of course they also should be free to do that. But what will they accomplish? Driving the core supporters that in the end pay their salaries away, is what.
If I own a company and a store I'm more or less free to have my employees go on the streets and say "fuck you motherfucker" to anyone shopping at my store. I doubt it'll boost my business though.
My prediction remains: them balltossers will end up being reined in. They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. Or they'll get cut. Bet that.
Lee: "Watching the North Koreans improve their missiles. Anybody want to hazard a guess ‛bout what Trump will do, or whether he'll do anything at all?"
Well, what can he do. What could any US President do? Attack now and accept the inevitable carnage, or do nothning and see NK improve its capabilities.
Any US president would face that same bleak choice.
Lynnette: "Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism? Is any one form of protest more respected than another? Are only the lower income members of society allowed to protest violence?"
And are whites allowed to protest violence against them selves? Like the FACT that in a couple years in Norway most assault-rapes were conducted against white Norwegian women, and ALL, 100%, of convicted rapists in those cases were immigrant men. Is that a fact we can take into account when we debate multiculturalism? Or would that be "racist" since the victims were white?
"Driving the core supporters that in the end pay their salaries away,
is what."
The NFL owners have decided that the paying ‘core supporters’ are not being driven away. When I watch football I don't see any advertisements urging the audience to ‘buy gold’, or buy ‘liberty safes’, or ‘ouchless’ catheters, or any of the usual advertisers on Radio-Right-Wing. Nor do Trumpkins make up the majority of asses occupying seats in the stadiums (as I've pointed out before, the stadiums tend to be located in population centers--blue America territory).
There is no doubt that Trump is driving revenue down somewhat, how much is hard to gauge, but the NFL owners don't think it's as much as they'd lose if they pissed of the real ‘core supporters’, i.e. the ones who pay the bills, as opposed to the angrier and noisier ones who follow TrumpTweets.
The immediate losers are the owners, who by and large were Trump supporters, as the players get paid the same either way (at least until their contracts run out and they have to renegotiate, but by that time Trump will have moved on to another sore spot to pick at; he's already losing interest in this, for him, losing proposition). It will not be lost on other business titans that Trump bloodied up his own monied supporters here, and that the players got away mostly unscathed.
"What could any US President do?"
THIS particular President has been ranting on about unleashing ‘fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen’.
I'm of the opinion that any other US President wouldn't make such threats lightly.
"They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. *** Bet that."
Currently the owners are instead talking about repealing the 2009 decision that had the players taking the field before the national anthem. (Prior to 2009 season they did the national anthem before the players came out.) They're seriously considering moving the playing of the anthem up to before the players come out as it used to be done. Trump has recently tweeted his displeasure with this possibility. It would be obvious that the owners are defying him.
They're more apt to continue to defy him than not. You should bet that instead.
"I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know
that I am a black man in a white world."
Jackie Robinson -- I Never Had it Made © 1972
I've noticed that Trump is already trying to blame a government shutdown on the Democrats. (Supposedly the cash runs out on 8 December at current burn rates.) This suggests that he doesn't expect that problem to get solved before 8 December.
[Petes]: "Thankfully most of the West did eventually figure out how to do pluralism."
[Lynnette]: "By what means? And is that still valid today?"
It's a long story. Look up the Peace of Westphalia. That probably freed up European forces from internal sectarianism to repel the Muslim invaders at the Battle of Vienna just a few years later. Islam did not share in this outbreak of pluralism -- it had to be pacified by the old reliable method of having the shit kicked out of it. The British Isles also implemented some of its most draconian sectarian laws after Westphalia, taking another two hundred years to repeal them. However, Christianity has been at least falteringly able to argue for pluralism from its own tenets.
[Lynnette]: "Does protesting violence against one segment of society constitute racism?"
Certainly not. If you inferred that I called the ball tossers racists you've picked me up wrong. The only thing I've called them is idiots. They may be racists for all I know but I've no evidence of that. BLM is a different matter. BLM protests calling for white people to be killed are easily findable on youtube. Those people are out and out racists without a shadow of a doubt. (Nor do I accept that those were just a few mavericks and not the BLM organisation per se).
[Marcus]: "Ah, so you think my thoughts are racist in general, because I say things like: there are different races and they are different in various areas including in intelligence?" (... followed by putting other such words in my mouth).
Nope, didn't say that, wouldn't say that. You're a racist because you think African/black people are inferior. You want to use their genetic differences to stigmatise them, and you make unfounded assertions on that basis. To give one example, the bell curves of IQs cannot be validly used to argue that Africans are unsuitable for European jobs. Would/should you hire a European with an IQ of 90 over an African with an IQ of 120? Both are well within their relative distributions. Arguments from the point of view of cultural assimilability and the rights of indigenous populations are one thing. There's no need to pile racist nonsense on top of them.
And speaking of racist nonsense ... Trump is getting a lot of stick on this side of the pond for retweeting three videos from British far right group, Britain First. I don't know, but I suspect Trump saw "Britain First" and thought it gelled with his own attitude to "America first". Maybe I'm cutting him too much slack. Maybe he did know that they are a racist bunch of far right yahoos, with senior figures facing charges of incitement in court. Either way, Trump's been an ignorant dolt on this one. If he wants to command respect from others he needs to have more respect for his own office.
And while I'm shooting sacred cows, the Pope's a coward. He's in Myanmar exchanging leering grins with genocidal collaborator Aung San Suu Kyi, instead of putting her straight on what's what.
"Maybe he did know that they are a racist bunch of far right yahoos…"
The official White House position as of right now is that it doesn't matter if the vids were picked up from ‘a racist bunch of far right yahoos’. According to White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, such worries amount to "focusing on the wrong thing"; "the threat [from Muslims] is real; the threat needs to be addressed".
Well done, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You just proved the case for fake news. Tell Trump he can ease off CNN now that he's out-faked them. Oh, and maybe tell him that "taking care of" North Korean ICBMs might take a bit more than browsing youtube and Twitter in between golf games.
And, in addition to resurrecting the ‘Access Hollywood’ video as a possibly faked tape, Trump is said to again be flirting with ‛birther’ theories about Obama having been born in Kenya.
This brings to my mind Lynnette's earlier musings about Trump maybe not being up to the job mentally--that the constancy of the pressure of the job might just drive him over the edge. To which my response remains the same, ‘How would we know; how could we tell? What real difference could we expect to see?’)
