Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Redskullvw

Pages: [1]
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 25, 2019, 06:04:49 PM »

Do you understand why Trump wanted to know wtf happened? The Steele Dossier had a large part of its origins in assumptions and outright falsehoods that were ironically brought to falsehood during Manafort"s trial. And the fact of the matter is that the DNC was looking in Ukraine especially for the DNC server info. The strangeness is that the origins of the Steele Dossier ultimately seems to be in the Ukraine.

After 2 and a half years of the Russia bull*censored*- where yes Trump was vindicated, he promised he wanted to know how this started and where its origins are. Most people paying attention know its the DNC, and Ukraine.

If the server gets released- Obama has some serious explainign to do.

we have literally gone through an attempted coup.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 20, 2019, 08:52:31 AM »
If at this point in time you cannot comprehend the report and realize that this was an incredible attack on our election process, then you are either so partisan that you are blind or you really can't read English. The entire step by step process has only one logical conclusion. A sitting President, his leadership in the Department of Justice, the Democrat party and its Presidential candidate intentionally and attempted to nullify the election of the Republican nominee and after the election, push for invalid grounds for impeachment.

if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years and cannot recognize how unprecedented this is in United States political process, there is zero competency in your logic and discernment of facts.

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 27, 2016, 12:09:07 PM »
There's above board contract negotiation, then there is 'doing business'.

Correct- but my point is whether its business with the Mob or Industrialists- everyone knows what the preceding facts are- that isn't the negotiation or even a possible denial. The negotiation is changing the final outcome to a new end result that differs from the previous outcome.

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 27, 2016, 12:04:37 PM »

I wasn't trying to make a point regarding Bush or even previous acts of Bush. I was pointing out something entirely different so as to preface what my actual point was.

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 27, 2016, 11:56:16 AM »

I agree that its all about change in contracted outcomes. What I'm trying to get at is the contract is based upon agreed facts.

For example- a widget contract is going to state that x number will be black or have an add-on. If you go back to enforce or renegotiate terms- everyone at the table agrees as to the initial facts in the contract. No one is going to go back and argue that the widgets were initiated by a contract or that they had ever been or not been produced.

What Im getting at is, Trump has a business understanding over facts. Not a political understanding in terms of governmental political actors. For example Clinton understands the impact of her "What difference does it make?!?!" quote. Shear and utter political theater and manipulation on her part even when she was saying it. Trump doesn't get how she magically could nullify even the existence of an issue just by rephrasing the narrative.

No one is concerned anymore about what her roll was in Benghazi. Just because of that statement. It placed the issue into subjective political realms.

Trump cannot seem to do that. Thats why he looked so blindsided. Clinton totally latched onto this weakness and played his inability to perceive newspeak as it was happening in front of him.

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 27, 2016, 11:34:26 AM »
Honestly, I saw a meme posted on Facebook. Shows a picture of Nixon and of Clinton. States Nixon guilty of erasing 19 minutes. Clinton guilty of deleting 30,000 emails. Liberal friends are all up in arms over it stating fallacies such as the emails being personal, other people do it, its not important, and Nixon was the most evil person ever.

If you don't understand scrubbing a sever, contradictions, and the outright lies stated by her staff about JUST the server issue- you won't ever understand anything that encompasses the variety and scope of Clinton's other deeds. You cannot explain fact to people who do not understand the basic concepts of something as deliberate and indictable as even the DNC leaks.

Trump up till now, has been in debates where the audience understands Syd Bloomenthal's confirmed and documented plan to derail President Obama in 2008. Its a wink and nod to say Clinton's campaign had zero to do with it or even was the documented source for the attempt to smear Obama. Its ;like DWS wasn't part of the current Clinton campaign, despite literally clustering Sanders during the primary. Its documented. Its factual. In four years no one except political junkies will remember the facts or the scandal.

So trump has been in debates where everyone in the audience remembers what he stated at the time and did. Republicans at debates are the MOST likely to remember Syd, the Clinton 2008 Campaign, and how Trump probably forced the Obama Campaign to attempt to resolve the issue by releasing the Hawaiian Live Birth Record.

The up till tonight audiences he faced on the debate stages remembered what he did. So when Trump brought up Syd's confirmed and documented actions regarding Obama and the origin of the Birther movement with Clinton- he was expecting the audience to probably react to just how badly he had blasted her with a factual rebuttal.

