Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
At this point, the hearings generated a lot of "dots", and most people don't know how to "connect the dots". Most experts outside FoxNews appear to say the evidence is already more than strong enough. However I'm not aware of a concise story that focusses on the significant dots and the significant connections between these dots. Hopefully that is what the committee is currently working on.

However, that story will probably remain somewhat incomplete as the State Department and the White House are blocking documents and witnesses. So perhaps at some point the investigation needs to present the available case, and argue that it is strong enough to re-iterate the demand for fulfilling the subpoenas for documents and witnesses. If SD and WH continue to block, the case for "obstruction of congress" might be the strongest article of impeachment. However, getting public support for such an "academic" and "non-populist" point might not be easy, as is getting public support for such a central principle as "separation of power", even though vital for the functioning of democracy.

The White House prevarications you mention, and more, are the subject of a possible count of Contempt of Congress for hindering its impeachment inquiry. You have company in that concern.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mpt-count-matters-much-rest-impeachment-case/

About connecting the dots and an additional example adorning the news today, here is an example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...21cf98-0d57-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html

First paragraph "A confidential White House review of President Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records."

It goes on to discuss conflicts among WH Legal Counsel, Mulvaney, and OMB where the actual act of withholding the funds was irregular. One dot left hanging was the replacement of a bureaucrat who normally would handle such stoppage with an obviously more pliable political appointee. (Courtesy of earlier Maddow discussion.) News followup connecting these dots to various timelines (like Whistle Blower) are damning as well.

This is one of many news items to keep the public's interest up as impeachment gets serious and why the impact politically remains totally unknown except to Trumpsters.
 
Thinking about traditional wars, this is good news but may not be what we will experience in future. Cyber war is it. Look how successful Russia was in the last election, down to Manafort's leaking of poll data projections for the central/northern states plus Pennsylvania? 14,000 votes determined the election.

Also, what about EMP effects? But that may not be used since it is like poison gas and would affect attackers as well.
Protecting individual rights/minority rights against tyrannical rule is as timeless as civilization itself and is a central value and success of American constitutional integrity.

Cyber warfare is no different, especially as AI can fall into hands of tyrants, or control over our internet of information exchange into the hands of tyrannical rule, which reflects our worst nature as human beings.

After the British loss of America, King George III in Britain made it a capital offense to talk and meet up about Republican government or government reforms. Habius corpus was suspended, people could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial for any discussion defined as “treasonous speech.” Limiting access to information to his subjects as well as establishing propaganda campaigns to maintain public opinion in support of Monarchical rule.

As a modern American society in a cyber age, we must be focused on keeping information accessable to our citizens to safeguard our indivdual,collective, and minority rights as they have been priority value in America to prevent a tyranny of manipulation and repression of which history in other lands has shown us it is all too readily waiting to assert itself at a moments notice.

As a consequence of democratization of energy production powering our electric devices, homes, and modes of transport becomes more and more widespread, these new desires to control come through similar campaigns to restrict our access to information formulate individual opinions and assess events and actions from muliple points of view and agendas as only monarchs and rulers once had for themselves.

As such, we must resist the reactionary allure of giving into monopolistic control of information which creates an environment fertile for mass manipulation of fellow Americans and enables divide and conquer dependence which is exactly the aim of tyranny.

Not only must we prepare for possible transformation of military to a less fossil fuel based one, but the consequence of manipulation of our access to internet information, especially as the advent of neural net applications become a reality as well.
 
At this point, the hearings generated a lot of "dots", and most people don't know how to "connect the dots". Most experts outside FoxNews appear to say the evidence is already more than strong enough. However I'm not aware of a concise story that focusses on the significant dots and the significant connections between these dots. Hopefully that is what the committee is currently working on.

Spot on.

I'm not at all expert at public opinion nor polling but at this stage as you imply nothing definitive about the impeachment outcome is known for the reasons you give. I'm about as much a political junky as they come, paid to teach it, and I'm retired with a wife preoccupied with her studies so have much more time to spend than I did at time of Watergate. And though some issues are similar, this is far more serious and the news more interesting. I watched perhaps only one of the daily double hearings completely. I recorded them all but skipped for opening and closing statements by Schiff, and a few by Nunes which were hard to stomach and off topic in any event. Also coverage by CNN, Rachel Maddow, the NYTimes and skimmed the Washington Post, except for things like today's news. Admittedly I don't monitor Fox News. but Google News does for me and I get at least what the screaming maniacs are talking about. Same source gives me stuff from foreign news outlets, too, which I sometimes read.