"…tax cuts for the rich have moved another step forward."
I've been waiting all day for the news that the bill has been brought to the Senate floor so that it may be voted on tomorrow (the reconciliation rules provide for an open, minimum 20 hour debate and amendment period). The idea being that they'd have an extra day to work out any glitches if there were glitches; if taking a vote tomorrow won't work, there's still Friday. So far I've heard nothing about any progress happening today.
More ominously for the Republicans, I've been reading about how they're all pulling together and are all confident that they've worked out their differences and it'll all fall together here in just a few hours. That all sounds good for the Republicans who're busy as bees making these pronouncements.
What I've not been hearing is numbers. If they've worked out their differences, what are the real numbers that go along with those final compromises? Nobody seems to know. I judge this to be a rather ominous development for the Republicans.
I still put their odds of pulling this off at no better than 50/50.
By the way… The Peace of Westphalia did not signal an outbreak of pluralism. It ratified segregation and the drawing of agreed upon lines to keep the sects apart, every prince got to declare and enforce the religion within his own particular principality.
Marcus: "My prediction remains: them balltossers will end up being reined in. They'll have to hop to and salute that flag. Or they'll get cut. Bet that."
Or not.
NFL Owners on Trump
Okay, there is something really weird with that link now. Maybe it will fix itself...or not.
This is what I wanted you to see:
On Wednesday, Jim Trotter and Jason Reid of ESPN.com reported the league made a proposal to players to contribute "at least $89 million over a seven-year period" to causes in African-American communities in an effort to end the protest movement.
Gotta run...be back later to read the comments.
Petes seems rather more hostile to Trump's embrace of British right wingers compared to his repeated displays of sympathy towards our right wingers.
"So far I've heard nothing about any progress happening today."
They made progress late; 52 to 48 and they got it on the Senate floor late today.
I've seen it written that the only thing worse for the Republicans, long-term, than failing to pass a tax reform package will be passing this tax cut package in its stead.
I can see where that might be the case. I think there are things in there that will hurt far more than just the people directly affected. It's another one of those things that have ramifications that our legislators don't take into account, or don't care about.
Taxing college tuition waivers
And are whites allowed to protest violence against them selves?
Anyone can protest violence of any sort. If you are specifically talking about sexual violence against women, I think that is certainly a legitimate complaint, no matter the color of their skin, and no matter the perpetrators involved. You might be familiar with the #MeToo movement that has been started? I see no reason to limit this movement to accusing old, rich, white male perpetrators. It can certainly cover any type of sexual assault by any perpetrator.
Petes: "Look up the Peace of Westphalia."
I did.
The Peace of Westphalia
These things seemed like a good start.
Even more important than the territorial redistribution was the ecclesiastical settlement. The Peace of Westphalia confirmed the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which had granted Lutherans religious tolerance in the empire and which had been rescinded by the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II in his Edict of Restitution (1629). Moreover, the peace settlement extended the Peace of Augsburg’s provisions for religious toleration to the Reformed (Calvinist) church, thus securing toleration for the three great religious communities of the empire—Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist. Within these limits the member states of the empire were bound to allow at least private worship, liberty of conscience, and the right of emigration to all religious minorities and dissidents within their domains. These measures of toleration did not extend to non-Catholics in the hereditary lands of the house of Habsburg, however.
The difficult question of the ownership of spiritual lands was decided by a compromise.
But given the territorial settlement you still ended up with what both you and Lee mentioned.
Petes: "The British Isles also implemented some of its most draconian sectarian laws after Westphalia, taking another two hundred years to repeal them."
Lee C: "The Peace of Westphalia did not signal an outbreak of pluralism. It ratified segregation and the drawing of agreed upon lines to keep the sects apart, every prince got to declare and enforce the religion within his own particular principality."
So the Peace of Westphalia was only a start. Something else must have led to a more pluralistic society in the West. What happened next?
"Taxing college tuition waivers"
And removing the deduction for interest on college loans. The Republican Party has, in the last few years, grown noticeably hostile to higher education, ‛eggheads’ and the like. They believe colleges and universities are bastions of those hated twins, science and tolerance. (Not to mention the unfortunate emphasis on actual facts that are too often contrary to the revealed and accepted conservative ‛truths’.)
And they've been talking about implementing a tax on college endowments (uniquely among non-profit institutions, college endowments would be taxed, effectively canceling their charitable, tax-free status). I forgot to mention that one.
Petes: " BLM is a different matter. BLM protests calling for white people to be killed are easily findable on youtube. Those people are out and out racists without a shadow of a doubt. (Nor do I accept that those were just a few mavericks and not the BLM organisation per se)."
Of course the idea of killing anyone is wrong. But what proof do you have that the call to kill white people is the manifesto of the organizers of BLM and not the extremists who have attached themselves to the movement?
Petes: "Either way, Trump's been an ignorant dolt on this one. If he wants to command respect from others he needs to have more respect for his own office."
There now, I knew you would come to understand our feelings about our dear leader. :)
Petes: "Well done, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You just proved the case for fake news."
It also seems you are developing the same fondness for our dear leader's acolytes too. All it takes is time.
"But what proof do you have that…"
It would appear that you misunderstand his position on this question. He did not mention ‛proof’; he clearly designated his position on BLM to be a result of a what he deemed to be an acceptable ‛belief’. (I would again point out the tendency among conservatives to reject actual facts which they find either unacceptable or contrary to their revealed ‘truth’.)
The Republican Party has, in the last few years, grown noticeably hostile to higher education, ‛eggheads’ and the like. They believe colleges and universities are bastions of those hated twins, science and tolerance.
Sad. I never felt in the past that there was that much difference between the two parties when it came to higher learning. Is it just greed and selfishness that has allowed them to so blind themselves? Because I know many people who have voted Republican who are highly intelligent people. How could they let such ignorance pass?
"I know many people who have voted Republican who are highly
intelligent people. How could they let such ignorance pass?"
Ask them to elaborate on their position regarding global warming. If they agree to explain it to you (not a member of their tribe; no sure bet they'll discuss it with you, but…) you may get a glimmer of how that works.
[Lynnette]: "But what proof do you have that the call to kill white people is the manifesto of the organizers of BLM and not the extremists who have attached themselves to the movement?"
The movement is decentralised by design (check the various statements to that effect on its Wikipedia page). So while I'm aware that those shouting racist slogans speak for themselves and not the whole movement (there is nobody that does that), there is a depressingly large racist element.
