[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

What Makes You Sad? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:28pm
 
Bolivia - westslope - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:19pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:17pm
 
Impeachment Time: - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:13pm
 
Breaking News - kcar - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:08pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:08pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - rhahl - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:42am
 
Books read recently - maryte - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:39am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:15am
 
Trump - westslope - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:51am
 
How's the weather? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:45am
 
News of the Weird - Red_Dragon - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:43am
 
Mystery Topic #21668 - jjtwister - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:35am
 
Party planning advice - Proclivities - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:02am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Nov 13, 2019 - 7:06am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Nov 13, 2019 - 6:35am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:50am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - SECA_Alan - Nov 13, 2019 - 4:10am
 
RP starts randomly in Android - SECA_Alan - Nov 13, 2019 - 4:07am
 
Fires - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:49am
 
MacOS app - gtufano - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:38pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:15pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:28pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:24pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:22pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:49pm
 
Name My Band - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:47pm
 
The Black Crowes - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:53am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:59am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:18am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - cc_rider - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Immigration - Isabeau - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Nov 12, 2019 - 6:33am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Browser history - lyteroptes - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:55am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - sirdroseph - Nov 12, 2019 - 1:33am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 9:29pm
 
Neil Young - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Talking Heads - R_P - Nov 11, 2019 - 4:50pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - cc_rider - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:16pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:12pm
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
Republican Party - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
TWO WORDS - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 10:37am
 
Puzzle it - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 8:00am
 
Song, artist & album cover on apple TV app - gtufano - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:16am
 
Economix - westslope - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Stuff you didn't know - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:37pm
 
Today in History - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 9:09am
 
Jriver album covers not displayed - olivierbo73 - Nov 10, 2019 - 3:46am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 12:34am
 
RIP R.E.M. - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 10:25pm
 
New Music - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 8:10pm
 
Neoliberalism: what exactly is it? - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:24pm
 
Military Matters - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:20pm
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Nov 9, 2019 - 7:08am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:18am
 
Music Videos - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:15am
 
What Did You See Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:46am
 
Out the window - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:43am
 
What can you hear right now? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 7:58pm
 
Alternative URL for .ogg stream ? - sbarnum - Nov 8, 2019 - 6:03pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:36pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:32pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:06pm
 
Things I wish for ..... - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:57pm
 
Great guitar faces - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:23pm
 
Movie Quote - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 12:04pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 706, 707, 708  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2019 - 8:27am

westslope wrote:
From the first full sentence hyper-linked above:  "The Libertarian Socialist Caucus seeks to honor the principles of non-aggression, through recognizing that exploitation–especially economic exploitation–is aggressive and coercive, and should therefore be opposed by the Libertarian Party."

Oh boy.....    Marxist Libertarians?    Jeezus....   What an emotionally loaded, imprecise term.  Exploitation.    From the perspective that pretended to be scientific.  

Never thought about it too much but the People's Party  of Canada— the libertarian instrument of Max Bernier — if it had been successful, would never have campaigned to eliminate socialized medicine.  Perhaps add user fees and make more private choices available but medicare in Canada would stay.

There is an actual Libertarian Party in Canada.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2019 - 8:24am

 westslope wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
I am not surprised by the first 3 types of libertarians having encountered outlooks that could be grouped as such.  But a libertarian socialist caucus.....  ?   That sounds intriguing.  Please elaborate.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack.   Besides, President Trump seems to be taking a respite from his usual over-the-top, outlandish statements and policy stumbles.   Even he deserves a break too.    It does not have to be union-mandated for folks to enjoy a well-deserved break.  

The less Trump the better as far as I'm concerned. During a recent bout of (unintended) anesthesia a nurse tried to keep me talking to assess how conscious I was. What was my name, did I know where I was, what day is it? When she got to "Who's the president?" I'm afraid I was rude.

If you want me to explain the concept of libertarian socialism I'm afraid you're on your own. It sounds oxymoronic because it is. The caucus is tiny and has approximately zero impact on the party, other than to provoke other attendees at conventions to outrage.
 
From the first full sentence hyper-linked above:  "The Libertarian Socialist Caucus seeks to honor the principles of non-aggression, through recognizing that exploitation–especially economic exploitation–is aggressive and coercive, and should therefore be opposed by the Libertarian Party."