When the actual trial occurs in the Senate there is a chance the general public will wake up and may be transfixed. Especially if Trump actually insists on attending, which is not likely. If he attends he may most likely win the final Senate vote but the public will be even more convinced he's a dangerous megalomaniac. How much of the public changed its mind about Nixon's "I'm not a crook" statement? Even without Trump's presence, will the Reeps have anything more than a similar defense than "he's not a crook?"

Then the Dems will have a wonderful season in 2020 hammering Republican candidates about their being Putin/Trump sock puppets for betraying their oaths of office to support the constitution, repealing Obama care, yada, yada.

All we have to worry about, is even more Russian intervention, which might work again. Eleven states have not implemented paper records of the vote. Wanna bet they're mostly in the remnants of the Confederacy? Again, just not my expertise.

Interesting times.
 
Protecting individual rights/minority rights against tyrannical rule is as timeless as civilization itself and is a central value and success of American constitutional integrity.

Cyber warfare is no different, especially as AI can fall into hands of tyrants, or control over our internet of information exchange into the hands of tyrannical rule, which reflects our worst nature as human beings.

After the British loss of America, King George III in Britain made it a capital offense to talk and meet up about Republican government or government reforms. Habius corpus was suspended, people could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial for any discussion defined as “treasonous speech.” Limiting access to information to his subjects as well as establishing propaganda campaigns to maintain public opinion in support of Monarchical rule.

As a modern American society in a cyber age, we must be focused on keeping information accessable to our citizens to safeguard our indivdual,collective, and minority rights as they have been priority value in America to prevent a tyranny of manipulation and repression of which history in other lands has shown us it is all too readily waiting to assert itself at a moments notice.

As a consequence of democratization of energy production powering our electric devices, homes, and modes of transport becomes more and more widespread, these new desires to control come through similar campaigns to restrict our access to information formulate individual opinions and assess events and actions from muliple points of view and agendas as only monarchs and rulers once had for themselves.

As such, we must resist the reactionary allure of giving into monopolistic control of information which creates an environment fertile for mass manipulation of fellow Americans and enables divide and conquer dependence which is exactly the aim of tyranny.

Not only must we prepare for possible transformation of military to a less fossil fuel based one, but the consequence of manipulation of our access to internet information, especially as the advent of neural net applications become a reality as well.

Wise words and informative comment.

I don't know where I stand on this issue but despite Snowden's revelations part of me says the danger is already being implemented in our media and cyber-world by nefarious characters including the Russians through the GRU and their Repubican enablers with the myth of Ukraine. (But then I repeat myself.) So all we have left is censorship. We do have an example in German policy on hate speech. I don't know how well that is done and it is a different culture than ours although they certainly have plenty of skinheads.

People's experiences are different. I was lucky to live in a mostly black immediate neighborhood which was probably on the edge of poverty next door to a larger, mostly black district which was our prime ghetto. Through politics, I came close to marrying two women (separately) who are African American and was welcomed by each family, so I became accustomed to being around people of color in normal relationships. At one time I had a chat with two leaders of Sac State's Black Student's Union and said as I've recounted earlier in response to one's statement, "you're racist." They laughed at my naivete, "Of course we're racists." We are all racists. To quote Mulvaney, "get over it." Have a conversation with someone of color about racism. An advice, don't say you're not a racist. Don't say "you folks." There are others, but just remember the person of color probably knows a lot more of this subject than you. Advices. Listen without prejudgment if you can.

I don't think we shall ever get over color divides without deep positive emersion. That will not happen in general until we irradicate poverty. I think the Scandinavians have done a good job but now are having similar forces due to immigration (largely as a consequence of our foreign policy).

How does the German example inform us? The Finns have done a great job at educating their citizens in how to resist issues the Russians tried to interject into their discourse. If I remember correctly the Russians have given that up. Here we have a party under its control. My advice for responsible Republicans and Democrats alike, do something about it!
 
