I've heard the term "extreme left" tons of times but have never known, specifically, what that entails.
Could specifics be cited? Positions on issues? Proposed new initiatives? I genuinely want to know exactly what the extreme left is.
But more importantly, I'm looking for actual attributable sources from the extreme left. What I mean, I don't want Hannity's summary of the extreme left. I'd like the extreme left's summary of itself. Find a quote, statement, policy position, or other attribution from them. While I'm sure Bernie, or AOC, or Warren are likely common sources, are there any examples from Schumer or other non-lightning rod Democrats?
Chuck Schumer --- First we take Georga, then we change the world!"
Then he states "First we take Georga then we change America"
Did he mean it? Maybe, maybe not... But it certainly is a very chilling rant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvGiOB9 … e=youtu.be
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schume … -the-world
I don't think anyone really self identifies as far left or right. It is determined by how far outside of the standard expectations and beliefs the average citizen holds.
A person who is far left, to me, is one who has expectations of government policy that cannot reasonably be accomplished without infringing on individual rights of citizens through intimidation or taxation. So, if your stated objectives include open borders, universal health care for all residents (legal or otherwise), massive upheaval of the economy through green new deal initiatives, federal initiatives which do not allow for historical state sovereignty, tacit acceptance of property damage through organized civil unrest, inequality created through government mandates, purposeful programs intended to set one group of citizens above another and/ or ignoring reality by pushing a false narrative to bully others into silence in order to quash public debate... you can call yourself anything you want but I'll label you far left.
Could I get clarification on a couple things? I'm not 100% sure what some statements are precisely and would find it very helpful if you could give me an example of these .
* Federal initiatives which do not allow for historical state sovereignty
* Inequality created through government mandates
* Purposeful programs intended to set one group of citizens above another
And, one last question. There's a nuance I don't understand.
* Universal health care for all residents
Medicare is government sponsored universal health care for all seniors. So the nuance I don't get is either (1) Medicare is a bad health insurance system that seniors have been getting the shaft by or (2) I don't understand why the same heath care approach is okay for seniors but bad for the non-senior population.
I wouldn't say Medicare is inherently bad. It, like all government programs, is fraught with waste and abuse. I think what the left doesn't understand is that everyone possesses compassion. Everyone would gladly buy into a universal health care program that guaranteed medical care, to all.... if money grew on trees. It doesn't. That is what everyone but the far left learned early on in life. Medicare self funds for part A, the other parts are picked up be uncle Sam. Can we really afford to pay for every American, illegal alien, visiting student, etc? If your answer is yes, explain who foots the bill and what tax hikes would be necessary? And don't allude to Obama care. I was self employed and struggling previously and the only insurance we could afford under Obama care covered hardly anything. Plus the paperwork hurdles ensured what it claimed to cover would never see reimbursement paid. We were, basically, paying an insurance company for nothing in order to avoid government fines.
With federal initiatives, I think about Biden talking about imposing a national quarantine. Legally, he can't. That's what leftists don't understand and they are willing to allow our civil rights to be trampled on anyway.
Purposeful programs and inequality through mandates? Look to NY, Chicago and the entire state of California. Riots OK. Looting accepted. Property damage accepted. Going to church illegal. Similar large gatherings,
but ideology determines which is accepted and which is not.
Defund the police is another push that would create gross inequalities. The rich would be fine. The middle class can probably relocate to safe areas. The poor in the cities, our most in need, would suffer the brunt of the damage created by, what I can only classify as, liberal white guilt.
The far left are little different from shirt sleeve Christians. They mouth the words they think make them sound morally superior but they don't think them through. And, like shirt sleeve Christians, they eat their own when food gets scarce, to sate their need to feel morally superior.
Thank you for the reply, it's nice to have a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
For the health insurance, let me put forth a few ideas / questions.
* All other things being equal, the greater the buying power, the lower the price (i.e. Walmart). Negotiated health care costs are lower when the people to be insured is negotiating with a larger pool of people. Thus, Medicare has the lowest cost for services of any health insurance pool, despite it being seniors only and zero young-healthy people. (To be fair, it also has the benefit of prices being set)
* So, the proposition is, would health care costs decline/stay the same/increase if there were fewer pools of people (or one) with more people (or everyone) in each pool (one pool)?