"There now, I knew you would come to understand our feelings about our dear leader. :)
It also seems you are developing the same fondness for our dear leader's acolytes too. All it takes is time."
LOL. Well, I never claimed to be a big fan of Trump. And I have to admit he's been sinking in my estimation. His latest is to send irate Tweets to Theresa May over Downing Street's reaction to his earlier Britain First retweets. Except he got the name of her Twitter account wrong. Oh, and the Netherlands' US embassy has pointed out to him that the perp in the video of a "Muslim immigrant" beating up a Dutch boy on crutches was actually born in the Netherlands.
But I still maintain that "the idea of Trump" is necessary in the USA today. Even if, shall we say, the man himself falls somewhat short. Oh alright then, very short. :)
Will have to get back to you about the pluralism question. Just taking a 6am breather from cramming for an exam.
Changing subjects before going down for the night…
Reports are circulating today that Mueller's Trump/Russia investigation had been interviewing Jared Kushner last month, specifically about Michael Flynn. Flynn was set to be dragged before the grand jury again this coming week, but that seems to have been postponed for unknown reasons and for an unknown amount of time.
I'm wondering if Mueller's people are giving Flynn time to consider the ramifications of Kushner maybe trying to hang all this shit on Flynn? Then they go back and question Flynn again after he's thought about himself getting set up to take the rap for stuff Kushner and Trump may have done.
Lee: "Currently the owners are instead talking about repealing the 2009 decision that had the players taking the field before the national anthem. (Prior to 2009 season they did the national anthem before the players came out.) They're seriously considering moving the playing of the anthem up to before the players come out as it used to be done. "
That would actually probably be the best way to deal with this from the owners' perspective.
There's another aspect of the Republicans' proposed tax cut that we've not much considered.
The stock market is at an all time high, in saner moments stock analysts would call it a bubble, but they're not using that term these days.
My reading of the market is that the Masters of the Universe are anticipating a profit-taking moment arising out of the Republicans' tax cut package. They've been bidding back and forth among themselves trying to be in the most favorable position for the big event. If the Republicans manage to pass the tax cuts then there will be a brief surge in prices over even the current highs. (Then it will become obvious that this was a bubble, and then comes the crash, but by then the Masters of the Universe will have again off loaded their stocks onto their clients.) If the tax cut package doesn't pass then the reckoning will not come as a crash but rather as a slower downturn as the Masters of the Universe off load their stocks on their clients more slowly. (I figure there'll probably be a fairly immediate hit on the stock market of what we might call ‛sub-crash’ proportions--one of those things they call a ‛correction’, then that'll be followed by a longer slower decline, or, if we're maybe lucky, a stagnation of prices.)
According to recent polls the accused child-molester, Judge Roy Moore, is back in the lead for the Senate race in Alabama.
The southern Trumpkins are rallying!
Mueller has charged Michael Flynn with one count of making false statements to the FBI. No surprises there, so far anyway.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on their tax-cuts-for-the-rich at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. I'm guessing they miss their target (maybe vote on it later today, maybe they try again next week).
But I still maintain that "the idea of Trump" is necessary in the USA today.
To bring to the surface all of our warts and failings so that we can try to finally deal with them? Kind of like lancing a boil?
The stock market is at an all time high, in saner moments stock analysts would call it a bubble, but they're not using that term these days.
I hear the market went crazy yesterday, going above 24,000. Maybe a good time to sell stock positions and go to bonds or cash? Or perhaps international stocks? They seem to be going up crazily too.
Mueller has charged Michael Flynn with one count of making false statements to the FBI. No surprises there, so far anyway.
It seems the White House's first response is that everyone lies in Washington. First, I don't think everyone lies to the FBI, and second they just admitted that they lie.
Off to do my endless rounds of errands, and chores. It's time to start Christmasing and to put the garden to bed. It seems the weather will be turning next week.
Pete: "To give one example [why I'm a rabid racist], the bell curves of IQs cannot be validly used to argue that Africans are unsuitable for European jobs.
Well there are indeed reports that the Bell curve differes among races, for one thing.
And we are in a very peculiar time when we are told by politicians we desperately need more "working people" to sustain an aging generation, and meanwhile from the Industrial side there are reports of automatisation and robitisation rendering hundreds of millions of jobs (globally) irrelevant in the near future.
I tend to believe the economists/industrialists over politicians. I thiink we are already "over productive" and the last thing we need is an influx of unskilled labour. They will end up leeching on society rather than contributing to it, which all current evidence also point to.
Pete: "Would/should you hire a European with an IQ of 90 over an African with an IQ of 120? Both are well within their relative distributions."
Of course not. But you well know that picking examples out of a larger group is dishonest arguing. And even if it was not, why should we "steal" the cream of the crop from Africa because we benefit from them economically? That'd amount to brain drain in Africa, or wouldn't you agree?
Pete: "Arguments from the point of view of cultural assimilability and the rights of indigenous populations are one thing. There's no need to pile racist nonsense on top of them."
How about culture being one issue and genetics another, and they both matter? Or does that, despite it being true, hurt your feelz?
https://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F511%2F258%2F66a.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fknowyourmeme.com%2Fmemes%2Ffeels&docid=SwyUShcYPg73UM&tbnid=uWsLAoAc-n_JCM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjkxfyipOnXAhUmAZoKHTrGAhIQMwgmKAAwAA..i&w=600&h=392&bih=662&biw=1366&q=my%20feels%20meme&ved=0ahUKEwjkxfyipOnXAhUmAZoKHTrGAhIQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=
"It seems the White House's first response is that everyone lies…"
Their first response should be fear. Flynn's now pled guilty to the single count charged. This is a open warning that he's rolled and is coöperating with the Mueller probe. Now it's a question of what he's got on whom, ‛cause he's givin’ folks up, else Mueller wouldn't be making a deal with him.
"Maybe a good time to sell stock positions and go to bonds or cash?"
I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said they were a bunch of crooks in there, serious professional crooks, big time stuff made his rackets in Chicago look like grade-schoolers grabbing lunch monies.
Lee: "I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said..."
I don't offer advice either other than to say when the market really rallies it's probably time to sell. And when there's gloom and doom all around it's probably time to buy.
That said, the timing is still a fickle thing.