Oh boy.....    Marxist Libertarians?    Jeezus....   What an emotionally loaded, imprecise term.  Exploitation.    From the perspective that pretended to be scientific.  

Never thought about it too much but the People's Party  of Canada— the libertarian instrument of Max Bernier — if it had been successful, would never have campaigned to eliminate socialized medicine.  Perhaps add user fees and make more private choices available but medicare in Canada would stay.

 

definitions are important and a lot of people have their own 

there's always nuanced views, maybe period specific

and this
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 10:47pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
I am not surprised by the first 3 types of libertarians having encountered outlooks that could be grouped as such.  But a libertarian socialist caucus.....  ?   That sounds intriguing.  Please elaborate.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack.   Besides, President Trump seems to be taking a respite from his usual over-the-top, outlandish statements and policy stumbles.   Even he deserves a break too.    It does not have to be union-mandated for folks to enjoy a well-deserved break.  

The less Trump the better as far as I'm concerned. During a recent bout of (unintended) anesthesia a nurse tried to keep me talking to assess how conscious I was. What was my name, did I know where I was, what day is it? When she got to "Who's the president?" I'm afraid I was rude.

If you want me to explain the concept of libertarian socialism I'm afraid you're on your own. It sounds oxymoronic because it is. The caucus is tiny and has approximately zero impact on the party, other than to provoke other attendees at conventions to outrage.
 
From the first full sentence hyper-linked above:  "The Libertarian Socialist Caucus seeks to honor the principles of non-aggression, through recognizing that exploitation–especially economic exploitation–is aggressive and coercive, and should therefore be opposed by the Libertarian Party."

Oh boy.....    Marxist Libertarians?    Jeezus....   What an emotionally loaded, imprecise term.  Exploitation.    From the perspective that pretended to be scientific.  

Never thought about it too much but the People's Party  of Canada— the libertarian instrument of Max Bernier — if it had been successful, would never have campaigned to eliminate socialized medicine.  Perhaps add user fees and make more private choices available but medicare in Canada would stay.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 4:19pm

Ukraine?
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: planting flowers


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 3:21pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
"I'm very transparent. Nobody is more transparent than I am."
 
Well, Agnes. She is very, very transparent.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 2:03pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
"I'm very transparent. Nobody is more transparent than I am."
 
"Ask me about my tax returns..."

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 1:36pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


I agree but I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
 
Indeed.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 1:34pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
"I'm very transparent. Nobody is more transparent than I am."
 

I agree but I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 1:16pm

"I'm very transparent. Nobody is more transparent than I am."
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 11:10am



 steeler wrote:

In sum, the decision to withhold the  aid appropriated by  Congress  had to be in the interest of the country. If the withholding of that aid (and a White House meeting) was done to coerce Ukraine into making statements or conducting investigations for Trump’s personal and political benefit, that would constitute an abuse of power for which he can be — and should be — impeached.




 

so what is the defense? investigating whether biden abused his power while vp, and now a pres candidate, is in the interest of the country?

my vote is for all of the above.
Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 6:43am



 Lazy8 wrote:

The less Trump the better as far as I'm concerned. During a recent bout of (unintended) anesthesia a nurse tried to keep me talking to assess how conscious I was. What was my name, did I know where I was, what day is it? When she got to "Who's the president?" I'm afraid I was rude. 




Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 8, 2019 - 6:42am



 steeler wrote:


 black321 wrote:
Just wondering...is this an impeachable offense?
 
Abuse of power for personal and political gain. There does not have to be an underlying crime.

A key to understanding all this is the statements and actions of Giuliani. He now says what he was doing in Ukraine he was doing in his capacity of being Trump’s personal attorney (earlier he was saying or implying that he was authorized by State Department). In that capacity, he is working to advance Trump’s personal interests — not necessarily those of the country. The facts are clear that Trump was telling Foreign Service officials and Ukraine officials to talk to Giuliani about what needed to happen in Ukraine. It also is clear that Giuliani was insisting that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma  and allegations that Ukraine officials interfered with the 2016 election in Clinton’s favor.