Instead, low information voters in both the audience and watching on T.V. saw it as if Trump made a ludacrious accusation and dodged the question by the moderator about the Obama birth record. And Clinton smiled because literally only a bare 23% of the electorate understood just how much of a setup the question was in the first place and how Clinton lied and denied any involvement whatsoever.

There is literally no way Trump will win. His mindset is of a competitive businessman. He sees no one as permanent friend nor foe. He is used to factual numbers and timelines. He's used to deadlines with consequences. It would never occur to him that narrative and presentation wins out over documented and known facts. He's not an actual politician - so this trap was sprung on him again and again last night.

Clinton looked knowledgable and competent as she basically lied multiple times. She knows she isn't going to get any of the 23% Republican electorate. Doesn't matter if she outright lies to the rest of the people because she already has their vote or they are too ignorant to understand she's lying in the first place.

All anyone remembers at this point is Trump kept looking at her in what can only be expressed as pure flabbergast. It was as if he couldn't comprehend how she was utterly lying about specific things- but he was the only one who was noticing this in the debate hall. Even when she lied and stated his tax releases from during an application for a gambling license showed he paid no tax in two years. trump said that just shows I'm smart. The factual reality was he paid some massive net taxes in 3 out of five documented years. It shows in two of those documented years he had no net tax liability. It doesn't mean he paid no taxes.

In the business world you don't so overtly and overwhelmingly claim such a falsehood as Clinton did. Trump has no exposure to this type of tactic, because in the real world if someone made such a representation outside of political competition, they would get sued so fast that the sound barrier would echo. Clinton was masterful in the debate because Trump never faced any opponent so far on a debate stage who disagreed with and obfuscated the nature and facts upon which questions were asked. And since he has no experience in dealing with literal lies being stated as utter truths in a political venue- Clinton was able to totally destroy his credibility.

Don't get me wrong- Trump did do much better than anyone was assuming he would. He did indeed debate well enough to not alienate his core, and he did nothing to displace undecideds into Clinton's camp. AllClinton had to do was survive. Which she absolutely did.

At this point all she need do is make herself media scarce, not meltdown in the last two debates- and she will be President of The United States of America.


General Comments / Re: Who is left?
« on: September 27, 2016, 10:52:16 AM »
Ive got most of the files up until about 2010. The rendering of the archive makes it too tedious a job for anyone with a life to do.

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 27, 2016, 10:50:20 AM »
Absolute train wreck for both of them. Trump revealed he wasn't a politician. Hillary revealed she can skirt the truth and no one notices.

General Comments / Re: Drug Legalization
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:44:47 PM »
Its just stupid policy. I guess inertia at the government level is just so large at this point that the literal implication to government suddenly not needing the resources and manpower to enforce drug criminalization would result in both budget cuts and manpower cuts. Further in places where because drugs are criminal, government can assign blame to drug related activities- instead of real reasons would suddenly reveal just how much failed government policy causes so many problems that are viewed as insurmountable to be seperate from drugs.

E.g. we blame the ghettos on the drug use and drug markets.We get told repeatedly that the ghetto improvement program failed due to the drugs. When in reality most of the ghetto improvement programs are so half assed that even in an ideal situation they wont work.

I just totally lost my train of thought.

General Comments / Re: The Death Penalty
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:22:26 PM »

There is more to it than just that one line on the death penalty as far as the Catholic Catachism goes. Life and moral authority plays very much into the interpretation. The Official teaching is that all life is sacred and worthy even if we personally cannot make such a leap. I was on my phone so its hard to keep track of what I was writing at the time.

My point is this as a Catholic speaking to non Catholics, what we ultimately teach is that taking a life is the last allowable act, whether it is small scale in abortions or large scale in Just War Doctrine. There is in the case of the death penanlty the issues of absolute certainty, moral right of government, legal authority of government, the means of society, the moral rights of society, and the respect for a natural life time. All told it allows for the sum of all components to be as you find it on USCCB- its something the American society can afford to not impose both as a social moral and a moral government's right.

Most Catholics- especially cradle Catholics havent read the Catachisim. Its truly a case of belief through ignorance. Doesn't mean they arent Catholic, but much of what they believe is dogmatic and rote without deeper personal investment in the origin of the belief. Catholics know there are exceptions to causing deaths. Yep abortion has loopholes. Same with warfare. And the same with Capital punishment.

