Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 82860 times)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #850 on: October 26, 2017, 11:56:48 AM »
Irony alert!  There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Sure.  This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy.  Because Hillary.  It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary.  And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions".  Hillary's fault-again!

I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was.  Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there.  I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is.  If you are looking for dirt on Trump...

Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt.  Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions.  Not opposition research.  Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.

The die hard Trump-bots will grasp at whatever straws they can to prove that HRC is the real villain here. She has to be since that's the only excuse they seem to have left to justify their vote. And pissing off liberals, of course, so I guess worst case they can always fall back on that.

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #851 on: October 26, 2017, 11:58:40 AM »
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 12:02:44 PM by StarBright »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #852 on: October 26, 2017, 12:05:34 PM »
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it up to now has made clear that it was the product of opposition research.

Exactly. It's not illegal and Hillary doesn't have to retroactively file as a foreign agent.

Everyone here realizes that Mueller is investigating White House collusion with Russia, right? He doesn't care about Benghazi or whatever other "crooked Hillary" things that can be dredged up this week.

There will be grand juries. It probably won't reach Trump, because it rarely goes that far, but Flynn and Manafort are likely to see the inside of a court.

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #853 on: October 26, 2017, 03:47:07 PM »
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #854 on: October 26, 2017, 04:14:08 PM »
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.

Yup. even in the mainstream media.

Liberal bias, indeed.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #855 on: October 26, 2017, 04:55:05 PM »
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.

Yup. even in the mainstream media.

Liberal bias, indeed.

But Hannity and Alex Jones told me that Hillary herself, after personally murdering Benghazi and running a pedophile pizzeria, delivered nuclear weapons to Russia. Yeah.  The tables are turning, indeed! At this rate, she'll never be president.

Also, Trumpers need to stop pretending to give a shit about pay to play, since Trump apparently was going to throw out a Chinese dissident at the behest of Steve Wynn, but then changed his mind because of his membership at Mar-A-Lago. So ethical. Much billionaire-doesn't-need-our-money. Wow. What's the difference between Clinton and Trump's pay to play?  One-there's no evidence that Hillary changed any policy because of donations (see contrast to Trump, above) and two-donations to Clinton went to buy orphans AIDS drugs and donations to Trump go straight into his pocket.  So, again, I am so sick of hearing faux outrage about the Clinton Foundation.  If conservatives actually GAVE A SHIT about any of this, they wouldn't have voted for Trump.

I am extra pissed today since apparently my tax-deferred 401k contributions may be slashed to 2k and my property tax bill will no longer be deductible because conservatives can't figure out how to have Steve Mnuchin pay less in taxes so his wife will keep pretending she wants to sleep with him without making my taxes go up. Are we great again yet? Rant over.




gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #856 on: October 26, 2017, 06:29:55 PM »
Irony alert!  There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Sure.  This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy.  Because Hillary.  It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary.  And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions".  Hillary's fault-again!

I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was.  Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there.  I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is.  If you are looking for dirt on Trump...

Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt.  Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions.  Not opposition research.  Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.

The die hard Trump-bots will grasp at whatever straws they can to prove that HRC is the real villain here. She has to be since that's the only excuse they seem to have left to justify their vote. And pissing off liberals, of course, so I guess worst case they can always fall back on that.

It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #857 on: October 26, 2017, 07:05:14 PM »
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #858 on: October 26, 2017, 09:13:58 PM »
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #859 on: October 26, 2017, 10:16:11 PM »
It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.

I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 10:20:49 PM by Lagom »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #860 on: October 26, 2017, 10:20:05 PM »
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"

Please. If you think the corrupt assholes in Illinois (where I lived for 7 years) represent the soul of the Democratic party, you are being willfully obtuse. Just like those liberals who claim Trump represents some sort of proof of a cancer borne from Republicanism. No. Both party's greatest failing is that they prop up any and all who bear their standard. An actual libertarian would agree this is obvious.

Unfortunately for those leaning right, your party chose a much worse candidate than Democrats have yet manage to muster. Doesn't mean Republicans lose and Democrats win. It's only, merely, America that loses.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 10:50:27 PM by Lagom »

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #861 on: October 26, 2017, 11:19:58 PM »
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"

Please. If you think the corrupt assholes in Illinois (where I lived for 7 years) represent the soul of the Democratic party, you are being willfully obtuse. Just like those liberals who claim Trump represents some sort of proof of a cancer borne from Republicanism. No. Both party's greatest failing is that they prop up any and all who bear their standard. An actual libertarian would agree this is obvious.