It goes on to discuss conflicts among WH Legal Counsel, Mulvaney, and OMB where the actual act of withholding the funds was irregular. One dot left hanging was the replacement of a bureaucrat who normally would handle such stoppage with an obviously more pliable political appointee. (Courtesy of earlier Maddow discussion.) News followup connecting these dots to various timelines (like Whistle Blower) are damning as well.

I'm still surprised what a huge effort this "no-quid-pro-quo" was, and how many people got involved.
 
bbrabrasiobr
I got myself T-boned on Friday the 15th and my poor Model S had it's driver side rear door torn to shreds and the driver's door dented at the rear edge. The EMTs said we probably wouldn't have survived it we weren't in a Tesla. As it turned out my wife only had bruising and abrasions on her left breast from the seat belt and I have a broken neck. It isn't as bad as it sounds because the break was on the outside of the vertebrae so there was no spinal cord damage. Still it hurts like heck, and I've been on oxycodone and Tylenol for the last week. I'm still a week behind on email. Anyway, our congresswoman KMR talks like an evangelical too. I think they're all a bunch of hypocrites.
My uttermost condolences on your condition, and sorrow for the loss of your Model S. At the same time, I hope I speak for all in saying we're delighted the two of you got away with only the mishaps you had. PLEASE be as careful as you can be with that demon Oxycodone - it has felled many who get over-used to it.
 
As I said before, the Democrats screwed this up. It was gift-wrapped for them and somehow they couldn't close.

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump?

At the top level it looks like support for impeachment is going down, but it is a fluke in the way the data in presented. The initial graph combines polls that ask the question "should the House do an investigation?" and "should Trump be impeached and removed?" Most polls are asking the latter know, but a few weeks ago it was the former that was more common. When each question is examined individually, there has been virtually no movement on either question.

The problem is that the people who are paying the most attention are those who already have their mind made up.

Though newspaper headlines are starting to show the revelations in big print. That might get the attention of some of the low information people who have tuned out.

If you look at individual polls, the most recent poll in fivethiryeight's database was in the field Nov 17-20, before the latest round of hearings. Emerson College has an A- rating, which makes it one of the more reliable polls. What I find interesting is that belief that Trump should be removed has jumped from 10-12% among Republicans to 22%. Support among Democrats has dropped from around 80% to 69%, which results in close to a flat line result compared to earlier polls, but has some significant internal differences. On that poll I think it shows some Democrats are afraid that the Senate will acquit no matter the evidence and that will make Trump stronger.

At this point, the hearings generated a lot of "dots", and most people don't know how to "connect the dots". Most experts outside FoxNews appear to say the evidence is already more than strong enough. However I'm not aware of a concise story that focusses on the significant dots and the significant connections between these dots. Hopefully that is what the committee is currently working on.

However, that story will probably remain somewhat incomplete as the State Department and the White House are blocking documents and witnesses. So perhaps at some point the investigation needs to present the available case, and argue that it is strong enough to re-iterate the demand for fulfilling the subpoenas for documents and witnesses. If SD and WH continue to block, the case for "obstruction of congress" might be the strongest article of impeachment. However, getting public support for such an "academic" and "non-populist" point might not be easy, as is getting public support for such a central principle as "separation of power", even though vital for the functioning of democracy.

The American public can be broken down into three rough groups:

1) Those who regularly consume at least some political news outside the conservative universe
2) Those who only consume their political news from within the conservative universe
3) Those who actively avoid all political news

A very large percentage of those in group #1 are convinced Trump is guilty. Some may quibble about whether he should be removed or not, but they agree he did it and it was wrong.

Those in group #2 are almost universally convinced this whole thing is cooked up by the Democrats just like the Republicans cooked up phony scandals about Obama's birth or Hillary Clinton's part in the events surrounding the burning of the US consulate in Benghazi. They are convinced Trump did nothing that rises to an impeachable offense and was just doing politics as usual.

The third group have been avoiding the whole thing and don't want to know. Many have given up on voting entirely, though some percentage do vote in presidential elections because they believe it's their minimal duty, though they try to avoid anything about politics until after the conventions in election years.

Getting through to those low information people is key in all this. If they become convinced Trump really is a crook and join with those who have been paying close attention outside the bubble, it will be a very costly vote for Republicans to vote against removal in the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpjod and Norbert
Wise words and informative comment.