For instance: I've been convinced for about 10 years now we had a serious housing bubble in Sweden that was about to come crashing down on us. And I have been "wrong" for all that time because it didn't crash but prices just kept climbing. Now they are at the levels that even if they fell 50% they might still be above prices when I thought we might have topped out. So perhaps I was just wrong, or perhaps the fall will be even steeper and I was right, just not right on timing.
An example: I bought my 83 SQM two bedroom apartment 11 years ago for 1.75M. And I was kinda afraid that I bought at the top of the market and did some serious thinking on wether I could actaully afford this place. A 35 SQM studio sold just the other day for 1.9M in the same building. Insane! Good for me, but still insane.
Hey Pete!
Enriching, innit?
http://www.thetricolour.com/Articles/183/politics/Blanchardstown-Residents-living-in-Fear-as-new-gang-culture-takes-shape/l4474504/
Gots to luv 'at multiculti, nae?
HIV cases in Sweden:
http://www.friatider.se/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/smitt.gif
Red = Infected in Sweden
Blue = Infected abroad
How very vibrant, exciting and enriching!
Re: tax cuts for the rich
Mitch McConnell says he's got the votes. They're apparently doing a second rewrite on the proposal, the one they were going to go with at 11:00 am being superseded now. They say they'll finally get to vote on it later today.
Re: Mueller investigation
The White House has canceled a scheduled photo-op for later today with the Libyan Prime Minister. They claim the schedule was in error and they never intended to offer a photo-op on the day that the Senate finally passes a tax cuts for the rich tax plan.
Yeah, right.
It would appear that Michael Flynn has given Jared Kushner up to Mueller's investigation. Bloomberg
One step closer to Shorthands himself. BIG step closer to Shorthands himself.
Quaere now: Has Trump been too frightened to tweet about Flynn rolling over on Team Trump? Or did his legal team somehow manage to intercept his personal twitterphone?
I don't offer stock market advice other than to always remember that Al Capone said...
Oh, sure enough, the game is rigged in someone's favor, and it isn't me. Like Marcus with Swedish real estate I have been thinking for some time that our stock market is in a bubble and should have corrected by now, but it just keeps going up. Eventually what goes up must come down, though. I just hope it isn't too fast.
As for advice, I always like to hear what other people think, but I usually make up my own mind as to what kind of investments are the best for me. Everybody's situation is different.
BIG step closer to Shorthands himself.
Very much so. Kushner is as close as you can get when it comes to Trump's deals. Everything seems to be happening very quickly now.
Has Trump been too frightened to tweet about Flynn rolling over on Team Trump? Or did his legal team somehow manage to intercept his personal twitterphone?
My bet is the latter. I really think Trump has deluded himself that he is invincible.
"…but it just keeps going up."
Current inside holders are still competing for position, competing for product (stocks) on hand or on order, to be able to unload onto the general population after the tax cuts pass. Much of this activity is leveraged (hope like hell we don't have to bail out the Masters of the Universe again).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Kushner is as close as you can get when it comes to Trump's deals."
Outside possible that Flynn can give them Trump himself, but I'm betting on it being Kushner that Flynn's offering up.
The Senate finally managed to pass their tax cuts for the rich bill. 51-49. This was supposed to be the easy part. They've gotta agree now on a version that can pass both the House and the Senate. I still give it 50/50 chance of final success. But, they needed to get this one first. The Senate especially needed to kick this back to the House. The Republican Senators took the rap for the failure of their repeal and whatever bill trying to kill ObamaCare, and they didn't want to be saddled with the failure of this one too. They'd much rather have it die somewhere else if it's gonna die.
Outside possible that Flynn can give them Trump himself, but I'm betting on it being Kushner that Flynn's offering up.
Speculation on CNN this morning was that Flynn could be giving up one of three people; Kushner, Donald Jr. or Bannon.
I don't think it's Bannon, he wouldn't have taken so much work. It's between Kushner and Donald Jr. I tend to agree with you about Kushner. I think of those two he is the low hanging fruit. He is also the more likely of the two to lead to Trump himself. It depends on how much time you might want to spend in jail for your father-in-law. Kushner doesn't strike me as the self sacrificing type.
Trumptweets
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and
the FBI."
This implies that Trump fired Flynn partly because he lied to the FBI. That would mean Trump knew Flynn had been obstructing justice back when Flynn was doing it, and that Trump is part of an agreement to obstruct justice. The chances that Flynn can give them Trump seem to have suddenly increased. (He almost certainly did not run that one past his lawyers first.)
They will argue that Trump didn't actually mean what he said (he never does except in the case of Trumpkins who want to believe whichever of his often conflicting stories sounds best to them). But, if Flynn comes out saying that he and Trump discussed this back when, that Trumptweet is gonna be useful against Trump.
[Lynnette]: "Oh, sure enough, the game is rigged in someone's favor, and it isn't me. Like Marcus with Swedish real estate I have been thinking for some time that our stock market is in a bubble and should have corrected by now, but it just keeps going up. Eventually what goes up must come down, though. I just hope it isn't too fast."
I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money).
The market may be in a bubble but the one thing you don't have to worry about is that Trump's tax bill is part of a plan to let the rich escape in advance of a planned collapse in the markets. That's conspiracy nuttery. The tax cuts don't in general apply to capital gains, except for short term investments. The bill may have other shortcomings but that's not one of them. Anyone claiming the rich are all going to exit stage left just to protect some of their last twelve months of gains is firmly in grips of the Trump Whinge Fest ;-)
"…one thing you don't have to worry about is that Trump's tax bill is
part of a plan to let the rich escape [taxes] in advance of a planned
collapse in the markets."
If that's what you thought I was suggesting then you need to read my comments a little closer. That ain't it.
"(He almost certainly did not run that one past his lawyers first.)"
I seem to have had that wrong. The White House is now claiming that the tweet was authored by Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd. (Not gonna make the rest of his legal team happy.) CBSNews
This implies that Trump fired Flynn partly because he lied to the FBI.
I was just going to mention that tweet. I should have known you would have seen it already. Trump is certainly determined to be proven guilty of something!
The White House is now claiming that the tweet was authored by Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd.
Aaaaaand he just loves to try to drag people down with him. Makes Mueller's job way easier. Whether or not our so called representatives will listen I don't know.
Yes, I suspect that personal attorney John Dowd Esq. has just earned himself a prominent place on the list of guests who'll soon be treated to the hospitality of Mr. Mueller's grand jury.
