Russian Probe - Indictments Imminent

[CBB_Fan]

I recommend reading Papa's stipulation. It isn't simply him shuffling his feathers to make him look important, and it absolutely shows a willingness on the side of the Trump campaign. It also shows that he wasn't some insignificant volunteer: the campaign listed him right along with Sessions as foreign policy advisers and he spoke directly to Trump at the national security meeting on March 31st.

When the Professor connected Papa to a MFA official, Papa contacted what the testimony calls the High-Ranking Campaign Official (revealed to be Corey Lewandowski), who sent him to the Campaign Supervisor because "[h]e is running point." That supervisor was revealed to be Sam Clovis, national co-chair of the campaign (a cooperative witness in the probe, ie someone corroborating Papa's story).

This is essentially the two top officials in entire campaign. By his own word, Clovis okayed the meeting with the Russians. In Papa's stipulation, Clovis is quoted to have said "I encourage you" and another foreign policy adviser to "make the trip[] if it is feasible." Earlier, Manafort had said "Lets discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

Now, to counter the Christopher Steele comparison:

1. Steele was a private citizen, not a current government official representing the interests of England
2. The work done by Steele was paid for, taxed, and disclosed to the US government.

It is not illegal to hire private intelligence to find dirt on your opponent. It is illegal, on multiple levels, to secretly work with foreign agents to obtain hacked information about your opponent at no cost.

[shockfan89_]

Two questions:

1. Who was the Russian official that was contacted and who from the Trump campaign met with the Russian official?
2. Steele is an ex-government official that reportedly worked with Russian officials. How does adding an extra layer and paying that person make it different? Isn't that still the Clinton campaign obtaining information from a foreign official?

[wufan]

For a year now I continue to ask myself at what point does one stop supporting Trump or his agenda? When does one finally admit the whole "anti-establishment" nonsense is a con game? Washington is a cess pool of greed and corruption, and you can't clean it up by sending in one guy who says he's "different" but is just as slimy as anyone else. Perhaps the only way he is different is he has an astounding amount of incompetence and ignorance compared to his predecessors.

I voted for Clinton--reluctantly. I think she is a slimy politician who tells people what they want to hear and has questionable ethics at best. But I honestly don't believe she would have threatened or damaged our systems and our institutions. When you want change, you have to be careful what you wish for and you have to exercise prudence in selecting your change agent.

I am well beyond incredulity when it comes to how anyone can justify Trump's words, actions, and behaviors both before and after the election. It has shaken to its core my confidence in our electorate and in our system's ability to select not only a capable leader, but an appropriate one.

I honestly just don't know where this country goes from here. These are unsettling times.

Trump was a reaction against the left, which has moved too far away from the center of the country. The electorate works fine in that it rejected something that it knew was against America for something that was unclear, but rejected the left agenda in a similar manner. The question is, where do the parties go from here?

If I may, in what way has Trump “threatened or damaged our systems and our institutions”?

[SB Shock]

Facebook, Twitter and Google execs testified today about Russian election meddling and their utilization of their platforms.

“During the election, they were trying to create discord between Americans, most of it directed against Clinton. After the election you saw Russian-tied groups and organizations trying to undermine President Trump’s legitimacy. Is that what you saw on Facebook?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked at the hearing.

Stretch and his Twitter counterpart, Sean Edgett, called that an "accurate" statement.

facebook when pressed about whether they would quit taking election related foreign money wouldn't commit to it - basically saying it would be to difficult. None of the tech companies would support the Honest Ads Act. They want to work on their own independent path to deal with adds without any government oversight.

[ShockTalk]

Trump was a reaction against the left, which has moved too far away from the center of the country. The electorate works fine in that it rejected something that it knew was against America for something that was unclear, but rejected the left agenda in a similar manner. The question is, where do the parties go from here?

If I may, in what way has Trump “threatened or damaged our systems and our institutions”?