* Conceptually speaking, if a government runs a service compared to it being outsourced to a private company, isn't it inherently going to be less expensive? What I mean is, a government run service is operated at cost. An outsourced service is paid by the government to the private company at cost + a profit margin.
* Granted, for most industries, the innovation of the private market cannot be replaced nor should it. But for things like running an insurance pool where innovation and invention aren't significant factors, what benefits (explicit or implicit) can the private sector offer that offsets the profit they earn plus cost savings that is often cited?
* I understand organizational management adds to more efficient businesses, but that is a skill set which is transportable. Better management can be brought in, companies regularly bring in new management teams or outside consulting services to improve their organizational management. Just because it hasn't, that doesn't mean the government can't bring in consultants and establish greater organizational efficiencies.
* In terms of cost, from the 40,000 foot view, there are already revenue sources in place, it would just be a matter of redirecting them. What I mean is, employers spend tons on health and retirement benefits each year. If instead of them having to shop around different insurance companies, solicit new bids periodically to ensure their costs remain competitive with the marketplace, and pay for those benefits, it went to a larger pool, funding universal insurance wouldn't be 100% new funding.
I would be genuinely interested in whether it would even require net new money. What I'm getting at is, there's a ton of money already going towards health insurance, whether its employers paying for it, individuals paying for it, or tax payers paying for emergency room medical care. There's a cost disadvantage in place as well, as individual employers all have to negotiate their own health insurance prices, thereby bring it back to the bargaining power of a large pool of people versus multiple smaller pools.
* For the facemask issue. This is something I've never quite understood the angst over. We have things in place that use the same principal, but they are permanent laws, not transitory mandates to get through a pandemic. What I mean, technically speaking, my freedom is being suppressed as I cannot drive around drunk. I can't play my music in my neighborhood as loud as I want. I can't to just dispose toxic chemicals any which way I want. I have to be screened by TSA before I can get on an airplane. LOL, there's even "no shirt, no shoes, no service." There are countless "freedoms" which we sacrifice everyday. Such things weight the cost to individual freedom versus societal needs and I think we as a country get it right a lot more than we get it wrong. I'd love an explanation of why a facemask mandate is so onerous because I genuinely can't see it.
I would never advocate that riots, property damage, or looting is acceptable. I am against defund the police. But...but, there is something wrong when unarmed people are shot in the back. There is something wrong when someone is suffocated when a knee is on their neck. Soldiers in war zones have rules of engagement and are held accountable for violating those rules. Why can't we have rules of engagement for police, and prosecution when, and only when, those rules are violated? I don't see the police issue by race, and I hate it when it is brought into a discussion. I'm looking at it strictly from, what levels of force are acceptable for law enforcement to use, period.
I have no problem with any sort of immigration enforcement or reform, as a country, we have every right to establish laws and enforce them.
This is a lot, and you've been a good person to discuss things with so far. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.
I think you begin your argument on shaky ground. The problem is, in the private sector, if you aren't profitable you go out of business. So, your walmart analogy fails.
Look at something like WIC. It was a great idea. Help pregnant woman and small children, who were in need, acquire nutritious foods. But it ballooned into what can only be perceived as an entitlement. Now. Practically everyone i know is on the program. In need or otherwise.
Food stamps are similar. Of course we don't want anyone to go hungry but it moved from a program that guaranteed basic nutritional needs could be met to an entitlement program where anything and almost everything is acceptable.
Government programs usually start with good intentions, but year over year balloon into pork barrel entitlement endeavors.
Were this to happen with walmart we'd see them out of business and new stores leasing those spaces. With the government, once a program is started it balloons out of control and becomes fraught with waste, incompetence and fraud.
A far more cost effective way to provide more health care to a greater number of people would be to open more medical schools, have reduced and or free tuition, in exchange for service at low cost clinics for a period of years as repayment. We gain two things. Many more doctors, thus lowering the cost of service and more doctors for those in need.
The government can also regulate drug pricing, capping it at a percentage that is indicative of the cost in other First World countries. We, the American consumer, foot the bill for a lot of research through paying exorbitant drug costs.