We also know that defense aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by by Congress — and determined by DOD to be eligible for release because Ukraine had taken adequate anti-corruption measures — was held up at the direction of Trump.  Foreign Service officials have testified before the House impeachment committee that their  understanding at the time was that the aid and any White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky were contingent upon Zelensky committing publicly to investigations of Biden/Burisma and interference in the 2016 election.  The aid was released in September — after the whistleblower complaint had become public. The Trump position is that he and his administration  wanted Ukraine to take actions to combat  corruption. It is unclear what measures were taken between the July call between Trump and Zelensky and the September release of the aid that satisfied concerns that adequate anti-corruption measures had been taken (remember that DOD determined that in May).  

The best argument for  Trump in all this — and I think it is an extremely thin reed to stand upon, at best — is Trump’s withholding of aid and a White House meeting were aimed at getting Ukraine to demonstrate it would take serious steps to root out corruption within Ukraine generally to reasonably assure that US aid would not be squandered and diverted . And that it was just coincidence that some of that corruption happened to involve investigations that would benefit Trump politically. And it was further coincidence that the only investigations Trump specifically referenced in the July call were the investigations of Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election. To believe all that, however, one has to wonder why Giuliani was placed in charge of all that. Why was it not being done through normal foreign policy channels? 

Then, of course, there is the July call in which Trump links Zelensky’s request for defense aid to Zelensky doing Trump a favor. What was the favor he referenced if not the also expressly referenced  investigations of Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election allegations? 

In sum, the decision to withhold the  aid appropriated by  Congress  had to be in the interest of the country. If the withholding of that aid (and a White House meeting) was done to coerce Ukraine into making statements or conducting investigations for Trump’s personal and political benefit, that would constitute an abuse of power for which he can be — and should be — impeached.


 
Bravo. Well said! 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 7:11pm

westslope wrote:
I am not surprised by the first 3 types of libertarians having encountered outlooks that could be grouped as such.  But a libertarian socialist caucus.....  ?   That sounds intriguing.  Please elaborate.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack.   Besides, President Trump seems to be taking a respite from his usual over-the-top, outlandish statements and policy stumbles.   Even he deserves a break too.    It does not have to be union-mandated for folks to enjoy a well-deserved break.  

The less Trump the better as far as I'm concerned. During a recent bout of (unintended) anesthesia a nurse tried to keep me talking to assess how conscious I was. What was my name, did I know where I was, what day is it? When she got to "Who's the president?" I'm afraid I was rude.

If you want me to explain the concept of libertarian socialism I'm afraid you're on your own. It sounds oxymoronic because it is. The caucus is tiny and has approximately zero impact on the party, other than to provoke other attendees at conventions to outrage.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 4:20pm

Mr Trump and his lawyers had argued that the case was politically motivated and blamed "sleazy New York Democrats" of "doing everything they can to sue me".

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 3:46pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Fair enough.  Agreed.   "Liberal" has become almost as stretchy as "socialist" when used with no specific context.

But if miami is saying that classic liberals and libertarians share identical positions, I do not believe that is the case.    FWIW, lots of liberal economists and liberal democrats claim classic liberalism as foundational.   I tend to view libertarianism as similar to social anarchism..

There are anarchist libertarians and classical liberal libertarians and pragmatic libertarians and even a libertarian socialist caucus within the US LP. "libertarian" is a somewhat broader term than "classical liberal".
 
I am not surprised by the first 3 types of libertarians having encountered outlooks that could be grouped as such.  But a libertarian socialist caucus.....  ?   That sounds intriguing.  Please elaborate.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack.   Besides, President Trump seems to be taking a respite from his usual over-the-top, outlandish statements and policy stumbles.   Even he deserves a break too.    It does not have to be union-mandated for folks to enjoy a well-deserved break.  
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 3:29pm

westslope wrote:
Fair enough.  Agreed.   "Liberal" has become almost as stretchy as "socialist" when used with no specific context.

But if miami is saying that classic liberals and libertarians share identical positions, I do not believe that is the case.    FWIW, lots of liberal economists and liberal democrats claim classic liberalism as foundational.   I tend to view libertarianism as similar to social anarchism..