And Obama was a reaction against what was viewed as too far right. McCain sealed that ending by picking Palin. Actually, there were several problems in picking Palin, but that's water under the bridge.

You and Rocky Mountain Shock have asked the same question. Where do the parties and the nation go from here. Trump is not helping the conservative cause IMO because too much of the moderate public cannot get past his brat like manner. He was the first Republican candidate for President I did not vote for (and no way I would vote for Hillary). We've got to come to some sort of reasonable common ground in the middle. Otherwise, people will keep getting pushed too far to the left and too far to the right.

[Aargh]

If I may, in what way has Trump “threatened or damaged our systems and our institutions”?

Just to pick the low hanging fruit and save myself a bunch of research time, here's two:

1. The guy in charge of the EPA despises the EPA and would like to see it disassembled or weakened to a point of ineffectiveness.

2. Betsy DeVos doesn't believe in public education, and it's her job to oversee government programs that support public education.

I'm somewhat fond of the EPA. Love Canal and Times Beach, MO killed people. Groundwater in many locations is not potable because of unregulated dumping of toxins that got into the groundwater. Perhaps the EPA has gone too far. Do we need to save very fish in every river and every endangered animal. I'm in favor of both, but I'm willing to consider economic repercussions of saving every endangered animal. That's hopeless. It can't be done.

If we took all the kids in public schools and put them into private schools, the problems in public schools would follow the students and then we'd have problems in private schools like we do in public schools. I'm also skeptical of "for profit" school systems for the masses. The temptation to cut corners to improve profits would be great. There would also likely be a line drawn where students below that line would be deemed "too expensive" to teach. Right now private schools get the best, brightest, and best behaved students. Public schools are mandated to take the rest and teach them regardless of their ability or willingness to learn. It's not surprising that private schools have a better track record than public schools.

[Aargh]

Let me try again to answer wufan's question about how has Trump threatened institutions and systems. Let's see if this post gets marked a Spam as well.

1. EPA - The guy in charge wants to eliminate or weaken the department to a point of ineffectiveness.

2. Betsy DeVos is in charge of public education and she despises public education.

I can expand on those simple statements, but then my post gets flagged as Spam.

Half a dozen posts by new users offering a live stream of the World Series, which I suspect was actually a link to a malware page, get through the Spam filter with no problem.

[wufan]

Let me try again to answer wufan's question about how has Trump threatened institutions and systems. Let's see if this post gets marked a Spam as well.

1. EPA - The guy in charge wants to eliminate or weaken the department to a point of ineffectiveness.

2. Betsy DeVos is in charge of public education and she despises public education.

I can expand on those simple statements, but then my post gets flagged as Spam.

Half a dozen posts by new users offering a live stream of the World Series, which I suspect was actually a link to a malware page, get through the Spam filter with no problem.

I’m not a fan of Betsy DeVoss, but I think public school reform is worthwhile.

I think the EPA is over reaching would align myself with Trump on cutting back.

Schools and regulations are fair points of disagreement, but I would argue that Trumps actions on these items are not destructionist.

Im not a Trump fan, but my criticism is on his behavior much more than on his proposed policy.

[boltforge]

Let me try again to answer wufan's question about how has Trump threatened institutions and systems. Let's see if this post gets marked a Spam as well.

1. EPA - The guy in charge wants to eliminate or weaken the department to a point of ineffectiveness.

2. Betsy DeVos is in charge of public education and she despises public education.

I can expand on those simple statements, but then my post gets flagged as Spam.

Half a dozen posts by new users offering a live stream of the World Series, which I suspect was actually a link to a malware page, get through the Spam filter with no problem.

The EPA has served its purpose and it is time to end it. It's just a political graft system now sucking up public tax dollars. A department for the environment that can poison the water of several states and give the department idiots raises ... who sue a farmer for millions because the bottom of his furrow is a wetland and 4inch to the top is not ... who do unethical / illegal human experimentation with respect to 2.5 micrometer particulate matter ... No the EPA needs to end. They serve no real purpose that isn't already handled by laws and the states. They exist to waste money and shuffle it to friends.