I don't know where I stand on this issue but despite Snowden's revelations part of me says the danger is already being implemented in our media and cyber-world by nefarious characters including the Russians through the GRU and their Repubican enablers with the myth of Ukraine. (But then I repeat myself.) So all we have left is censorship. We do have an example in German policy on hate speech. I don't know how well that is done and it is a different culture than ours although they certainly have plenty of skinheads.

People's experiences are different. I was lucky to live in a mostly black immediate neighborhood which was probably on the edge of poverty next door to a larger, mostly black district which was our prime ghetto. Through politics, I came close to marrying two women (separately) who are African American and was welcomed by each family, so I became accustomed to being around people of color in normal relationships. At one time I had a chat with two leaders of Sac State's Black Student's Union and said as I've recounted earlier in response to one's statement, "you're racist." They laughed at my naivete, "Of course we're racists." We are all racists. To quote Mulvaney, "get over it." Have a conversation with someone of color about racism. An advice, don't say you're not a racist. Don't say "you folks." There are others, but just remember the person of color probably knows a lot more of this subject than you. Advices. Listen without prejudgment if you can.

I don't think we shall ever get over color divides without deep positive emersion. That will not happen in general until we irradicate poverty. I think the Scandinavians have done a good job but now are having similar forces due to immigration (largely as a consequence of our foreign policy).

How does the German example inform us? The Finns have done a great job at educating their citizens in how to resist issues the Russians tried to interject into their discourse. If I remember correctly the Russians have given that up. Here we have a party under its control. My advice for responsible Republicans and Democrats alike, do something about it!

I grew up in a very ethnically mixed neighborhood and never went to a school with more than 15% white kids. I was just thinking the other day that most of the blond kids I knew growing up had Hispanic surnames. There were not many African Americans around, but a lot of Asians, Hispanics, and for some reason Armenians.

Possibly because of my background I don't grok racism. Some people are scum and where I came from most of the scum were Asian or Hispanic, but that was because most of the people I knew were Asian or Hispanic. On the whole, most people I knew were decent folk, whatever their skin color.

Ultimately what breeds street crime is poverty and skin color doesn't matter. Go to the poor parts pf Glasgow Scotland and you'll find kids who committing the same crimes as any US inner city, the only differences are their accents and skin colors.

Universal Basic Income is something that has a lot of resistance right now, but it almost became law in the US during the Nixon administration. The bill died in the Senate because Senate Democrats couldn't agree on how much to pay people. I recommend Utopia for Realists to anyone curious about whether it will work or not. I went in very skeptical, but the author cites study after study that has shown that UBI goes a long ways towards helping alleviate the ills of society.

It would only help me a little to have an extra $24K a year, and for most people making more than I am, it would mean virtually nothing. But for those below the poverty line, it would make a massive difference and it would likely bring in more in taxes and savings than it costs in the long run.

The poorest in society don't have enough to pay for everything, so they are a net drag on society. They are driven to steal to make ends meet, they have higher incidents of domestic violence and child abuse which gets police and social services involved. They skimp on bills which forces the utilities to cover the shortfalls charging the rest of us a little more. They don't spend much money on anything and what they do spend money on is the most basic things.

Give that segment of the population money and they will use it to pay their bills, and buy things instead of stealing them. That money goes into the cash registers at stores and into the coffers of utilities who in turn pay their employees with it. Then those employees go out and buy things. All those transactions and incomes are taxed which goes into government coffers.

At the same time crime rates go down as well as need for social services which saves the government money. In London, UK they did an experiment where they took 13 or 14 of the worst homeless people. It was estimated these 13 people were costing more than 100K a year in policing and court costs. In this pilot program, they gave each of them 50K (pounds) a year to spend as they wish with just one social worker to make the payments. All but one of the homeless people got clean and off the street and policing costs dropped to zero. None of them spent the entire 50K.

A conservative government came in (I think it was Boris Johnson) and canned the project.

Today there is about 10-20% of the population who are pretty much unemployable. They are unable or unwilling to learn modern job skills and what they once did is obsolete. That percentage is going to skyrocket in the next 20 years. If the pundits are right and autonomous vehicles really do become a reality and legal, it will put millions out of work. Many other jobs are becoming more automated which will make even more jobs obsolete. If 40-50% of the population is unemployed and unemployable what will happen to society? The US had over 300 million guns in circulation, do you think that's going to end well?