We should have a national registry of the costs of care and procedures. I recently had a doctor bill me over 2000 dollars, only to knock it down to 200 by the insurance company. The uninsured should have the same protection and benefits, to not be stiffed by an unreasonable bill. The pricing of health services has been shrouded for too long with little recourse to have the bill aligned with an average and it
I agree with you, to a point, about wearing face masks. I don't think they will protect me more than superficially but I wear them to be polite. I do think telling people to wear them while eating is ignorant and puts you at risk. Putting your hand up to remove the mask, take a bite, put it back on to chew. But, to some, it is a major deal. To be quite honest. The 'experts' have run the gamut of changing their minds since this started. No wonder some are suspicious. I've never complained about it but I don't live in a city. My eyebrow raises when large gatherings are determined to be 'good or bad' entirely based on politics.
I think we probably agree on the police issue. I'd like to see greater accountability for wrongdoing but, the police are no different from any other group. They will attempt to protect their own. I'd like to see double penalties for those who we pay to uphold the law, who subsequently break them.
You seem reasonable. I doubt you qualify as far left.
By all conservative standards, shouldn't we do away with Medicare and Medicaid? They're government run health care. Would you support getting rid of both of them?
I'm only conservative when compared with the new left.
I don't begrudge the government my taxes, I begrudge the misuse of them. I'd rather help my neighbor than support the industrial military complex.
That doesn't answer my question. Medicare and Medicaid are government run health care. Should they not be eliminated and handed over to the private sector?
But in regards to your post, I'm always amazed when you perfectly capture my beliefs. I agree with that second paragraph 100%.
Of course I wouldn't advocate ending those programs. But we cannot expect the government to take care of everyone. Those of us who are able bodied should take care off ourselves. Government hand outs are becoming an expectation. We are way in debt because we have already over extended ourselves with the programs we have. If we can't pay our way now, what happens when we decide we'll pay for medical, we'll pay for health care for all, we'll pretend there are no illegal aliens and pay for all of that for them too.
We'll bankrupt ourselves through ignorance and misguided intentions and then it won't matter how much we care about anyone we won't be able to help them.
Live to Learn:
I wanted to give some thought to what you wrote
I should have better specified the Walmart reference. As the US's (worlds?) largest retailer, they have buying power over suppliers and can negotiate the lowest prices.
That is what I was trying to get at. Take for example, a mom and pop retail store chain with 20 stores in an area. They and Walmart contact a manufacturer to buy widgets. Because of Walmart's size, they will get a better price than the mom and pop store chain. Outside of Walmart, this is quite the norm. Large buyers pay lower per-item fees, whether its a physical good or service.
Within the context of the health insurance question. There are a few points that can be weaved together.
* A larger pool of people to be insured can negotiate better pricing than a smaller pool (medical procedure costs, drug and medical equipment, etc...)
* The sum of expenses paid by multiple small pools will be more than the single expense of a large pool of the same number of those to be insured
-- Thus, a larger pool creates cost savings to people in the larger insurance pool.
* If the large insurance pool were government, like Medicare, and not a private venture, there would be no profit margin that had to be gained, offering up a second source of potential cost savings.
* When it comes to how to pay for it, it does not need to be new funding. If we think about all of the money paying insurance premiums, regardless of where it comes from, we have a lot of money going in right now.
* So, to change from patchwork insurance pools to a larger pool(s), would be a matter of what the net increase or decrease would be to change expand coverage.
* From a single company's perspective, they would benefit. Currently they negotiate medical insurance with someone, BCBS, Cigna, Etc... and pay X dollars for each employee. No longer purchasing medical insurance as a single employer, they can now provide insurance to their employees at the large pool negotiated rate, which would be less.
-- I'd genuinely be interested in what a net increase or decrease would hypothetically be
* To your point about more doctors, drug pricing, and costs for care and procedures, I agree with you to varying degrees. Lower cost to educate doctors should increase the supply somewhat. There's still the underlying human issue. The skills and aptitude to be a doctor is still a relatively high bar. The number of people who can be doctors limits how much of an increase lower education costs can create.
* Economically speaking, price capping is a very inefficient way to help consumers. It's a non-market mechanism. The free market answer is to increase the negotiation power of the insurance pool to negotiate prices.