I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money).
I moved a little at that time, not all, so was able to ride the wave back up again to some extent. I tend not to change position's too extremely. So I probably won't get rich or get too broke. :)
Right now I just would like to avoid getting slapped too hard if a bubble does burst. So a little more balance between stocks and bonds is probably not a bad thing. Nor is fixing up the house.
Anybody ever figure out what the hell ‛the idea of Trump’ was supposed to mean?
Trump is going hyper this morning over some right-winger conspiracy theories about how the FBI agents working for Mueller are out to ‛get’ him. TrumpTweets
Serious playin’ to the base (and the crazier element of same) goin’ on here. This Russia thing seems to have him seriously rattled.
Trump is going hyper this morning over some right-winger conspiracy theories about how the FBI agents working for Mueller are out to ‛get’ him.
If they have evidence that he has done something illegal they probably are. Otherwise they wouldn't be worth their salt as FBI agents.
Speaking of twitter, this is rather interesting. Despite that email debacle that probably gave us Trump I have come to like the man.
Yes, I will probably buy his book...in hardcover.
"If they have evidence that he has done something illegal
they probably are."
E-mails have surfaced of correspondence between two of them (lovers, at least one married and therefore adulterous) that were critical of Trump before the election. It looks like personal communications between intimate persons to me (so far as I can see so far); I don't see that it implies a professional bias, but it will be seized upon.
Pete: "I thought that eight years ago, and pulled pension money out of equities just in time for one of the largest five year growth spurts ever. Timing the market is a bit of a fool's game (and I'm generally pretty foolish when it comes to money)."
Don't feel foolish. There's to me no clear idea what and where to invest for the future these days. The safest bet was to clear awy all debt, that's done. Although in hindsight it would've been far more lucrative to keep the debt that was close to interest-free and invest in the stockmarket instead. I missed out on that.
Today however, if I have some money over every month, which I currrently do, where do I put them? Everything seems to be a bubble yet hoarding cash is not a great option either.
I'd like to buy a vacation home with some acreage of forest but damn it that TOO is in the bubble realm and insanely priced.
Condo in Spain to use twice a year and have as a retreat for old age? Bubbly-priced too.
More follow up on that ‛admission’ tweet on TrumpTweets: Now it turns out the tweet was posted by White House aide Dan Scavino (who writes many of Trump's tweets for him) and they will not say whether or not it was reviewed by Trump prior to posting (the customary practice for Scavino-posted TrumpTweets).
So,…. Yeah, John Dowd, Esq. has almost certainly earned himself a non-expense paid invitation to Mueller's grand jury.
Bubbly-priced too.
Maybe hoarding cash isn't such a bad idea then. I know there is no return, but sometimes taking money off the table is the best way to save.
Hmmm...those TrumpTweets links in your comment, Lee, just get me back to the comments section, only enlarged.
Yeah, John Dowd, Esq. has almost certainly earned himself a non-expense paid invitation to Mueller's grand jury.
I think he was trying to weasel his way out of that by saying he got sloppy. If that's the case I would have to question his ability as well as his honesty.
"I think he was trying to weasel his way out of that by
saying he got sloppy."
He's apparently found a couple of ‘clarifications’ of his story to be in order already today.
It's one thing to keep trying out new stories with the press.
It's quite another thing to get sworn in before a grand jury and have a story keep changing.
So, I'm expecting Mueller's people to want to pin him down on that one, under oath.
He may even have an entirely different story to tell once he's sworn.
Newest version of the story that I know of at the moment: CBSNews
(This time the link will work.)
I read somewhere that the reason Trump didn't react to the Flynn story until Saturday was because it wasn't on Fox and Friends that morning. Then nobody in the White House really wanted to tell him about it (and Hannity was mostly avoiding it Friday night), so he didn't find out that Flynn had rolled on him until Saturday morning FoxNews.
It appears that a twitter feud has developed between Jimmy Kimmel and Roy Moore.
The host of ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" got into a Twitter spat with the Alabama Republican over a stunt that Kimmel's show had orchestrated on Wednesday at a Moore event. Kimmel had even more to say about the Twitter feud on his show Thursday night.
".@jimmykimmel If you want to mock our Christian values, come down here to Alabama and do it man to man. #ALSen," Moore had tweeted earlier in the day.
Kimmel read the tweet during his opening monologue. "And I responded, and he responded back, and I responded again. It's all on Twitter, but the bottom line is this: I accept the invitation. I will come down there."
Ooooo, now this is good. I want very much to see that meeting.
Then nobody in the White House really wanted to tell him about it...
ROFL! I bet not.
There was one party whose reaction to the Flynn story I hadn't heard yet, so I went in search of it.
The Kremlin weighs in.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday it was "absurd" to suggest that the phone conversation could have influenced Putin's decision and added that "such requests couldn't have been passed on" to him.
"The president makes his own decisions, guided solely by Russia's national interests," Peskov told reporters. "Flynn couldn't have asked Sergei Ivanovich (Kislyak) about anything, and, what's more such requests couldn't have been passed on to the Russian president."
"“Well, I feel badly for Gen. Flynn. I feel very badly. *** …it's like
they ruined his live. It's very unfair.”
Trump waxing sentimental re: Flynn this morning
I think that folks will be able to see a pattern similar to this developing in Trump's mentions of disgraced sheriff Joe Arapio, before Trump pardoned Arapio.
I suspect this speech was intended to be heard and interpreted by Flynn as a promise of a pardon to come.
I suspect this speech was intended to be heard and interpreted by Flynn as a promise of a pardon to come.
A bribe. As in, don't say anything about me and I will make sure you don't go to jail. Trump is still hoping to come out of this whole.
"Trump is still hoping to come out of this whole."
Yep. Just today his lawyers have tried to resurrect the old Richard Nixon defense of ‘the President can't be charged with Obstruction of Justice’, just in case Mueller thinks he's gonna make such a charge in the case of Trump pardons Flynn.
"President Trump’s personal lawyer said Sunday that the president
knew in late January that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn
had probably given FBI agents the same inaccurate account he
provided to Vice President Pence about a call with the Russian
ambassador.
"Trump lawyer John Dowd said the information was passed to Trump
by White House counsel Donald McGahn, who had been warned
about Flynn’s statement to the vice president by a senior Justice
Department official. The vice president said publicly at the time that
Flynn had told him he had not discussed sanctions with the Russian
diplomat….