Which leads us to what was my original point. There are many (if not most Catholics) who are totally against abortions. Yet at the same time they are for capital punishment because its an enforcement of one of the 10 Comandments. Its a pick and choose. So you have nuns sometimes supporting executions. Other times they dont. Yet they remain in good communion with the Catholic Church either way.

Its a stretching of the logic contained in the Catachisim which allows them to do so. It also frequently reveals how many Catholics selectively provide emphasis to allow them to act in a way that suits them without ever really looking at the strengths of the exception to the overal belief and values contatined in the Catachism regarding what and why Catholics believe and do.

Its kinda like the condom. Most non Catholics believe Catholics universally say that a condom cant ever be used. For that matter most Catholics admit in surveys they use at least a condom. The reality is there is a defined exceto execute ption to birth control which allows a condom to be used.

The thing that is funny is that the exception is so specific it applies to very few American Catholics- yet american Catholics who use birth control use this to justify what they are doing.

Again in the most general terms, when you sum up what the catachisim states as to the belief of Catholics, we cannot know true guilt of a person and we can afford not to execute people because we do have the means of incarceration until the end of natural life span. Exceptions are allowed under that belief, but in practical terms the final teaching is incareate for life.

General Comments / Re: The Death Penalty
« on: September 16, 2016, 11:51:22 AM »

Maybe I was unclear in what I wrote. We can't know with certainty and our society should be such that we can house a person convicted until time of natural death.

That some Catholics campaign against abortion but push executions is what I don't understand

General Comments / Re: The Death Penalty
« on: September 16, 2016, 08:52:12 AM »
Catholic teaching on this has two components. I'll just put them out here. 1. We cannot know with certainty the guilt of a person to the point we can justify killing someone based on a conviction. 2. We should strive for a social norm and government form where incarceration based upon conviction is possible to endure for a lifetime span of time.

I find it ironic that Catholics support banning abortion and cheering executions. Then again I'm fairly logical and despise inconsistent beliefs.

In this day and age, in most governments currently in power, the need to execute anyone is just an excuse to display naked force so as to impress upon the general public the concept of final life authority of the state over its own people. If you recognize that right you are acknowledging the state to be all knowing, powerful, and unfailingly correct in judgement.

When 99% of American prisoners are executed, objectively I can see they were horrid failures and did major harm to society. When most of them die- literally nothing of value was lost. We are likely better off. But the 1% and the government having that power makes it unsupportable.

General Comments / Re: Drug Legalization
« on: September 16, 2016, 08:31:47 AM »
Honestly the older I get, the more I realize that the costs to truely stop drug use is beyond reasonable for us to bare. I know what the outcome of long term drug use is amongst my peers. Even marijuana long term screws people over- especially on a cognitive level. So I can understand why drugs in general were either made prescription only or outright criminalizes. Drugs may give a temporary benefit as perceived by the individual- but long term criminalizes drugs devestate pretty much everyone.

That said, and given the fact we really don't enforce our drug laws, we seldom enforce them equitably, and have created a black market far beyond even the greatest fantasies of Al Capone, it is beyond the time to legalize drugs regardless of what it does on the individual level.

Whether they are legal or not- we will still have addict. They will still be self destructive. They will still inflict unintended costs to society at large. But if we are no longer wasting money on the criminal vs police approach we should be able to literally stop countless other unintended consequences of drugs being criminalizes.

For example gang wars are usually a result of drug distribution and market share. That would disappear. Meth labs disappear. National Forests become safe for hikers again. The nation's number one crop can be taxed. Drug addicts would be equivalent to chronic alcoholics.

I could go on but I won't. Since we cannot enforce our laws to the level of actual elimination of drug based criminal activity, and since the only way to enforce the laws would require a complete militarization of the police on a national level there is literally no argument that can support the current laws and policies. Will addicts cause needless tragedies like drunk drivers or will addicts be more likely to overdose in an environment where drugs are legal? Sure. That will totally be an expected outcome. But eventually social norms and pressures will have the same effect on alcohol use that we now have. People essentially don't abuse alcohol anymore at a level where in the past people thought nothing about jumping in a car with a 12 pack and going for a drive. To get a DUI in this day and age causes such social pressure to the guilty that literally only an alcoholic would risk getting one.