* I really like you cited the cost difference for the same care depending on your insurance/lack of insurance. It's absolutely true. If you go to a hospital for a procedure, the cost (what insurance pays + what you pay) will be less than the cost of what an uninsured person pays. Here's the question though. What negotiated price should be the universal price? UnitedHealth is going to negotiate a better price than Magellan Health. Again, in my opinion, a single and universal pool addresses this through a free-market forces of supply and demand.
* I agree with you on entitlement programs like WIC or food stamps. They become crutches and move some people into, basically, subsidized living.
* Here's the question though, and this question should be asked with every political issue.
* Let's say we end all entitlement programs and as a country realize spending savings. The principal of self sufficiency has won the day. The mechanisms of reallocation of wealth have taken a beating. What happens next?
* Sure, some people will respond to the new reality, aka, the real world, and become productive citizens.
* Some will invariably die out
* But some will also turn to crime. Poverty & crime are absolutely linked. So to the original question, what happens next? Crime rises. Police enforcement expenses rise. Prison expenses rise. Can a dollar value be put on living with higher crime rates?
* It's a terrible way of looking at it, but to me, the real function of things like Welfare isn't "to be fair". It's to keep abject poverty and the resultant crime from being in our faces.
It's the cost of doing business with the fact that human beings and their skills/capabilities are a bell curve. Some are highly capable, some are not capable, but most are somewhere in the middle.
You also seem reasonable. I doubt you qualify as the far right.
"It's a terrible way of looking at it, but to me, the real function of things like Welfare isn't "to be fair". It's to keep abject poverty and the resultant crime from being in our faces."
Is it working? The number of people living in poverty rises every year - is taking from those that earned the wealth to give to those that did not accomplishing a drop in poverty? History says "No" - instead all we do is decide that to NOT be in poverty requires more and more and more of someone else's wealth in order to purchase what was considered only for the wealthy a few years ago.
You are arguing the fairness of a social safety net, which is an after effect, as an argument against its intended purpose, just horrible horrible reasoning.
The fact that the number of households below the poverty line is increasing has to do with the market forces of supply and demand. The supply of jobs which yielded working middle class wages has been shrinking due to automation and outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, leaving a job market with highly skilled jobs and low skilled jobs. The second influence is the supply and demand for labor has stagnated wage growth.
These are free market forces.
The fact that a social net exists, and as a result of free market forces, the number of people below the poverty line, and whether it is "fair or not", is just an absolutely terrible rebuttal.
I am just going to touch on the Medicare part of this....
I have a question...
Medicare is crap insurance...everyone knows that and it is always on the hit list during budget meetings...
Medicare taxes are taken out of your paycheck every payday, but you can't use it until you reach a certain age and you have no choice in the matter.
Medicare is Government mandated, not government sponsored.
Medicare in its current form and management is not okay for anyone, senior or not...it is corrupt, congress has their hands elbow deep in the funds, and it is strictly managed as to which doctors you can and can't use...what is or isn't covered, and once you start using it, monthly payments are taken out of your SS check, so you still continue to pay for it.
My question is...let's assume that universal health care is even half as good as the Medicare system is...Would you want that type of health care? To be forced to pay for a service that is crappy in coverage, to be forced to go to a doctor you are told to go to, to be forced to accept only the treatment that is covered and not necessarily a treatment that works for you, to be held hostage because if you don't do things a certain way, your universal health care will be defunded, while you continue to be forced to pay into it.
We have examples of what universal health care in this country would look like if implemented. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA...just look at the corruption in those programs...the limitations...the coverage...the list goes on...Looking at these programs, why anyone would want the government to control their health care is beyond me...
But, yeah...lets keep pushing for "FREE" universal health care...
So true conservatives oppose Medicare and Medicaid. It's govt. run health care. Let's get rid of it and let the free market take care of it. Right?
Your opinion of what constitutes a true conservative hasn't had any person identifying as conservative agree with it.
I hate to tell you, but it may be that you don't understand what a conservative is.
According to conservatism, my point is that they should oppose Medicare and Medicaid. It's government-run healthcare. It would be better if the free market took care of it. Just asking the question of why there isn't a conservative outcry to get rid of a government-run healthcare program when there's such and outcry to do away with Obamacare, described by most conservatives as evil, government-run healthcare.
Looks to me like conservatism includes compassion for the most in need and an assumption that able bodied people have an obligation to take care of themselves so that,collectively, we have more power to assist those in need.