Unfortunately for those leaning right, your party chose a much worse candidate that Democrats have yet manage to muster. Doesn't mean Republicans lose and Democrats win. It's only, merely, America that loses.

It does damage to their brand name. Like you said, they prop up anyone who claims their name. They should clean house and yet they haven't.

It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.

I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.

Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge. Something about the whole ordeal has left me thinking there is a rot or hollowness to Democrats.

My apologies if that appears tangential and empirical, but I simply cannot square what appears to be apathy to, as the mayor of one of the communities put it, "community genocide." (His words, not mine.) I imagine there were lots of policies such as these from Democrats that would poison a town as surely as republicans would. And people aren't stupid, they can at least guess how this all plays out.

Republicans will at least lie to you with a straight face. Democrats will lie with a kindly smile.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #862 on: October 27, 2017, 09:40:25 AM »
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #863 on: October 27, 2017, 09:55:28 AM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.

You have an interesting idea of liberty.  The regulations that Trump has overturned have made America significantly LESS free.  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example).  That's not making America great, that's making America oppressively plutocratic.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #864 on: October 27, 2017, 09:57:23 AM »
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Is this...is this a legitimate question?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/title-vii/535182/

Quote
President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.

Quote
The administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.html

Quote
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.

Quote
"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/trump-administration-allows-employers-refuse-pay-birth-control/

Quote
Companies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.

So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #865 on: October 27, 2017, 10:03:42 AM »
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.

Even rich straight guys have less liberty than before, after the repeal of consumer protection and asset forfeiture laws.  Let's not pretend Republicans are all that worried about WHO they steal liberty from, as long as businesses and CEOs win.  Notice none of those examples target corporations, their only real constituency.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #866 on: October 27, 2017, 10:17:28 AM »
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #867 on: October 27, 2017, 10:19:06 AM »
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.

acroy's posts never fail to be knee-slappers

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #868 on: October 27, 2017, 10:25:44 AM »
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.

acroy's posts never fail to be knee-slappers

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements. Comes across (to me) like Sean Hannity - cheerleading the Prez regardless of what's done.  Plenty to criticism about all previous presidents, but hard to make a quantitative case that DJT has increased American liberty.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #869 on: October 27, 2017, 10:32:25 AM »
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Even if Trump supported every policy that I favor I would want him out. In fact, all the more so because the vice president he would theoretically leave behind would still get things done without making us the butt of the world's jokes. He's extremely untrustworthy and isn't very intelligent outside of the few things he understands regarding manipulation of the media and people. Even you should be a little wary that his political views have changed so drastically over the last 10-20 years. No matter how much you like him now it must tickle the back of your brain to make you wonder what his real motives are; Why does someone change parties like that? Is it because he saw an opportunity for a power grab in the Republican party that didn't exist with the Democrats? After all scientific studies have shown the brains of declared republicans are more reactive to danger cues than the general population, maybe he understood this means they are more receptive to fear mongering (his primary tactic). Frankly I don't think we need scientific studies to tell us this but we do have them. If he changes parties and his positions on key issues to match in order to follow opportunity, when will he turn on his party again? When will he turn on his country?

Regarding your thoughts on liberty, these may in fact be goals of the libertarian party but as Sol has noted they do not lead to more liberty for everyone. Deregulation gives more liberty to those who already have power and money while taking away the ability of individuals to defend themselves. If your problem with regulations is that you think implementation is poorly managed and overly bureaucratic I hear you, but thinking the answer is to burn it down and give all the power to the guys with money... I just don't get the thought process.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #870 on: October 27, 2017, 10:43:51 AM »
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.

  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example). 
Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #871 on: October 27, 2017, 11:06:50 AM »
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.

  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example). 
Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in about half an hour.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #872 on: October 27, 2017, 11:11:57 AM »

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Good to hear back from you Acroy.  My statement wasn't an ad-hominum attack, but rather an observation that several different times you've popped in to assert your positive opinion on current political events, but then didn't address or respond to the legitimate criticisms.

Encouraging critical thinking is a good thing, but for that there needs to be some critical arguments made.  Saying "enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics" or labeling others as living inside an "echo chamber" isn't refuting their points, its just calling them names.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #873 on: October 27, 2017, 11:21:09 AM »
Saying "enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics" or labeling others as living inside an "echo chamber" isn't refuting their points, its just calling them names.

You mean like an ad hominem attack? 