But we should learn that Prohibition of Alcohol caused so many unintended negative results, that we should be logical enough to realize the prohibition of drugs is repeating and maintaining the same types and scopes of unintended consequences. Personally I think if you use drugs it's your choice, and likely a bad one. If you're getting drunk every few days, it's your choice and likely a bad one. But both should be legally equivalent actions.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Organiztion
« on: September 15, 2016, 11:34:50 AM »
As far as your first comment, read the leaks and believe the leaks to be factual or do not believe them.

As for your second, I'm thinking along the lines of the Industrialists during the Gilded Age through the early stages of the Progressive Movement had multiple candidates much like Clinton and Trump. What is notable about that period in time is the essentially useless and unnotable Presidents we had at that time period. It began improving with Teddy Rosevelt and ended with the combo of Wison and WWI.

Wilson was by today's standards a patrician towards the general population but also a technocratic President who did attempt to rule by enlightened application of social engineering and political professionalism. Honestly much of what he tried failed domestically and internationally but, he fits the early model of what modern expectations of Presidents should be.

Honestly we have two crap candidates to pick from.

General Comments / Re: Who is left?
« on: September 15, 2016, 08:45:07 AM »
I figured that the number of topics would be over the top right now. Looking at my archives in previous years, I'm stunned.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Organiztion
« on: September 15, 2016, 08:34:21 AM »
The funny thing about Presidential power is that much of its power is based on precedent and not actual law. The President for example can choose to hire or fire any of his cabinet members. But, he has to have Congressional consent to actually instal his cabinet members. The President has final authority on the military disposition of Federal forces. But his authority to act without Congressional imprimatur or authority is limited drastically since the Gulf of Tonkin. His use of Executive Orders applies only to the Executive Department meaning the scope of authority is not only non binding to most of the United States government but also can be absolved by direct act of either the Judicial or Legislative branches and ends at the time of the President's leave of office.

What Presidents do have is soft power for the most part, not hard power. Reality is that he has little direct and for that matter directable power. For example, President Obama and the executive order to implement the Dream Act which was ultimately declared illegal by the Judicial branch. Harsh reality is that a President can act unilaterally on policy scopes of action, but it is ultimately ephemeral in nature due to loss of political power and constraints applied by the other branches of government.

The concern of lack of statesman concern for actions in office is legitimate. We have had several instances of elected officials governing in a manner that reveals quid pro quo basis. Examples include governors like Heuy Long or president's like FDR. Do existing relationships with political actors and groups color what a President does? Likely the answer is yes. I'd go so far to say that it has probably been a factor since Washington was in office and set the precedent that the Chief Executive does not preside over the Senate while in session- which he incidentally left with the comment that he would not bestow the dignity of the office upon a rabble of horse traders.

Clinton's entanglement and its scope has been brought to light by the DNC leaks, the Guciffer2 leaks, and Wikileaks. In plain text anyone can directly read for themselves the facts of her public acts. It honestly is a pay for play situation. If you are wondering if Clinton is going to continue acting on a pay for play basis, her confirmed and now documented history predicts that she will.

But, all is not clear sailing for Trump either. When you admit on a debate stage that you have indeed directly participated in pay for play on a debate stage, it would be very hard to deny that you haven't done exactly what Clinton has been doing. The only difference between them is that Clinton was taking money for access and Trump was paying for access. I'm not sure which is worse.

Both of them have world wide reach. Both of them have pre existing entanglements. The Clinton NGO is massively suspect in terms of its functions and results. Trump's world wide real estate and intellectual properties being liscensed and monetized is equally suspect.

The valid concern is whether either can rise to statesmanship in the Office of the President of the United States. Fundamentally, Trump has the edge only because he has been on the outside of political power and has been paying for access as a cost of doing business. And he has frankly and publicly admitted to doing so. Clinton however continues to deny being a participant despite the now publicly available facts to the contrary.

Maybe a better concern would be to consider who is or is not a liar?

General Comments / Who is left?
« on: September 13, 2016, 08:37:33 PM »
I'm just wondering who is left? I take a break because the political races were leaking into Ornery back in November 2015. Come back and its like the tumbleweeds are everywhere. Roll call?


I have a friend who works in the public school system and she has the unenviable task of running the school breakfast and lunch program. To combat the issue of intentional failing, in the last two academic years free meals and free supervised activities were offered to peek-8th grade students.

Didn't really change anything other than the fact fewer kids failed on purpose so they wouldn't go hungry.

The question is WTF is wrong with these parents that it is so frequent and socially common for this to have become an actual statistical issue requiring even more freebies?

Pages: [1]