By conversations with those on the left that is the big difference. The right respects the individual, the left think people,as a whole, need government intervention in their lives because they are incapable of making their own decisions.
Those are very sweeping statements, and the exactness of language is important
I'd like to know where in conservativism is the compassion for the most in need?
To me, the right advocates every man for himself, lifeboat ethics if you will
To me, the left advocates the value of a referee in finding compromises for an entire population and advocate when those without the size needs even playing field
Really? Universal health care? Free college? Universal income? Equality of outcome? Defund police?
Nah. The left isn't trying to level the playing field. They are trying to trash it so no one can play.
There are a couple of important distinctions. The first being the original question at the very top of this. Apart from AOC and her little group, Bernie, and Warren, how many Democrats that have been elected to office actually advocate things like defund the police or as you've mentioned multiple times, tacit approval of looting. The big difference is actual elected Republicans officially have spoken in favor of the extreme right.
Health care is something we've gone back and forth on. In 1960, we had the 19th best life expectancy in the world. Currently? 52nd. Almost every country before us? Universal health care of some sort. We spend 17.2% of our GDP on healthcare, the highest in the world. The second highest is 11.8%
We pay the most for healthcare in the world and 51 countries have better life expectances. And before you launch into the ACA, we were 47th in 2008.
Firstly, we have one of the most diverse populations in the world. Genetics has a lot to do with life expectancy so I'd be curious to see a breakdown by ethnic group and also how closely their cuisine and lifestyle mimics the country of origin or ancestry, to see if diet and lifestyle were contributory.
Second, we are in a position to be more gluttonous than we were in 1960. In so many ways. I remember people telling me their parents would buy a six pack of soda per week for the kids to share. How much fast food existed for the majority of the country to take advantage of? How global was our food source, at the time?
I hesitate to buy into conclusions gleaned from superficial data. Using such, to make broad policy changes, is always a recipe for disaster, and an abysmal disappointment in the outcome.
Actually, I didn't say I opposed it...or approved of it
It needs to be corrected and if it was ran as it was intended, then it would be a good program for those who need or use it.
The problem I, and others, have with it...is that it is full of corruption and you have no options on choices.
But, to your last point...Personally, I would rather take those taxes that I am forced to pay and invest it into my own choice for healthcare coverage...I suppose that I would rather be free and be an individual, that to be forced to conform to something I have no control or voice in...the latter...sounds like being a slave...
There's a fundamental problem with your argument. Seniors would arguably have the highest premiums for health insurance, as they are the highest risk population for needing expensive care
Well, that and the senior lobbying group is one of the most powerful, and they don't seem to complain. Just you.
You are correct that seniors would have the highest premiums. But the problem with what you say is that if seniors invested their FICA payments, along with that of their employers, they would have far more to pay those premiums with than they would need. Good old Uncle Sam has not been concerned with their duty to protect and grow those required payments, instead "investing" them at the lowest possible rate of return so they could afford their pork barrel projects for their constituents.
The problem with what you say is it ignores the reality of how people actually behave. The national 401(k) balance at Fidelity (the largest 401(k) provider with approximately 16.2 million accounts) is $95,600. Given that young workers have had less time to save and invest, the average 401(k) balance for people ages 60-69 is $182,100.
Most financial advisors recommend you plan for your retirement income to equal 75% to 85% of your pre-retirement income. The median household income is just under $70k so 75% of that income would be $52,500. Ignoring the erosive impact of inflation on buying power, and assuming a 10% rate of return on investments (ignoring that many retirees become more conservative investors lowing an investment return to 6% to 8%), the $182,100 will support a person for approximately 4.5 years. Current life expectancies are 76.1 years for men and 81.1 years for women which means men have 16 years and women have 20 years of unfunded retirement savings. Put another way, men should have an additional $800k and women $1 million in savings.
Given how grossly inadequate Americans are at saving for retirement, it is, at best, naive to think people would be any more prudent saving and investing for health insurance premiums.
The result would be massive numbers of people unprepared and we as a country would face two options. Come up with the money to bail people out or let huge swaths of the population live without health care.
You can argue some hypothetical principle, but you also have to live in the real world.
Hmmm...My insurance...for a family plan is at a certain price...and will never chance for as long as I have it...Once I turn 65, my plan will change to free and my coverage will remain the same.