Back to racism and it's connection to immigration. Many countries with an anti-immigrant movement are people against immigrants who don't look like them. Trump has wondered why Norwegians aren't immigrating to the US and why it's mostly brown people.

A study on the resistance to immigration in Germany found that the resistance is highest in areas with large poor white populations. They don't understand why immigrants are coming in and taking "their jobs". The areas with affluent white populations have low resistance to non-white immigration. The affluent whites are probably more worldly, possibly traveling to non-white countries or having non-white coworkers. They also don't feel their jobs are threatened by a Syrian refugee.

My uttermost condolences on your condition, and sorrow for the loss of your Model S. At the same time, I hope I speak for all in saying we're delighted the two of you got away with only the mishaps you had. PLEASE be as careful as you can be with that demon Oxycodone - it has felled many who get over-used to it.

Neroden about a year back mentioned that the trick to taking oxycodone and not getting hooked is to only take enough to take the edge off the pain and not to actually take it all away. Having known some people with ADD, the same is the case with Aderall. Take just enough to reduce the ADD symptoms and you don't get high at all and you also don't get hooked.

I don't have any first hand experience with opiods or opiates (I have a weird thing with pain, I don't feel chronic pain, but do feel acute pain, my sister and father are the same way). Everyone I've known with those sorts of pain killers either can't take them because it makes them too ill, or they got hooked, so I don't know how the "just enough to take off the edge" thing works, but Neroden was fairly well educated about things.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Boomer19
Neroden about a year back mentioned that the trick to taking oxycodone and not getting hooked is to only take enough to take the edge off the pain and not to actually take it all away.

Political discussions aside, this is good advice. The dose required to relieve pain is extremely individualized (because of how opioids bond to the receptors in the brain, how those receptors signal, and how the opioids are metabolized), so there is trial and error involved in finding the dose that makes the residual pain bearable, versus a dose that just wipes you out (which is going to be more prone to addiction).

With that said, however, there is a subset of people that are biologically wired (we think it is genetic, but have not identified a specific gene) to have a higher risk of addiction. If there is any family history of opioid dependence, please take that into account.

This gets a little technical, but the first 1-2 paragraphs are the most relevant:
Genetics and Epigenetics of Addiction
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Intl Professor
At the top level it looks like support for impeachment is going down, but it is a fluke in the way the data in presented. The initial graph combines polls that ask the question "should the House do an investigation?" and "should Trump be impeached and removed?" Most polls are asking the latter know, but a few weeks ago it was the former that was more common. When each question is examined individually, there has been virtually no movement on either question.

The problem is that the people who are paying the most attention are those who already have their mind made up.

Though newspaper headlines are starting to show the revelations in big print. That might get the attention of some of the low information people who have tuned out.

If you look at individual polls, the most recent poll in fivethiryeight's database was in the field Nov 17-20, before the latest round of hearings. Emerson College has an A- rating, which makes it one of the more reliable polls. What I find interesting is that belief that Trump should be removed has jumped from 10-12% among Republicans to 22%. Support among Democrats has dropped from around 80% to 69%, which results in close to a flat line result compared to earlier polls, but has some significant internal differences. On that poll I think it shows some Democrats are afraid that the Senate will acquit no matter the evidence and that will make Trump stronger.



The American public can be broken down into three rough groups:

1) Those who regularly consume at least some political news outside the conservative universe
2) Those who only consume their political news from within the conservative universe
3) Those who actively avoid all political news

A very large percentage of those in group #1 are convinced Trump is guilty. Some may quibble about whether he should be removed or not, but they agree he did it and it was wrong.

Those in group #2 are almost universally convinced this whole thing is cooked up by the Democrats just like the Republicans cooked up phony scandals about Obama's birth or Hillary Clinton's part in the events surrounding the burning of the US consulate in Benghazi. They are convinced Trump did nothing that rises to an impeachable offense and was just doing politics as usual.

The third group have been avoiding the whole thing and don't want to know. Many have given up on voting entirely, though some percentage do vote in presidential elections because they believe it's their minimal duty, though they try to avoid anything about politics until after the conventions in election years.