With some forum posters, I can never tell if their hypocrisy is intended to be ironic or if it's just an amazing lack of self-awareness.  Sometimes it takes months for me to feel like I have a handle on people.  We were more than ten pages into "Top is in" before I figured out Thorstach was just there for the lulz like all of the rest of us.  Acoy has been pretty consistently obtuse, though, so I think he leans more straight-up troll.  He seems to enjoy making outrageous statements just to get an animated reaction out of people.  That's okay, too.  It takes all kinds.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #874 on: October 27, 2017, 11:29:31 AM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #875 on: October 27, 2017, 11:42:32 AM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation.  I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors. 
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base.  You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why? 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #876 on: October 27, 2017, 11:44:47 AM »
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

You do realize that, only yesterday, you posted in a thread about Trump and Russia a list of things that Obama and Clinton potentially did wrong or that were illegal. It was like you cut&paste the headlines from Foxnews.

Seriously, check it out. The top articles at Foxnews right now are:

"Fusion GPS hiring murky by design, gives key Democrats dossier deniability" (Hillary!)
"Turley on Russia: 'Allegations against Clintons could potentially be criminal'" (Hillary!)
"STEPHEN MILLER: Hillary Clinton and Democrats lose the high ground on Russia" (Hillary!)
"KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The Fusion GPS bombshells have just begun to drop (Hillary!)"
"Inside the relationship between Russia and Fusion GPS" (HILLARY!)

If you look at CNN, the top story is about Trump and the gag order, the 2nd biggest story is about Catalonia, and the 3rd is about the letdown of the JFK papers.

Now, given that CNN has some Trump articles and opinion pieces, it also has some Clinton pieces below the Trump headline:

"Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions and accusations"
"Did Clinton help approve uranium deal?"

You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #877 on: October 27, 2017, 11:46:16 AM »
Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.

So you are OK with the Trump administration's assault on transgender rights - serving in the military, fighting to ensure LGBT isn't a protected class of employment.  I'm sure they're seeing SO MUCH LIBERTY.  :eye roll:

Women lost the ability to have birth control if their employer simply doesn't feel like covering said birth control.  SO MUCH LIBERTY.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #878 on: October 27, 2017, 11:51:35 AM »
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

You do realize that, only yesterday, you posted in a thread about Trump and Russia a list of things that Obama and Clinton potentially did wrong or that were illegal. It was like you cut&paste the headlines from Foxnews.

Seriously, check it out. The top articles at Foxnews right now are:

"Fusion GPS hiring murky by design, gives key Democrats dossier deniability" (Hillary!)
"Turley on Russia: 'Allegations against Clintons could potentially be criminal'" (Hillary!)
"STEPHEN MILLER: Hillary Clinton and Democrats lose the high ground on Russia" (Hillary!)
"KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The Fusion GPS bombshells have just begun to drop (Hillary!)"
"Inside the relationship between Russia and Fusion GPS" (HILLARY!)

If you look at CNN, the top story is about Trump and the gag order, the 2nd biggest story is about Catalonia, and the 3rd is about the letdown of the JFK papers.

Now, given that CNN has some Trump articles and opinion pieces, it also has some Clinton pieces below the Trump headline:

"Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions and accusations"
"Did Clinton help approve uranium deal?"

You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.

And let me guess...conveniently ignored the initial funding of the dossier research came from a GOP client.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #879 on: October 27, 2017, 12:15:53 PM »
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #880 on: October 27, 2017, 12:31:12 PM »
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?

I'm often shocked at what some people consider to be the 'extreme edge' on the other side of whichever spectrum they fall on.
For example, CNN is often derided as having a 'bleeding-heart liberal bias' to those who consider themsleves staunchly conservative, but has an audience which can be considered pretty centrist.  Likewise, Fox is far from the more extreme right-wing outlets (it just happens to have the broadest audience).

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #881 on: October 27, 2017, 12:57:34 PM »
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Is this...is this a legitimate question?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/title-vii/535182/

Quote
President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.

Quote
The administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.html

Quote
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.

Quote
"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/trump-administration-allows-employers-refuse-pay-birth-control/

Quote
Companies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.

So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.

He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.

Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.

If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #882 on: October 27, 2017, 01:09:42 PM »
He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.

Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.