My mother-in-law uses Medicare as a secondary insurance and her rates go up every year and the coverage is not the best at all (which is why she uses it as a secondary only).
She complains about it all the time...and so does all of her friends...but the "lobbyists" don't take their opinion or voice...Those lobbyists you are speaking of...are out to fill their pockets...not help those who actually use the Medicare system.
Oh...and just so you know...it is people like me, not the lobbyist, who are fighting to get better options for those who were forced to pay into the system and are now forced to use Medicare if they want any kind of return on the money they paid into the system. There are some, like my Mother in law, who are lucky enough to only use it as a secondary insurance only. But, not many have that option.
I recently read that Reagan moved the entire country so far to the right that the only radicals today are conservatives. Even the furthest left are basically moderates. Who is issuing death threats? Who won't accept the results of a legal election? Not the left.
Interesting. I just read recently that the blame falls at the feet of Karl Rove, who decided that getting the support of the extremists was the way to insure Republican victory. He moved the GOP way to the right as a result.
Funny because all the data I've seen shows the left has moved way far to the left and those considered right are closer to center.
Funny how we all automatically believe the things we read that feed our biases.
I have a hard time with your statement
I think background checks and getting rid of high capacity magazines is much closer to the middle than people thinking its okay to carry an AR-15 into Applebees
I think there is a fundamental difference in the right and left's view of social agendas and the role of government. Banning abortion or same sex marriage is imposing morals and values, largely based on Christian doctrine. Ironically, this is the exact opposite of, I think government should be small and stay out of my life (economically). On the other hand, you have advocates for abortion or same sex marriage, which to me, is, if you don't like it, then go about your own business
I think relying on science and experts is the center while saying things like climate change is a lie and what the medical community is saying about COVID is fake, that is moving away from the center
The left spent four years denying a legal election. The left has called for people to be harassed. The left has given rioters free reign to loot and burn.
And yes, the left cheered videos of the president being shot and beheaded. Some drunk on the right says something and you guys suddenly, miraculously, find outrage for such things
The comment about Reagan had to have come from a delusional left leaning source. It is one of the most ignorant and inaccurate things I've read on this site in some time.
The left reacted to a racist a-hole who spent the prior 4 years trying to delegitimize a President through race-baiting birth certificate nonsense. They also reacted to a Presidential campaign that actively sought Russian help to win. These things are very different than launching baseless attacks on American institutions and trying to baselessly undermine confidence in our election system.
The left makes it up as they go. There was never any evidence that Russia helped Trump or that he actively sought their help.
I'm sorry. Any group who spends so much time pushing lies and conspiracy theories...while actively pretending real corruption that is easily verified is not anything to worry about has absolutely no credibility.
Trump may have been his own worst enemy but he wasn't everything lie you guys have made up. Saying a lie over and over until you believe it to be true only works on Game of Thrones. Intelligent people still know it's a lie.
Sorry, bald-faced lie. Trump's campaign met with Russian intelligence to get dirt on Clinton. U.S. intelligence verified the Russians interfered in the election and actively tried to help Trump win. That demands investigation.
Conspiracy theories have no evidence. The accusation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election has plenty of evidence, including a bi-partisan report. Saying over and over again that there was no evidence does not make the evidence disappear. Here's a link:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume5.pdf
So really, it is you who are perpetrating the lie. Working with the Russians to interfere with an American election is treason.
"U.S. intelligence verified the Russians interfered in the election and actively tried to help Trump win."
They certainly did - they put up fake FB posts. As far as giving helpful information, that was never proven even after years of trying to do so. We couldn't even show that Russian efforts had any effect at all on the election.
Once again, not correct:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewst … e8378daeca
Ummm...your link does not mention that any useful information was actually exchanged - was it supposed to? It also doesn't indicate that the interference had any effect - again, did you read into it something that wasn't there?
Gotta love the left. Pay no attention to clear evidence of election fraud but push a false narrative on something debunked multiple times over a period of years.
You mean like the registered sex offender Rudy presented to corroborate election fraud:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-jer … er-1335241
You must have a different definition of debunked because the definition of working with a foreign government to undermine U.S. elections is generally known as treason. Once again, here's the bipartisan report for you to read, which wasn't debunked by Republicans, just ignored:
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/90351264 … ith-russia
I might also point out you incorrectly claimed that the interference was a few Facebook posts when it was Putin ordering the hacking of the DNC.