Getting through to those low information people is key in all this. If they become convinced Trump really is a crook and join with those who have been paying close attention outside the bubble, it will be a very costly vote for Republicans to vote against removal in the Senate.

If there was anything close to a smoking gun, the numbers would be in favor of impeachment. So far, the evidence has been underwhelming or presented as such. After three years, this is the hill the Democrats have chosen?
 
If there was anything close to a smoking gun, the numbers would be in favor of impeachment. So far, the evidence has been underwhelming or presented as such. After three years, this is the hill the Democrats have chosen?

And how convenient to be standing very visibly on that hill, while the Centrist policies demanding a more 'pragmatic approach' to renewable energy adoption and Climate Policy that ultimately support fossil fuels and ongoing regime change in the Middle East in time for the Aramco IPO are 'just out of sight over the other hill'.............you know, the hill that the MSM doesn't talk about and that the DNC attacks Tulsi for raising awareness of because we are supposed to only be talking about 'this hill'.

The troops and those policies have marched onward, unchallenged since Desert Storm except when we actually ran out of bombs to drop in Syria in 2016. And they have had an even easier time marching forward without being challenged as a result of this daily charade IMO. The Dem's slogan of "Yes we can" that I voted for twice has become "No we won't"............not just with Trump (the smoke screen), but on any and all things that would bring effective change. Honestly, if Tulsi didn't have the courage to speak up about her experience in the Middle East, if Bernie didn't have the courage to raise awareness about the ongoing suffering in Palestine, and if Jay Inslee hadn't pushed real renewable energy change opportunities in front of the American people prior to unveiling of the Green New Deal, would the Debates questions have ever moved beyond "If you were president, who would you like your best friend to be?"

The weight of all that have lost their lives in this ongoing struggle - in battle as soldiers, as innocent civilians in the Middle East, and even those that are now dying because of Climate Change effects and Dieselgate-like emissions belongs squarely upon the heads of those that don't speak up to challenge this on both sides of the isle, and that walk a mile to avoid reporting this on a daily basis in the MSM. These people in their positions are fully capable of multi-tasking..................which means they 'could' continue to pursue the impeachment proceedings while at the same time use their positions to move all of us towards a more sustainable future. But sadly they are keeping that 'sustainable future' discussion hidden 'just over that other hill' for now.

But all hope is not lost. The next generation is doing their best to save us while we are glued to our TV sets with this distraction:

upload_2019-11-25_8-2-22.png


Sunrise Movement on Twitter
 
My 0.02, but I'm strongly against cancelling Peurto Rican debt outright. Not without serious political changes there (regardless of party).

Anyone that has spent more than a week in PR knows the level of corruption there is crazy high. It's the primary driving force of the debt (and why the infrastructure was so bad just prior to the hurricane hitting). Close friend grew up there and she does not have any kind words for the majority of politicians on that island.

FBI Arrests Former Top Puerto Rico Officials In Government Corruption Scandal
Puerto Rico’s Problems Are Deeper Than One Corrupt Governor
https://nypost.com/2019/07/29/young-puerto-ricans-havent-seen-a-government-thats-not-corrupt/
Puerto Rico | Anti Corruption Digest
 
I agree @bkp_duke that the debt cancellation must come with change. That change in PR in my opinion means that PR should be moved away from being a 51st state tax haven. It is where people sink their money to avoid taxes, when PR desperately needs taxes to make infrastructure improvements. PR is a victim of Austerity right under our own nose. And when disasters happen there, the Austere simply come in and sweep up more at bargain basement prices. With so much money 'hiding' in PR, it is ripe for all the issues you mention.

But shame on these universities to continue to invest in fossil fuels while they talk about their desire to support Climate Policy. This has been going on for many, many years now. It is the double-speak that we have become accustomed to, unfortunately. While the Sunrise Movement thread video unfortunately has a 'Cancel the Debt' message, the bigger message of their effort this weekend was to raise awareness to the fact that the 'brightest minds' are still investing in fossil fuels while their schools teach the science that demands us to do otherwise
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Shore
Yep, I travel a lot (reason for getting 2 cars with free supercharging).

PR infrastructure is WAY WAY WAY worse. Like . . . 2nd world (bordering on 3rd) bad.
Ironically, in China (and even India in some places, surprisingly) - they have brand new, great infrastructure. Atleast in India, it is mainly because that's an avenue for corruption - funneling infra spend to favorite contractors.
 