"Trump was aware of the issue a couple of weeks before a
conversation with then-FBI Director James B. Comey in which Comey
said the president asked him if he could be lenient while investigating
Flynn, whom Trump had just fired for misleading Pence about the
nature of his conversations with the Russian.
***
A person close to the White House involved in the case termed the
Saturday tweet ‛a screw-up of historic proportions’ that has ‘caused
enormous consternation in the White House.’"
WaPo (Yes, Marcus, real Washington Post link this time.
emphasis added)
[Marcus]: "Bubbly-priced too."
[Lynnette]: "Maybe hoarding cash isn't such a bad idea then. I know there is no return, but sometimes taking money off the table is the best way to save."
I agree. Low interest rates are driving a lot of people to put their savings in risk assets, contributing to the bubble. But consider that when interest rates are high, so is the rate of inflation. It depends where you live, but for a lot of people the differential between interest rates and inflation is at an all time low right now. Instead of complaining that their money is earning nothing they should be appreciating that risk-free money is being eroded more slowly than usual.
Sounds like Baghdad and Ankara are colluding to cut the Kurds out of oil money.
Iraq plans Kirkuk pipeline bypassing KRG
Iraq plans to build a crude oil export pipeline from Baiji to Fishkhabur on the Turkish border that will carry crude from Kirkuk field for export from the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Iraq’s Oil Ministry instructed interested companies and government agencies to prepare the papers required to participate in the project, which will be offered on a build-operate-transfer basis.
The pipeline will replace a line damaged by repeated sabotage and out of commission since 2014, bypassing a pipeline controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Iraqi forces last month reclaimed Kirkuk from the KRG. Turkey has threatened to close its portion of the pipeline if Kurdish independence proceeds.
About 580,000 b/d of oil produced in Iraqi Kurdistan, half from Kirkuk field, now flows through two spurs in Kurdish territory that link with the trans-Turkey pipeline at Fishkhabur, according to the International Energy Agency. (OGJ)
Paul Manafort has been busted ghost-writing a proposed Op-Ed piece with the assistance of Russian intelligence, intended to help shape public opinion of the Trump/Russia investigation. CBSNews This would be a violation of the trial court's gag order (bigly), and now Mueller's office is challenging Manafort's efforts to get released on bail.
I'd be real interested in knowing who they thought they would be their beard on this one, i.e. whose name was supposed to go on the article, and what media did they expect to carry it?
Lynnette: "Maybe hoarding cash isn't such a bad idea then. I know there is no return, but sometimes taking money off the table is the best way to save."
Probably you're quite right. I only regret that I came to that conclusion too early and missed out on the last two years booming stock markets.
On the other hand I could just regret that I didn't go all in into Apple in 2005 and kept buying, now with hindsight.
No, cash is probably not such a bad idea right now. I managed to find a bank account that pays 0.7% no srings attached, that's at least something.
Pete: "Sounds like Baghdad and Ankara are colluding to cut the Kurds out of oil money."
That's one more powderkeg in global politics. I would think the Kurds think they sided with all the right players and were instrumental in keeping back Daesh and they might feel they are due a reward. And I don't think that reward is forthcoming. So prolly some pissed off Kurds in the near future.
Dang it! I was just going to post that Manafort screw up.
Honestly, if Trump wanted to really drain the swamp he should have started with his inner circle and himself.
So prolly some pissed off Kurds in the near future.
I'm thinking you are right there. Unfortunately they live in a very tough neighborhood where people are very intent on keeping the power status quo, and will do just about anything to do so.
Turkey has threatened to close its portion of the pipeline if Kurdish independence proceeds.
If I were a Kurd, though, I would have seen this coming. So I wonder what they have up their sleeves to combat this?
Just today his lawyers have tried to resurrect the old Richard Nixon defense of ‘the President can't be charged with Obstruction of Justice’, just in case Mueller thinks he's gonna make such a charge in the case of Trump pardons Flynn.
So many other things about this remind me of Watergate that it isn't a surprise that this defense would be brought up.
This is going to get dirty in a hurry, I'm thinking. Once Trump realizes that he may actually be in real legal danger.
I only regret that I came to that conclusion too early and missed out on the last two years booming stock markets.
That's why I don't take extreme positions. I realize that bonds(bond funds that is) aren't paying much and are at risk because of possible rising interest rates, but they still add ballast to a portfolio.
Yes, I know, if I really had ESP I would have bought all sorts of stocks way back when and become independently wealthy. But that's not the case so I just follow a moderate path in hopes of having enough to afford the necessities of life and have a little fun as well.
"So many other things about this remind me of Watergate…"
I have resisted that analogy up to now, but I was starting to think the same thing over the weekend. I suppose it's the relentless, drip, drip, drip of details as the inside parties begin leaking information (usually a sign of insiders jockying for advantage against one another, although it's likely that most of this is coming from defense lawyers).
I've begun to believe that the noise coming from Trump's lawyers about Trump can't obstruct justice because Trump is justice (or, at least, the executive head of the government and thus the head prosecutor), that probably means that they happen to know that Mueller already has enough to indict Trump on such a charge (or, issue an impeachment recommendation in lieu of indictment).
That would tend to suggest that the weekend disaster, John Dowd, Esq. dropping that ‘Flynn lied to the FBI’ information may have also been less than it seems. Everybody's been playing that up as a great mistake for Dowd to have made, but it may instead tell us that Mueller already knew that much against Trump, and Trump's legal team knew that Mueller had that much already. So, Mueller already knew; and they knew he knew; just the rest of us who didn't know.
What that tells us is that Flynn can probably give them Trump himself, not just Kushner. (Maybe Kushner as well, but not just Kushner.)
I think this is rapidly becoming a public relations, political defense rather than a legal one. And that's probably because…
(more on this one below)
(continued from above)
The congressional investigations don't seem to be going much of anywhere. The Senate Intelligence Committee was only one that was ever serious about discovering what influence Russia actually managed to exercise during our last presidential elections, and it's sorta on hold now with the Republicans on the committee more than happy to defer the investigations to Robert Mueller and his crew.
As for the other committees supposedly investigating the matter, it doesn't appear to me that any of the Republican chairmen were ever interested in anything other than burying the questions behind a pretense of investigation.