If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

As far as I can tell, Acroy is a culture warrior, making him not a libertarian by definition. I totally agree with your latter analysis btw. The best outcome I can hope for at this point is 1) that Trump doesn't get too many of our soldiers (not to mention South Koreans) killed/start a major conflict and 2) congress actually does something to curb the very real and very bipartisan expansion of executive authority in recent decades.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #883 on: October 27, 2017, 01:13:26 PM »
Quote
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

sooo... basically here we measure every failure as a success?
Color me unimpressed, but that's akin to taking pride in winning the match because your opponent simply didn't show up.  A 'win by default' sort of outlook.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #884 on: October 27, 2017, 01:18:06 PM »
Quote
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

sooo... basically here we measure every failure as a success?
Color me unimpressed, but that's akin to taking pride in winning the match because your opponent simply didn't show up.  A 'win by default' sort of outlook.

I agree with this too. Trump's disasters are not really a net positive, it's more that curbing executive overreach (assuming that actually happens) is a potential silver lining in what is still a total shit show.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 01:48:51 PM by Lagom »

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #885 on: October 27, 2017, 01:35:44 PM »
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?

I'm often shocked at what some people consider to be the 'extreme edge' on the other side of whichever spectrum they fall on.
For example, CNN is often derided as having a 'bleeding-heart liberal bias' to those who consider themsleves staunchly conservative, but has an audience which can be considered pretty centrist.  Likewise, Fox is far from the more extreme right-wing outlets (it just happens to have the broadest audience).
Like you said, this shows the relative opinions of viewers, not the level of bias of the outlet so it tells us something but it's not a good way to rate the bias of a network. MSNBC & CNN should certainly be further left than NPR & BBC. And Fox news only gets dragged towards the middle because the more reasonable people who can't accept anything that doesn't have at least some conservative bias are left with a cable news network that has become steadily more unreasonable over the years, particularly since Trump came on the scene.

I would guess CNN & NBC types are closer to the middle just because they have more passive viewers who just aren't that interested and don't go out of their way to listen to NPR or find BBC. They just click on the TV and let it play in the background. (generalizations of course, but it would effect the data)

And I will give it to Fox that they are less likely to be dishonest than those you see on the far right of this line but in terms of bias, they hold that pretty strong. Bias isn't good in the media but dishonest tactics and conspiracy speculation are the real enemy to truth.

Here's a good tool to determine the bias of various news sites.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

And again, just because a source is unbiased doesn't mean it is the truth and just because it is biased doesn't make it fake news. It's just something to take into consideration and remind you that they may not be telling both sides of a story.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 01:40:23 PM by Dabnasty »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #886 on: October 27, 2017, 02:59:27 PM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #887 on: October 27, 2017, 04:09:36 PM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation.  I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors. 
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base.  You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why?

I understand it is legal.

My town and farm are in the path of this thing. And where the Nature Conservancy goes, Fish and Wildlife is usually right behind them. Which will make this federally protected land.

From what we have heard these refuges start an economic death spiral. Flooding doesn't stay contained, wrecking homes. Crops are destroyed by animals hiding in the refuge. Any infrastructure improvements require 7 plans that don't affect the refuge. People refuse to buy homes in the area, driving values down.

I mean, if your retirement plan hinged on selling your house and moving somewhere only to find that it's losing value as you approach retirement, you would be angry too, right?

You are probably asking, "why did you agree to have this if it is nothing put trouble?" We didn't agree. A small group donated land to U.S. Fish and Wildlife at which point they decided 18,000 acre Refuge was in order. It seems to have been done opaquely and rammed through.

They insist their 18 year old Enviromental Assessment is still valid.

It has been officially open to the public but there is no "Land Protection Plan" available.

We had a nice conference about the river. Most state agencies described it as "one of the healthiest in the state. Except for the sand that is filling it in." When Fish and Wildlife was asked about the sand, they said "not our problem."

Should we aquire land around healthy rivers when there are damaged rivers that need those resources? Should we interfere with with people who actually take care of the environment? Should we envelope a river choking on sand in federally protected lands?

I'm not here to argue about the Refuge. It is simply a fact of life at this point. We will handle it as it comes. My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #888 on: October 27, 2017, 04:11:21 PM »
At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

The Nature Conservancy's business model is to pay fair market value for natural lands in order to protect them from development.  They're literally a free-market solution to environmental problems.  They absolutely have a politicized agenda, but they also absolutely play within the rules of our current market-based economy.