If Betsey DeVos is "in charge of public education" scares people, then isn't that a good example that we end the Department of Education? Do we really want anyone in charge of national public education? Do people believe that No Child Left Behind and Common Core were good things? Being in Higher Education for a couple of decades shows me that the Dept of Ed does need to end as well. Education is best handled by the states and not the federal government.

Of course saying that DeVos despises public education is a rather odd thing to say considering all that she has done for public and private education. Though, public education does suck in my opinion. K-12 really really sucks (just considering the quality of students coming to me today). And colleges are starting to suck (because we are having to teach middle school and high school level skills to the kids who come). Example: public universities teach arithmetic. F-ing 5th grade level ARITHMETIC. No credit of course, but the kids have to pay for the credit hours. Most likely using a loan.

Parents know their kids get crappy education in public schools, but what can they do? They can't afford to leave and pay twice (taxes and then private school costs). They can't actually get the schools to teach. They can't fire the bad teachers or give raises to the good teachers. Maybe would should take Thomas Sowell's advice on vouchers and let parents decide where their kids should be educated.

[atlwsu]

My kids split their education between public and private, until public grad school.

I see strength in each. The public schools are so much better funded. Public school kids are often factually challenged and private school kids are often not effectively exposed to alternative ideas. Private schools did not have the responsers to handle my son's learning disability. He now has 2 collesge degrees which I don't think he would have gotten had he not switched to public school. I do agree for mainstream education private schools do much better. My dad taught at North High for 30 years. He was told late in his career he gave to many Fs and not enought As. He said I have have changed my technique but not my standards, here is my classroom if you want it, otherwise, in affect, go away.

[jdshock]

I’m not a fan of Betsy DeVoss, but I think public school reform is worthwhile.

I think the EPA is over reaching would align myself with Trump on cutting back.

Schools and regulations are fair points of disagreement, but I would argue that Trumps actions on these items are not destructionist.

Im not a Trump fan, but my criticism is on his behavior much more than on his proposed policy.

I get that people align with DeVos and her goal of getting rid of public education. I get that people align with completing defunding the EPA.

I also get that people think the democratic party has moved too far to the left.

I don't get people who believe all of these things. If you support DeVos even to the point that you think she could perform effective reform, you're supporting a radical shift in the size of the department of education. The EPA and Department of Education have been around for decades. Public schools have been around for over 100 years. Radically reducing funding for these organizations is a massive change. Which is fine, but don't tell me the democratic party is the party moving away from center.

[wufan]

I get that people align with DeVos and her goal of getting rid of public education. I get that people align with completing defunding the EPA.

I also get that people think the democratic party has moved too far to the left.

I don't get people who believe all of these things. If you support DeVos even to the point that you think she could perform effective reform, you're supporting a radical shift in the size of the department of education. The EPA and Department of Education have been around for decades. Public schools have been around for over 100 years. Radically reducing funding for these organizations is a massive change. Which is fine, but don't tell me the democratic party is the party moving away from center.

I said Trump was a reaction to the left moving away from center. I didn’t say anything about the Republican shift. I think there was a tipping point with union democrats where they said (with their vote) that the cultural politics had completely ignored them. This left shift made room for Republicans that want to reform big government, something for which the unions generally vote democrat.

Classical Liberal ideals are no longer aligned with the Dems. Look for a push over the next generation to downsize government, if not in reality, then at least in discourse.

[Aargh]

Without the EPA, states would get into a war over attracting industry by lowering their pollution standards. Kansas could allow dumping anything into the Arkansas river if it was done in Ark City. The pollution would all flow into Oklahoma.

The thing about furrows being declared wetlands and ridges from plowing being declared mini mountain ranges borders on the ridiculous. In the one instance where that has occurred there is a little more to the story. A $50 million a year corporate farm in California bought some land that had never been farmed because it contained a number of non-draining areas that had been declared wetlands.The mew owner hired someone to plow the land, but to plow around the non-draining pools..