Quite simply, the Republicans in Congress were at one point getting to where they weren't afraid of Trump, and then a couple of them crossed him, and they got slapped down by the Republican ‘base’ voters. The guys who got slapped down, got slapped hard; they aren't even running for reelection now.
The rest ‛em figured it out real fast; the Republican voter ‘base’ is solid behind Trump, notwithstanding Trump's dismal approval ratings overall, the base is still with him. And as long as the base is behind Trump any Republican not sufficiently deferential is lookin’ to get taken out in the next primary, won't make it to the general election.
So, the idea that they're gonna cross Trump, as in possibly impeach him, that's not gettin’ any traction at all. They've got to get through the next primaries; that's the first and most important thing to them. Helping to impeach Trump ain't gonna help them get through the primaries. That's just how it is.
They got no appetite for an impeachment and they ain't gonna get an appetite for it after Mueller's report comes in.
Can't tell how things might go after the 2018 mid-term elections. But that's how things stand now.
So, I'm still holding out a far-fetched hope that Mueller decides to indict Trump's ass. (Good chance that'll fail for lack of support from the Republican Congress, but it's probably our best bet for holding Trump accountable for collusion with the Russians--assuming, of course, that Mueller turns up the evidence for that.)
It seems the Republicans are playing hard to their base.
"House Republican leaders have promised conservatives that they
won't grant concessions to Democrats to get enough votes for a
stopgap spending bill…."
Politico.Com
(Basically, this is a ‛we will crush them’ promise. It's probably necessary to help quell any Republican uprising against the tax cuts for the rich proposal now going into a conference committee prior to a final version to be voted on by both chambers. And, that brings up another thing…)
The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans now have the whip hand and are very likely to pass their tax cuts proposals in short order. I, on the other hand, am a contrarian on this question. I still think their odds are 50/50 at best. I think their various factions have largely accepted things they didn't like in order to pass the buck to the other chamber and let the thing die there if it's gonna die. They intend to dig in and make demands for the final version. Conventional wisdom be damned; they're gonna make it look extremely dicey for passage these next couple of weeks. That doesn't mean they won't pass it; I still figure the odds at 50/50; could go either way. But, it will look a lot less like a sure thing in a couple of weeks. Remember, the Republicans passed something like 60 bills repealing ObamaCare, content in the knowledge that none of those would become law, and then couldn't pass a real one when the time came. When they're looking at something that might become law their calculations change.
(And, if this attempt dies, they'll just try again next year. It's not going to go away.)
It's not going to go away.
No, none of this is going to go away as long as the Republicans are in control. And that won't go away until the American people stand up and vote them out. Sad, but true, that we actually can't count on that last bit. Judging by the lead of someone like Roy Moore in the polls I an again disappointed and disheartened by the American voters of today.
So, I'm still holding out a far-fetched hope that Mueller decides to indict Trump's ass.
Agreed. It would actually be nice to see the swamp really drained.
"an" should be "am"
"…Roy Moore…I am again disappointed and disheartened
by the American voters of today."
Ya gotta remember, this is Alabama we're talking about here. Hasn't been a Democrat win in Alabama almost since 1964 when the Democrats pushed through the first of the Civil Rights legislations. Ain't a single Democrat holding any statewide office in Alabama today.
The part that dismays me is that the Republicans in Washington DC are again embrassing Roy Moore. They've started pumping money back into getting him elected, and all that talk about refusing to seat him has gone away. They want that Republican vote.
On the brighter side, now they're gonna be saddled as the party of Trump and Moore. The Dems have the Al Franken problem, but he's not done anything on a level even remotely approaching those two, and he's maybe even gonna get forgiven on account of being appropriately remorseful (in public anyway) and begging forgiveness. So, he may not be the drag on them that he might otherwise be (especially given that the Dems ran the much more powerful John Conyers out of office).
So, the Republicans are again playing to their base. They got lucky with that last time; Trump's election was a fluke. But, they're doing their damn level best to try to lock themselves into that position and that's gonna kill ‛em off is what that's gonna do. Just not gonna kill ‛em off until after the 2018 elections is the immediate problem.
That typo irritates me: It's spelled ‛embracing’.
Off topic: Dogs are smarter than cats.
By the way, TheGuardian is suggesting that there are hints that Trump may be making game changing moves, including preparations for the sacrifice of Jared Kushner, in the hopes of isolating the Russia problem.
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere. Before the Trumps were even in the White House, he tried to set up a backchannel to communicate with the Russians. He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. Then there were the secret reassurances to the Russians that the Obama sanctions were nothing to worry about once Trump took office. Kushner was behind those machinations, too.
They still haven't asked the most important question, why? But, perhaps Mueller has.
The part that dismays me is that the Republicans in Washington DC are again embrassing Roy Moore. They've started pumping money back into getting him elected, and all that talk about refusing to seat him has gone away. They want that Republican vote.
Yup. It may very well be their undoing. Depends on how much the American public are hurt by the legislation they are pushing through. And how much they really understand the true cause.
Lynette: I'm thinking you are right there. Unfortunately they live in a very tough neighborhood where people are very intent on keeping the power status quo, and will do just about anything to do so."
They live as a distinct people spread out across various nation states in the ME.
Why then do they just not "assimilate"?
After all we're in the west told that incoming migrants are a great thing and they will assimilate. Come to sweden - you're a swede. Come to America -you're an Aerican. Right?
So, why don't the Kurds just assimilate?
"So I wonder what they have up their sleeves to combat this?"
They may have overplayed their hand this time and don't have anything up their sleeve. The Barzani clan (PUK) has long time had the support of Tehran over the Talibani clan (KDP). When the Iraqi forces approached Kirkuk after the referendum, the Barzani clan suddenly withdrew their forces from the front lines, leaving the Talibani affiliated Peshmurga exposed on their flanks; the word is a deal was struck leaving Talibani exposed. The Talibani affiliated soldiers were quickly compelled to withdraw. Talibani may not have anything up his sleeve this time, nothing that will work what with the other Kurdish power clan now in league with Tehran.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Arabs and the Turks, and probably the Persians too, although I know less about their inclinations, they have the same sort of attitude about integration as does Marcus the Swede, and have long felt that way. This would explain why the Kurds have not assimilated in the Middle East. And, if the rest of Sweden comes to share Marcus' inclinations, the Kurds will never assimilate in Sweden either.
So, why don't the Kurds just assimilate?