If someone doesn't like what they do with their land, then they should have offered a better price for it.  That's the conservative's solution.  All power to the wealthy.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #889 on: October 27, 2017, 04:12:06 PM »
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

We have one of the healthiest rivers in our state according to officials because our people take care of it.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #890 on: October 27, 2017, 09:58:04 PM »
Mueller filed his first charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

I'm guessing Manafort is due to get a visit in a few days from the US Marshals.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7137
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #891 on: October 27, 2017, 10:43:31 PM »
It's somewhat amusing to see these story titles associated with the respective news organizations:

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2618
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #892 on: October 28, 2017, 02:28:47 AM »
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right".  To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.

The USA Constitution is just a piece of vellum.  It has good and bad parts, and its effects depend entirely on the individuals who use it.  To those of us on the outside USA elections now look hopelessly corrupt and corruptible, which spills on down to USA government which is run by ideological placemen and subject to private interests masquerading as public interest legislation.  And it can't be put right because of your precious Constitution, which your Supreme Court interprets as allowing "free speech" to morph into "unlimited political influence peddling by anyone with enough money", which means that there is no truth and no centre left in American political discourse.

In another thread I tried to make the point that there is more to the USA than the constitution, and got back the response that no, the two were the same and the USA had no existence outside the constitution.  Until that attitude starts to change, things will get worse and worse for the USA and for the rest of the world.  Unless Trump blows it all up first.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #893 on: October 28, 2017, 10:43:07 PM »
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
That is basically the classic conservative mindset, from what I can tell. As long as straight white guys are all set, fuck everybody else.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #894 on: October 29, 2017, 10:35:20 AM »
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right".  To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.

The USA Constitution is just a piece of vellum.  It has good and bad parts, and its effects depend entirely on the individuals who use it.  To those of us on the outside USA elections now look hopelessly corrupt and corruptible, which spills on down to USA government which is run by ideological placemen and subject to private interests masquerading as public interest legislation.  And it can't be put right because of your precious Constitution, which your Supreme Court interprets as allowing "free speech" to morph into "unlimited political influence peddling by anyone with enough money", which means that there is no truth and no centre left in American political discourse.

In another thread I tried to make the point that there is more to the USA than the constitution, and got back the response that no, the two were the same and the USA had no existence outside the constitution.  Until that attitude starts to change, things will get worse and worse for the USA and for the rest of the world.  Unless Trump blows it all up first.

We are far from perfect and we do need to change culturally.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

The Nature Conservancy's business model is to pay fair market value for natural lands in order to protect them from development.  They're literally a free-market solution to environmental problems.  They absolutely have a politicized agenda, but they also absolutely play within the rules of our current market-based economy.

If someone doesn't like what they do with their land, then they should have offered a better price for it.  That's the conservative's solution.  All power to the wealthy.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2011/The-Ongoing-Poverty-of-Pembroke-Illinois/

That is the town that is being battered. They have a standard of living equal to a third world country. Them buying the land isn't an option.

A large company has begun buying land as a defensive measure against the refuge. So yes, the system works.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #895 on: October 29, 2017, 10:56:10 AM »

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2011/The-Ongoing-Poverty-of-Pembroke-Illinois/

That is the town that is being battered. They have a standard of living equal to a third world country. Them buying the land isn't an option.

A large company has begun buying land as a defensive measure against the refuge. So yes, the system works.

Blaming the town's hardships on the Nature Conservancy seems far fetched.

The last line in the article implies that the land conservation is just the latest hope for the town, not a death knell or impeding threat. The economic hardship there long predates any discussion of conservation, and is in fact a good candidate for conservation exactly because the economy has been so poor for so long that they didn't clear the land and use it for ag (apparently because of poor soils).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #896 on: October 29, 2017, 12:52:08 PM »
@ gentmach -

I don't really understand the hostility that you have towards The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Fish & Wildlife.  You agreed earlier that TNC's business model is to pay fair market value for land, and that this is clearly a legal practice.  The rest of your assertions run contrary to what I know about TNC (which is a fair bit since I've done contract work for them) and their impact on society. 

First, broadly speaking wildlife preserves do not cause land values to plummet (quite the opposite, as it reduces supply and creates open spaces), and act of TNC purchasing land actually stabilizes or increases the surrounding land values.  It's basic supply and demand economics.  In fact, one of the key challenges TNC has in most areas is as they purchase large plots of land the per acre cost keeps increasing, until they reach a point when its no longer economically feasible to continue their strategy.  TNC has to make decisions about just how much land in one area they can bid on, and weigh having multiple parcels in one region (habitat fragmentation) vs paying more for a less land that is contiguous.