Trump campaign shared information with Russia.
More evidence you are wrong:
https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report … breakdown/
Just curious. Does the fact that the Hillary campaign and the DNC conspired with a foreign national to create a now debunked report, used that report, in conjunction with resources within the administration at the time, to use it against a candidate?
I only ask because I want to know the extent of your concern for election security during that time.
Don't forget, the dossier was first contracted by a conservative political website.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossi … l-of-this/
I would like to see Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS brought before Congress to testify about how that thing got produced and what information passed between him and Clinton's campaign. If his directive was to knowingly create false information to damage Trump's campaign and he did this at the directive of the DNC, then every single person involved with that endeavor should be arrested.
However, one big difference here is the British are not trying to bring down our government whereas the Russians are trying to do us harm. One country is our ally and one is not.
Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, in particular its main allegations that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.
Apparently most of this has been investigated already:
The firewall was reportedly so effective even campaign principals John Podesta and Robby Mook did not know Steele was on the Democratic payroll until Mother Jones reported on the issue on October 31, 2016, in an article which did not name Steele. When the Mother Jones story broke, John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, said he was "stunned by the news that the FBI had launched a full-blown investigation into Trump, especially one that was informed by research underwritten by the Clinton campaign." Although they knew Perkins Coie had spent money for opposition research, neither Podesta nor campaign manager Robby Mook knew Steele was on the Democratic payroll. Mayer said they both maintain they "didn't read the dossier until BuzzFeed posted it online". She has also said that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until it [the dossier] was in the press." "Far from a secret campaign weapon, Steele turned out to be a secret kept from the campaign." In their 2019 book, the founders of Fusion GPS wrote "... that no one from Fusion ever met or talked with Clinton and that she herself 'had no idea who they were'."
I thought the same. It seems many just have come to twist context so badly it becomes unrecobizable. It's hard to converse when context is ignored.
It really is amazing.
You deny a bipartisan report on Russian election interference that shows Trump campaign officials working with the Russians, which is treason, btw.
But you believe Rudy and his election fraud claims based on the claims of registered sex offenders:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-jer … er-1335241
It's like comedy.
What's amazing is your ability to put words in my mouth... First, I will repeat I will not enter a conversation about Russian election interference. We come to form different levels of where we obtained our information. I read the 700-page Mueller report as well as much of the Horowitz information. You have come by your opinion from media content. Which I found to skirt the truth, and many times after the fact many articles have been corrected, to tell the truth, but a bit too late for many. So they run with the mistruths
Second --- I have not in any respect claimed to believe or disbelieve the many citizen's allegations in regard to voter fraud. What I have shared is that I want these allegations looked into thoroughly, I want facts. And I feel these citizens should be heard as well as respected. And in no respect will I insult them or belittle their efforts in having their allegations heard. It would seem you willing to do just that... I find that distasteful, and unkind.
I am very aware of what the media is reporting in regards to the many court cases, and in many cases have read the actual judge's rulings. Which many media reports have not been fully truthfully about why the cases were not heard. I have explained I am not willing to go into the multiple cases does the fact there are so many. I offered I believe two examples.
I can report from Michigan a judge ruled yesterday that a team of computer experts can inspect the Dominion machines for irregularities. This pleases me. We will then be provided with facts if the machines were used in any respect to committing fraud. At this point, we will have some answers in regards to the system and possible voter fraud. It will put substance, and permit American's to feel comfortable or uncomfortable about the voting results. I am looking for facts, not media hype.
https://www.record-eagle.com/news/court … f1bea.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … n-machines
Interesting. Did you read the article. The analysis of the machines has to do with a ballot initiative about marijuana, not the presidential race.
While I sincerely doubt any facts will satisfy Trump supporters with regard to election fraud, my point again, is that when you present star witnesses with proof of election fraud - a very serious allegation - and those star witnesses turn out to be a registered sex offender and a rambling drunk woman who has become the butt of jokes for the lack of evidence in her statements - one should logically question both the motives and the intelligence of the person presenting those people to the public as proof.
