Summations Only

Well, maybe. Certainly, if is wasn't for those two wars.Further reading:Miss Me Yet? | Snopes.com
Miss Me Yet? - WikipediaMoose TRUMP - MAKE GEORGE W. BUSH GREAT AGAIN!Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add another link.

{Content deleted - Message is now a new topic}MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Delete content.

This is a reply to the original message of the subtitle, not to be confused with recent messages having little to nothing to do with the subtitle. Note that this is specifically referring to coal mining debris. At this point, I would hope that there would be no going back to bad practices of the past, even if the law permitted such. Going backward would be terrible PR for the mining company, bad for their personal best interests.I may be wrong.Moose

Before they only had to unify to oppose what Obama/the Democrats wanted to do.Now they have to unify to do something themselves - Much harder to do.(to state the obvious department).Moose

quote:

---

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power ― Benito Mussolini

---

quote:

---

The definition of fascism is The marriage of corporation and state. ― Benito Mussolini

---

SourceGovernment of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.Now, I have my suspicions that the above are paraphrases and/or extractions from a larger context. I would not go so far as to call them quote minings.Moose

Justice League: Meet The Veteran Prosecutors Powering The Russia Probe - TPM – Talking Points Memo

quote:

---

The powerhouse team of lawyers assigned to the multi-pronged federal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has expanded to include 15 members.

​

Plucked from the Justice Department and white-collar law firms by special counsel Robert Mueller, the attorneys boast years of experience prosecuting cases involving national security, fraud, money laundering, cybercrime and espionage. There are experts in witness-flipping, Russia, organized crime and public corruption. Several have worked with Mueller in the past.

​

Though the team is holed up away from the public eye in their office in the Patrick Henry Building on Washington, D.C.’s D Street, their previous work experience offers a window into where the investigation into Russia’s attempts to influence the election outcomeand whether any members of the Trump campaign assisted that effort or committed any financial crimescould be headed.

---

Much more at source page.I guess this is where I say "WOW".Moose

"Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member" - Groucho Marx"Anyone willing to be part of the Trump administration is probably not qualified/desirable for the position" - MooseMoose

So much stupidity, but this one seemed extra delicious: Trump’s Bully Act BackfiresSome snippets from the above (read the whole thing there):

quote:

---

John McCain’s refusal to vote for a bill to repeal Obamacare got all the attention for the dramatic way he did it, but Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was also key to stopping the bill that Trump and McConnell wanted so badly. Trump showed off just how bad he is at politics with the way he tried to intimidate Murkowski.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and the state’s other Republican senator, Dan Sullivan, to threaten that the Trump administration may change its position on several issues that affect the state to punish Murkowski, such as blocking energy exploration and plans to allow the construction of new roads. The message was pretty clear, Sullivan told the Alaska Dispatch News.

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Murkowski...

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

This demonstrated the degree to which Zinke’s ham-handed phone call was political malpractice. The secretary, or whoever at the White House ordered him to make the calls, clearly doesn’t understand the awesome power that comes with being the chairman of a Senate committee. Only an amateur would threaten the person who has oversight over his agency! If she wants, Murkowski can make Zinke’s life so unbelievably miserable. He has no idea.

---

---

My bolding.Moose

Pretty much a bare link, but I'm not up to doing much more at the moment. People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it

quote:

---

Donald Trump won the 2016 election with 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. That is a spread of 74 votes.

​

Clinton was likely to win in several states in which she lost, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio, etc. In three states that could have gone either way, Jill Stein’s vote count was larger than the difference between Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704 votes, Stein got 51,463 votes. In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 46,765 votes, Stein got 49,678 votes. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,177 votes, Stein got 31,006 votes.

​

If every Jill Stein vote would have been a Clinton Vote, it is likely that Clinton would have had 49 electoral votes more than she did have.

---

and

quote:

---

I told people this many times. I said, again and again, the logic that you can vote safely in a general election for a third party candidate in certain states is flawed for several reasons. One of those reasons, I said, is that you might only think the state is safe, and perhaps it is not.

---

I also wonder how many people did some sort of protest vote for Trump, because they felt "he couldn't possible win". Don't do joke votes.Back in a pre-election topic, I advocated voting for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils". In hindsight, I wish I had phrased that "the lesser of two undesirables". Anyway, when given that reality of two real choices, I think one needs to vote for the "(considerably) lesser of two undesirables", least you get the "greater of two undesirables".Going third party (or for the guy who couldn't possible win) is like saying "Hillary or Donald - It really doesn't matter".I know if I hadn't voted Hillary in Minnesota, and Trump had won the state, I would be feeling pretty stupid.Not so bare after all.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : I'm calling it a typo.

Back here I posted: paisano replied in the following message: And Chiroptera replied to that with: I still think that promising tax cuts is a powerful tool for Republicans to get votes. There are a lot of drooling Homers out there.Moose

I voted for Bernie in the Minnesota caucus and Bernie took Minnesota.Then I switched to voting Hillary because she was the best of the possible options. Jill was not a possible option for defeating Donald. And, despite her wonderful "green" positions, I wonder if Jill could be a competent President?What if the election had come down to Bernie vs Donald, with Jill as a third party. And that Jill still managed to tip the results to Donald?The "liberal" side needs to unite to defeat the Republican candidate. Period.MooseAdded by edit:Until we have some sort of runoff vote system, not voting for "the lesser of two evils" may result in getting "the greater of two evils". Voting a third party candidate is functionally not voting at all. You are not voting in support of either of the two viable candidates, nor are you voting against the least desirable candidate.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

There's been a few messages chain responding to Taq's message. None seem to have noticed the "H" before the "W".IIRC, the Ross Perot third party candidacy may have tilted things from George the Greater to Bill the Bubba (George HW Bush to Bill Clinton).Moose

I think there is a confusion between "quality" and "popularity". By the Stile reasoning, Trump was "good enough" to win the election, which certainly should not be confused with Trump being quality.We could have a candidate that, by intelligent, knowledgeable, and rational standards, could be the ideal president. Chances are, such a person would not be a popular choice. And even if elected, that person would not be government god - S/he couldn't just execute fixes without some cooperation with the congress.And I still wonder about Jill Steins overall qualifications and abilities to function as president. Would she just be a "green Trump'?One must sometimes think pragmatism over idealism.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : I'm calling it a typo.

Is this "special" in the Paula Poundstone way (I believe referring to Bush II voters at some point)?

quote:

---

Paula Poundstone - "These people are special. And by special I mean, could hurt themselves eating pudding with a rubber spoon."

---

(I couldn't track down any source, but I think I got that quote pretty close, if not exact)During the election I pondered "How is Hillary to campaign against someone so obviously unsuitable to be President". Channel Dan Aykroyd? "Donald, you ignorant boob". Etc. WWAFD*?Moose*What Would Al Franken Do?Edited by Minnemooseus, : WWAFDEdited by Minnemooseus, : Neglected an "a" at the end of "Paul".Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change quote box type.

Still, it seems to me to be an "I'd rather quit than fight" thing. If they really want to stand on principle, they should switch to being an Independent or a Democrat, and caucus with the Democrat side.MooseNote: By edit, fixed to "I'd rather quit than fight", although "I'd rather quiet than fight" might be as accurate.Edited by Minnemooseus, : It's "quit", not "quite".Edited by Minnemooseus, : Had "that" instead of "than" in 3 places - D'OH.