Plowing around a declared wetland is a way to fill the low spot. The disturbed soil will wash during rains and migrate, along with the rain water, to the lowest spot, which was the declared wetlands. Once lawyers got involved the "furrows are wetlands" argument came out. There was a reason the land in question had never been farmed. Farming it would, by the very nature of farming, fill in and dry up the declared wetlands. That would effectively convert a declared wetland into agricultural farmland, which is clearly illegal.

If the states would have shown any ability to handle environmental regulations, there never would have been a need for Nixon to set up the EPA in the first place. The states' inability (or lack of desire) to limit environmental dangers is why the EPA was formed.

In Love Canal a school and residential housing were built on top of several thousand tons of chemical wastes buried in the ground. In Times Beach , dioxin was spread on the streets to hold down dust on unimproved streets. The chemical plant in Missouri that was the source of dioxin had been shipping their wastes to Louisiana where they were incinerated, but they decided that cost too much. They switched disposal methods by paying $3,000 per truckload to a chemical supply company who had no experience in handling industrial wastes. The chemical supply company turned around and paid a local used oil processor (an individual) $125 per truckload to dispose of the waste. That guy had no clue he was dealing with toxic chemicals, mixed them with used motor oil and spread it on dirt streets in times Beach.

Then there are rivers that catch on fire. Here's the Cuyahoga River in 1952.

cayuhoga-river-fire.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1.jpg

[boltforge]

Without the EPA, states would get into a war over attracting industry by lowering their pollution standards. Kansas could allow dumping anything into the Arkansas river if it was done in Ark City. The pollution would all flow into Oklahoma.

In 2017 you really believe this?

That Kansas would pollute Oklahoma. That farmers are not smart enough to know what a wetland is and that maybe feeding people is important. That states and cities would allow burning rivers. That without the EPA all the above would happen.

Really?

[Aargh]

In 2017 you really believe this?

That Kansas would pollute Oklahoma. That farmers are not smart enough to know what a wetland is and that maybe feeding people is important. That states and cities would allow burning rivers. That without the EPA all the above would happen.

Really?

I absolutely believe that. Except for the farmers part, since I grew up on a farm and I'm the only member of my family not actively engaged in farming.

Farmers know where water sets and they know how to make that into ground they can use. Work up the ground around the wet spots and they fill in. A spot known as "catfish hole" when I was a kid is now a spot known as a "field". The entire creek has been filled in. About a mile "upstream" from "Catfish Hole" is where I used to find mussel shells when I was a kid.

We need to feed people, but US agriculture relies heavily on exports. We have surpluses of most local commodity crops. Producing more only drives prices down. Eliminating TPP is likely to reduce agriculture exports to the Pacific rim. Antagonizing Mexico is causing them to seek trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina, and probably eliminating all imports of US agricultural products. The ability to produce more foodstuffs is not much of a priority.

What I do know is that throughout most of the history of the United States, there was no EPA. Businesses, cities, and states did little if anything to control environmental issues. that had bad results. All it takes is one state to reduce or eliminate environmental concerns and the dominoes would start falling. I believe Sam Brownback would have gutted any environmental regulations in order to entice businesses to move into Kansas.

Using your reasoning, Oklahoma would never allow earthquakes caused by industrial operations to damage their cities. Colorado would never cut off 100% of the water in the Arkansas River and not allow any of it into Kansas.

Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

[boltforge]

The EPA and Department of Education have been around for decades. Public schools have been around for over 100 years. Radically reducing funding for these organizations is a massive change.

So? Being around for period of time isn't a reason to exist. Things have life spans.

If our society through laws, social standards, and technology has passed beyond the need for the horse industry, then we don't prop them up just because they have been needed for thousands of years. Similarly for social forms of schools or federal departments. Being formerly useful does not mean useful today. And they will become a very large negative as society no longer needs them.