Mueller investigation extended indictments

[Revoltingest]

I am a little surprised you are not more of a fan of AOC. According to what you have said in the past your biggest criticism of Clinton was her support for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cortez has a foreign policy that I would have thought you would appreciate.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter

I assume that you meant support for wars.

There are more issues than just war, big though it be.
O'Casio (she must be Irish) Cortez has disastrous economic
policies, some really naive constitutional views, etc.
But if she does have & manages to keep an anti-foreign
adventurism agenda, then this would be good.
As I previously said....
We shall see if she ever morphs into someone useful.

Question for you.....
She has slammed the military budget, but would she cut portions
dedicated to defense or to police actions around the globe?
(Her website is not at all clear on this.)

 

[fantome profane]

I assume that you meant support for wars.
There are more issues than just war.
O'Casio (she must be Irish) Cortez has disastrous economic policies.
But if she does have & manage to keep an anti-foreign adventurism
agenda, then this would be good.
As I previously said....
We shall see if she ever morphs into someone useful.

I also seem to remember you had a positive opinion of Bernie Sanders. Perhaps that is another example of the Mandela effect.

 

[Revoltingest]

I also seem to remember you had a positive opinion of Bernie Sanders. Perhaps that is another example of the Mandela effect.

Actually, I didn't & don't have a positive opinion of Bernie.
But I did estimate/guesstimate that policies he'd effect in
office would be better than those of Hillary or Donald.
I disagree with some things he stood for, but judged likely
failure on those. Simply stated: He couldn't make us
socialist, but he would have the power to end foreign
adventurism.

It's not so much about the person, but about the effect the
person would have in office. O'Casio (from a family of Irish
calculators) could very well become a "Bernie" some day.

 

[Mindmaster]

I listened to a bit of what Pelosi has to say, and,
if "lies" are things a person just makes up, that
cannot in any way be demonstrated to be true,
she will rapidly eclipse Trump. Which is not easy.

I mean, I'll never completely trust a politician, but man Trump just isn't as bad as the others in any way. Certainly, I have my points of disagreement with the man but there is no elected official I completely agree with so I doubt that'd ever happen.

I guess I'm saying that we could have a lot worse than Trump, it could be one of those guys, lol. Anyway, Trump just reminds me of an uncle that talks some tall **** not really a liar. We all have those guys in our families... They're still good people, just have a mouth the size of the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Audie]

I mean, I'll never completely trust a politician, but man Trump just isn't as bad as the others in any way. Certainly, I have my points of disagreement with the man but there is no elected official I completely agree with so I doubt that'd ever happen.

I guess I'm saying that we could have a lot worse than Trump, it could be one of those guys, lol. Anyway, Trump just reminds me of an uncle that talks some tall **** not really a liar. We all have those guys in our families... They're still good people, just have a mouth the size of the Gulf of Mexico.

The word "lie" is getting tossed about way too freely.

Hillary was not telling the truth calling Trump's
"birther" stuff a "racist lie".

Her sniper story was fantasy. Or a lie, stolen glory.

AFAIC, a a politician is not telling the truth when they
say "His policies will have xzy bad results, mine will
have abc good results."

We may have to call all political promises and criticism
of opponents "lies".

Then debate will be simple. Sit on stools, point
and the other, and say, "pants on fire".

 

[BSM1]

Interesting economic philosophy. Let me ask you this. If we are having lunch together, and I ask you if you want to trade half your sandwich for my granola bar and you say yes, does that mean you work for me, or do I work for you?

And why would the answer be different if the trade involves currency?

What you leave out of the equation is how you got the wherewithal to by the food in the first place (let alone the purchase/manufacture chain up to that point).

 

[esmith]

Interesting economic philosophy. Let me ask you this. If we are having lunch together, and I ask you if you want to trade half your sandwich for my granola bar and you say yes, does that mean you work for me, or do I work for you?

And why would the answer be different if the trade involves currency?

You are talking apples and oranges. If you are providing a service (self-employed) you have to, or at least you should, meet the expectations of the party you are providing the service to...hence you are working for them.

However, if you are working on the barter system (you trading half your sandwich for the other parties half sandwich) both of you are working for each other. Your sandwich (service) has to meet the expectations of the other party. The other party's half sandwich (service) has to meet the expectations of the other party. Hence you are working for each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hillary and democratic policies were the lesser of 2 evils if you're in the middle class. It's all about policy.



The perception that Hillary was a terrible candidate was manufactured intensively by RW operatives and Russia.
Policies are more important. The presidency is a leadership position, policies are shaped in congress typically. Trump isn't a leader, he's a failed businessman who whines like a baby when he doesn't get his way.

Sorry, Hillary was a terrible candidate. She lost to Trump. Yes, she was the better choice between the two but one has to remember that in politics quite often perception is reality.

 

[fantome profane]

What you leave out of the equation is how you got the wherewithal to by the food in the first place (let alone the purchase/manufacture chain up to that point).

Ok, put that into the equation. Include what was required to make the sandwich on one side and what was required to make the granola bar on the other. How does that effect the outcome?

 

[fantome profane]

You are talking apples and oranges. If you are providing a service (self-employed) you have to, or at least you should, meet the expectations of the party you are providing the service to...hence you are working for them.

However, if you are working on the barter system (you trading half your sandwich for the other parties half sandwich) both of you are working for each other. Your sandwich (service) has to meet the expectations of the other party. The other party's half sandwich (service) has to meet the expectations of the other party. Hence you are working for each other.

Good answer. But both the person providing the service and the person paying for the service have certain expectations they need to meet.

 

[esmith]

Good answer. But both the person providing the service and the person paying for the service have certain expectations they need to meet.

Sorry you are stretching the concept way to far . What "service" does the payer give to the payee; cash is not a service.

 

[BSM1]

Ok, put that into the equation. Include what was required to make the sandwich on one side and what was required to make the granola bar on the other. How does that effect the outcome?

The trade was not in consideration of work done or to be done. It was simply a swap.