A culture has to be welcoming and tolerant to really encourage, and succeed at, assimilation. Lee is right, Marcus, people have to want to assimilate, and they won't want to do that in a culture that rejects them. It is what we will see start to happen here in the US if Trump's policies are permanent. We will lose a piece of what really has made America great. Sad, very sad.
This lack of feeling included also leads to a desire for a country of "their own". A country that will accept them. Why do you think Israel came to be?
Hmmm...a video went missing again. *sigh* I guess I will have to think of a new post.
Maybe about Franken? (Looks like you're gonna get a new Senator here right soon.)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Franken has just resigned. I can't seem to get the video of his speech to play properly here. I will have to listen tonight.
It's a sad day for our country when we lose someone who has done an otherwise good job. Yet we will have others who have committed the same types of offenses, if not more so, still in office or about to take office.
This will put this Senate seat up for grabs in 2018 and get rid of a staunch opponent of Donald J. Trump. A very sad day, indeed.
Well, for what it's worth… That seventh allegation, the anonymous accuser who claimed he pounced on her and claimed it was his ‛right as an entertainer’…; that one never rang true. I was dubious about that one before he later denied that one. I strongly suspected that was a hit job, still suspect that for that matter. Perhaps somebody'll eventually put a name on that anonymous source and we'll learn more about that one.
That said, that was the seventh allegation against him, and there has been another; there are more out there probably. Usually sexual predators will strike against women they work with, and Franken doesn't seem to have followed that pattern. I suspect he thought of his offenses as harmless indulgences, probably the same thing George H.W. Bush's ‛cop-a-feel’ joke was to Bush. Franken wasn't a predator, just a self-indulgent boor. Problem is, guys who're engaged in such adolescent self-indulgence don't bother to think through how it might feel to their victim. It can, doesn't always, but can feel overwhelming, frightening, make a list….
Well, he's paid his price. Moving right along… (Or, are we actually moving along here?)
Video of Franken's speech.
Text of Franken's speech.
*sigh*
I ran out of time tonight, so didn't get a post up.
Well, he's paid his price.
Yes, he did. This is his atonement. I have to give him credit for that.
Are you sure you want to do Al Franken next? Seems the Senate Intelligence Committee is leaking all sorts of stuff on Trump Jr.
Lee: "And, if the rest of Sweden comes to share Marcus' inclinations, the Kurds will never assimilate in Sweden either."
What about the Kurds' own willingness to assimilate? Is that a non-factor here?
Lynnette: "A culture has to be welcoming and tolerant to really encourage, and succeed at, assimilation. Lee is right, Marcus, people have to want to assimilate"
That might be the carrot end of things. The whip is probably needed too. As in "assimilate or GTFO!".
That being said we're not supposed to advocate assimilation here, but integration - something even much less likely to be successful.
Lynnette: "This lack of feeling included also leads to a desire for a country of "their own"."
Funny you should mention that, because I think a desire for a nation for your own is a pretty universal wish. I sure wish for one, and having been brought up in one I am not all that keen on seeing it turning into something entirely different with this whole multiculturalism ballyhoo. Lots of cons so far, not a lot of pros, IMO.
What's yall's take on Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israels capitol and planning a move of the US embassy there to hammer down the point?
In our media it gets serious thumbs down on the leftist more socialist side. Our establishment right media - the Liberals (you read that correct, here liberals have traditionally been considered to be the right of politics) are more cautiosly measured in their critizism because they are historically very pro Israel. But there too they are kinda like: well even if it's the right thing really Trump is being reckless.
Myself I am deliberatly detached from the whole Israel/Palestine issue, even though I realise it's of great importance, because I just can't find a realistic set of politics to get behind.
And about this whole #meetoo thing. There are degrees in hell.
We have a case in court in Sweden right about no where a woman was raped by upto 20 men. Yes she was a prostitute to begin with but she was lured by a "costomer" into a suburb of Stockholm. In a staircase of a tenant building they raped her over and over, banged her head against the stairs until she lost conciousness and also pulled a knife at her when she tried to resist them. Passersby declared to police later they "didn't want to get involved", it's that kinda neighborhood.
Wanna place a bet as to the ethnicity of the raped VS the rapers in this case?
Place your bets. Let's hear 'em. You'r best bets. You place your bets now and I'll download the courtfile when it's available.
Assimilation--- fuck that! ---it's about taking over and it always was.
"What about the Kurds' own willingness to assimilate? Is that a
non-factor here?"
Yeah, pretty much a non-factor. Given the high number of non-Kurdish Swedes in comparison to the number of Kurds, the rest of you could pretty much compel assimilation.
What you have to do is break up their enclaves. You don't want them broken up to the point that the Kurds don't have their own places to be. Almost all American cities have ghettos of sorts, Chinatowns, Italian districts, etc. But, you want the ethnic enclaves small enough that interaction between the Kurds and the main cultural group is inescapable. Their enclaves should be small enough that they are effectively overwhelmed and must deal with native Swedes on a regular basis. But, it is good, perhaps even necessary, for them to have places where they feel comfortable, so long as they don't feel like they've been able to withdraw from the larger society. In effect, you compel integration; after that, assimilation will follow of its own accord eventually.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"What's yall's take on Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israels capitol…"
Dumbass move. Even the Israeli weren't clamoring for it. He did that solely to score points with his Right-winger Bible Thumper support faction.
"Place your bets."
I bet you would not be asking for bets unless you were fairly certain that you knew the results would prove to be as you wanted them to be. In effect, you select your examples to bolster your position; it's called ‛cherry picking’. (Although you have made mistakes on that count before.)
Are you sure you want to do Al Franken next?
I thought about it, but I think that guy has been done to death, so I went with something else.
Seems the Senate Intelligence Committee is leaking all sorts of stuff on Trump Jr.
But Mueller's team hasn't. :)
Funny you should mention that, because I think a desire for a nation for your own is a pretty universal wish.
That could be taken as synonymous with wanting freedom in whatever country you call your own. And, yes, I agree that the desire for freedom is universal.
"…the Senate Intelligence Committee is leaking…"
I had that wrong. Looks like these leaks are coming out of the House Intelligence Committee.
And, have you noticed the recent inclusion of K.T. McFarland among the ranks of the sinners? (May turn out to be almost as important as them gutting out Trump Jr.)
The Russian connections are looking like a definite threat to Trump these days. We can be sure Mueller's all over it; doin’ it quietly, but doin’ it.
Post a Comment