There are anarchist libertarians and classical liberal libertarians and pragmatic libertarians and even a libertarian socialist caucus within the US LP. "libertarian" is a somewhat broader term than "classical liberal".
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 2:37pm

 westslope wrote:

Fair enough.  Agreed.   "Liberal" has become almost as stretchy as "socialist" when used with no specific context.

But if miami is saying that classic liberals and libertarians share identical positions, I do not believe that is the case.    FWIW, lots of liberal economists and liberal democrats claim classic liberalism as foundational.   I tend to view libertarianism as similar to social anarchism.  

I am somewhat interested in sorting out these differences but I would be really interested  in learning what neoliberalism actually means.  Other than educational vouchers, I have no idea what it means other than the speaker or writer usually dislikes freemarket capitalism.   I will start a separate thread.

 

liberaltarianism is a big tent

~ inigo montoya
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 1:18pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
.......

The word "liberal" has become infinitely flexible. What Miami is referring to is what are known (to libertarians at least) as "classical liberals". The intellectual tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, De Tocqueville, and so on into the 20th century.

......
 
Fair enough.  Agreed.   "Liberal" has become almost as stretchy as "socialist" absent specific context.

But if miami is saying that classic liberals and libertarians share identical positions, I do not believe that is the case.    FWIW, lots of liberal economists and liberal democrats claim classic liberalism as foundational.   I tend to view libertarianism as similar to social anarchism.  

I am somewhat interested in sorting out these differences but I would be really interested  in learning what neoliberalism actually means.  Other than educational vouchers, I have no idea what it means other than the speaker or writer usually dislikes freemarket capitalism.   I will start a separate thread.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 10:48am



 black321 wrote:
Just wondering...is this an impeachable offense?
 
Abuse of power for personal and political gain. There does not have to be an underlying crime.

A key to understanding all this is the statements and actions of Giuliani. He now says what he was doing in Ukraine he was doing in his capacity of being Trump’s personal attorney (earlier he was saying or implying that he was authorized by State Department). In that capacity, he is working to advance Trump’s personal interests — not necessarily those of the country. The facts are clear that Trump was telling Foreign Service officials and Ukraine officials to talk to Giuliani about what needed to happen in Ukraine. It also is clear that Giuliani was insisting that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma  and allegations that Ukraine officials interfered with the 2016 election in Clinton’s favor.

We also know that defense aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by by Congress — and determined by DOD to be eligible for release because Ukraine had taken adequate anti-corruption measures — was held up at the direction of Trump.  Foreign Service officials have testified before the House impeachment committee that their  understanding at the time was that the aid and any White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky were contingent upon Zelensky committing publicly to investigations of Biden/Burisma and interference in the 2016 election.  The aid was released in September — after the whistleblower complaint had become public. The Trump position is that he and his administration  wanted Ukraine to take actions to combat  corruption. It is unclear what measures were taken between the July call between Trump and Zelensky and the September release of the aid that satisfied concerns that adequate anti-corruption measures had been taken (remember that DOD determined that in May).  

The best argument for  Trump in all this — and I think it is an extremely thin reed to stand upon, at best — is Trump’s withholding of aid and a White House meeting were aimed at getting Ukraine to demonstrate it would take serious steps to root out corruption within Ukraine generally to reasonably assure that US aid would not be squandered and diverted . And that it was just coincidence that some of that corruption happened to involve investigations that would benefit Trump politically. And it was further coincidence that the only investigations Trump specifically referenced in the July call were the investigations of Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election. To believe all that, however, one has to wonder why Giuliani was placed in charge of all that. Why was it not being done through normal foreign policy channels? 

Then, of course, there is the July call in which Trump links Zelensky’s request for defense aid to Zelensky doing Trump a favor. What was the favor he referenced if not the also expressly referenced  investigations of Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election allegations? 

In sum, the decision to withhold the  aid appropriated by  Congress  had to be in the interest of the country. If the withholding of that aid (and a White House meeting) was done to coerce Ukraine into making statements or conducting investigations for Trump’s personal and political benefit, that would constitute an abuse of power for which he can be — and should be — impeached.




black321

black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 7, 2019 - 8:33am

Just wondering...is this an impeachable offense?
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 706, 707, 708  Next