Ironically, in China (and even India in some places, surprisingly) - they have brand new, great infrastructure. Atleast in India, it is mainly because that's an avenue for corruption - funneling infra spend to favorite contractors.

At least those contractors complete the work. Look up the PR power authority, they got a lot of money over the years for upgrades, and never did the work.
 
Getting through to those low information people is key in all this. If they become convinced Trump really is a crook and join with those who have been paying close attention outside the bubble, it will be a very costly vote for Republicans to vote against removal in the Senate.

That makes sense. Somehow the current situation feels incomplete, its true nature hasn't shown itself yet.
 
Political discussions aside, this is good advice. The dose required to relieve pain is extremely individualized (because of how opioids bond to the receptors in the brain, how those receptors signal, and how the opioids are metabolized), so there is trial and error involved in finding the dose that makes the residual pain bearable, versus a dose that just wipes you out (which is going to be more prone to addiction).

With that said, however, there is a subset of people that are biologically wired (we think it is genetic, but have not identified a specific gene) to have a higher risk of addiction. If there is any family history of opioid dependence, please take that into account.

This gets a little technical, but the first 1-2 paragraphs are the most relevant:
Genetics and Epigenetics of Addiction

We're probably wandering off topic, but I recall hearing about a study the VA did in the 70s after Vietnam and they found about 10% of the population were born addicts. They could get hooked on things easily. About 10% would never think of turning to substances and don't get hooked if they do try it, and for the 80% in the middle it's situational. They can get addicted, but they also can get off the drugs with less effort than the 10% if they are serious about quitting and if they started for emotional reasons the emotional situation changes.

Both my SO and I have some weird reactions to drugs, so we're careful. She almost died a couple of times due to reactions. I'm hypersensitive to anesthetic and don't really respond to stimulants (caffeine sometimes makes me drowsy). Opiods and opiates make her severely nauseated and she'll thrown them up. She can tolerate very small doses of codeine sometimes. I've never had any, but I suspect I would have a negative reaction.

If there was anything close to a smoking gun, the numbers would be in favor of impeachment. So far, the evidence has been underwhelming or presented as such. After three years, this is the hill the Democrats have chosen?

My SO is a lawyer and she corresponds with a lot of other lawyers who are following the case closely. Most lawyers are following it to some degree. All are in agreement that the gun isn't just smoking, it's on fire and the barrel melted from the heat. From what I know about the law (lay person, but I've picked up bits from osmosis), I agree.

This is at least an order of magnitude worse and easier to prove than Watergate. Probably two orders of magnitude. And that's just the Ukraine crime itself. That doesn't include the hundreds of counts of obstruction, the quite probably money laundering, or the stuff with Russia.

Roger Stone was tried by Mueller. It was one of the last projects his office had. They made it clear in the trial that Donald Trump was just as guilty as Roger Stone and they had the evidence, they just couldn't indict him because of the fig leaf of a 1973 DOJ memo that Bill Barr is clinging to.

The Democrats are going after the Ukraine crimes because of two things: it's a much simpler crime for people to understand than the Russian 2016 election meddling or the financial crimes and the evidence is right there. The perpetrator confessed to the crime in public.

The prosecutors and former prosecutors my SO corresponds with have said that trying this case would be about as difficult as tracking a herd of elephants. The defense has absolutely no case except "yeah I did it, so what!" and that message has been spread by conservative media and his defenders in Congress. Unlike the Watergate case, the president has many media allies doing their best to muddy the waters and make this seem like a far smaller case than it is.

That makes sense. Somehow the current situation feels incomplete, its true nature hasn't shown itself yet.

There is a tremendous amount of information the administration has refused to turn over and a significant number of witnesses the White House has illegally banned from testifying. They are claiming "blanket immunity" which doesn't exist.

The whole unitary executive theory Barr bases everything on is in the Federalist Papers (though didn't make it into the Constitution). Hamilton was a big proponent of a strong Executive Branch, but he was also a very strong advocate of Congressional oversight and impeachment for wrongdoing. Barr took the first and conveniently forgot the second part of that.

I think the true nature has shown itself, but I talk to and listen to a lot of lawyers. However there are parts missing because of deliberate actions to cover up evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.