If I am a lawyer in a case against a nuclear scientist and my star witness is a circus clown, that doesn't really appear convincing, does it?
I guess the analysis of the voting machines could be interesting, except that the Trump campaign and Trump himself pre-determined the outcome of all of this months ago. They've been claiming fraud for a year. They claimed fraud in the last election. Trump said publicly that if he lost, he wouldn't accept it and the election was rigged. He stated publicly he wouldn't accept the outcome if he lost.
Trump and his team have already drawn their conclusions. I can't imagine there will be anything to change their mind. All the Republican officials in the world testifying to their hard work and integrity won't do it.
It would be one thing if Trump had said our election system was the best in the world and he believed in it and then he said he has been getting reports of fraud and wanted them investigated, but instead, he's been saying there's proof of fraud long before the election happened and long before there was any proof and now he's trying to prove his own statement. You claim to want facts. How can you want facts when the outcome was predetermined by Trump before the election even happened?
The cases were not heard because they didn't meet evidentiary standards. And this was from Republican judges.
"BELLAIRE — A 13th Circuit Court judge issued an order granting a local man access to Antrim County’s election equipment to take forensic images, court documents show.
William Bailey of Central Lake, along with members of the legal team associated with Rudy W. Giuliani, are expected to begin taking photographs of voting machine tabulators at 9 a.m. Sunday, officials said.
“Mr. Bailey is working with Rudy Giuliani’s team and is going to take pictures, is my understanding,” said Ed Boettcher, chair of Antrim County Commissioners. “The unofficial results were skewed because of some errors on the clerk’s part, and that got everyone’s attention. I think this court case is because of that.”
I should have mentioned Baily has been working with the Trump team and backdoored their way into seeing these machines. I will correct my comment.
https://www.record-eagle.com/news/court … f1bea.html
"The left makes it up as they go. There was never any evidence that Russia helped Trump or that he actively sought their help."
There were numerous people with 2nd hand knowledge who all testified under oath that shady things were happening.
What happened to the people with 1st hand knowledge? They were ordered to not testify to Congress. (which was the 2nd charge of impeachment, obstruction
So, the net result? You think the whole thing should get have been tossed due to lack of evidence and the left was pushing lies and conspiracies.
So, what about the 50+ 2020 election cases that have been dismissed, in most of the lawsuits, due to an absence of evidence? I think it's like 1-29 just in the battleground state lawsuits (last I read from Reuters)
Also, isn't the law and order President, ultimately subject to what the legal system, y'know, our laws, says?
If we are using walmart, let's look across the board. Walmart has caused thousands of local owners to go out of business. That's money (from profits) that would have stayed in the local communities. Those are jobs. Sure walmart hires people but what does a walmart worker learn, other than stocking shelves and running product through scanners? Walmart is responsible for its share of raping the landscape and the genocide of diversity in the small town tapestry.
So, certainly, they can have lower prices because they are bigger. But what do you end up with? Less cost and less diversity in product offered. Less quality in products offered and one size fits all marketing. You get an environment where if they can't sell so many cases per week, you can't get it. They aren't going to cater to the community, they cater to the nation. They won't cater to the individual.
I honestly think walmart is a terrible analogy to use.
Your comment about the increase in taxes being offset by the absence of premiums may be true. But, now, if I find an insurance company that's not a good fit I can choose another at next open enrolment. With a government program, it's one size fits all and if I find it isn't a good fit..... well, they're the only game in town so tough luck.
Plus. Taxes would be higher because we would be footing the bill for everyone, with no negotiating power on that.
I have never advocated ending social programs. I will say your comment about welfare being our way to hide the poor from sight goes along with my belief that welfare is a slave system where we pay people to not be members of society.
If you have an IQ below 80, are not able bodied, are over 70 or not old enough to vote I think society should compassionately help. But, otherwise, work programs and educational programs are the only thing I feel compelled to do to help those unwilling to work.
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by trish1048 13 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAINSince March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and...
by SparklingJewel 12 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would like to hear them?Here are just some of them, from a conservatives view: ...
by Josak 10 years ago
With all the controversy about Obamacare we have forgotten the real facts and issues. Here is a reminder of them. (links at the bottom.)According to Harvard university studies 45 000 people die yearly in the United States because they are uninsured medically.According to the OECD America has the...
by qwark 12 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|