The article you linked was interesting, and it shows a community that has been one of the poorest for at least 40 years. The article itself is 6 years old and cites numerous other media attention this community has recieved since the 1970s for being so poor.  What appears to be happening is you are attributing TNC's presence as the causation of their problems (i.e. a 'false correlation'). There can be community blow-back whenever land that was formerly people's homes and businesses gets converted into something else, but I think you are shooting the messenger here, so to speak. The article's end line is that TNC may be a dim hope here.

As for environmental impact statemenets (EIS), the need for them and their standards are determined by the NEPA.  Again speaking broadly, they are generally required whenever new development is proposed on a particular site.  It does not surprise me that an 18yo EIS is still appropriate when the intended use for a parcel of land is essentially "zero new development".  That is the opposite of what EISs are intended for (to assess impacts on new uses, which basically means new infrastructure in place). 
Again, your anger seems misdirected; this is the statute we have.  If we required more frequent EISs, including when there's little/no new deelopment planned would cause untold delays in development. 

Likewise, Fish and Wildlife's mandate is resource management of public lands, where the 'resource' is living things which typically have cultural or economic value (i.e we like to fish/hunt/photograph them). Sand isn't in their jurisdiction.  Again, your anger seems misdirected.

It's certainly tragic when a community is gripped in poverty, but scapegoating a charitable organization operating both legally and ethically, or blaming a federal agency (and process) for not doing things which aren't under their jurisdiction isn't fair.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #897 on: October 29, 2017, 01:04:55 PM »
I would have to agree with Nereo and Glenstache
I think the Nature Conservancy might be helping the town's economic life by providing areas of great natural beauty that will remain undeveloped and pristine.
Sandy soil ecosystems are sensitive and have their own unique flora and fauna and they should be protected.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #898 on: October 29, 2017, 02:32:10 PM »
@ gentmach -

I don't really understand the hostility that you have towards The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Fish & Wildlife.  You agreed earlier that TNC's business model is to pay fair market value for land, and that this is clearly a legal practice.  The rest of your assertions run contrary to what I know about TNC (which is a fair bit since I've done contract work for them) and their impact on society. 

First, broadly speaking wildlife preserves do not cause land values to plummet (quite the opposite, as it reduces supply and creates open spaces), and act of TNC purchasing land actually stabilizes or increases the surrounding land values.  It's basic supply and demand economics.  In fact, one of the key challenges TNC has in most areas is as they purchase large plots of land the per acre cost keeps increasing, until they reach a point when its no longer economically feasible to continue their strategy.  TNC has to make decisions about just how much land in one area they can bid on, and weigh having multiple parcels in one region (habitat fragmentation) vs paying more for a less land that is contiguous.

The article you linked was interesting, and it shows a community that has been one of the poorest for at least 40 years. The article itself is 6 years old and cites numerous other media attention this community has recieved since the 1970s for being so poor.  What appears to be happening is you are attributing TNC's presence as the causation of their problems (i.e. a 'false correlation'). There can be community blow-back whenever land that was formerly people's homes and businesses gets converted into something else, but I think you are shooting the messenger here, so to speak. The article's end line is that TNC may be a dim hope here.

As for environmental impact statemenets (EIS), the need for them and their standards are determined by the NEPA.  Again speaking broadly, they are generally required whenever new development is proposed on a particular site.  It does not surprise me that an 18yo EIS is still appropriate when the intended use for a parcel of land is essentially "zero new development".  That is the opposite of what EISs are intended for (to assess impacts on new uses, which basically means new infrastructure in place). 
Again, your anger seems misdirected; this is the statute we have.  If we required more frequent EISs, including when there's little/no new deelopment planned would cause untold delays in development. 

Likewise, Fish and Wildlife's mandate is resource management of public lands, where the 'resource' is living things which typically have cultural or economic value (i.e we like to fish/hunt/photograph them). Sand isn't in their jurisdiction.  Again, your anger seems misdirected.

It's certainly tragic when a community is gripped in poverty, but scapegoating a charitable organization operating both legally and ethically, or blaming a federal agency (and process) for not doing things which aren't under their jurisdiction isn't fair.

I understand the Conservancy's mission. The preferred method they use is buy the land for pennies on the dollar at a tax sale or use straw buyers. Completely legal if slightly underhanded.

My problem with Democrats is that they are supposed to protect the least among us, right? I see an operation to shuffle minorities around under the guise of preserving nature. You guys see the preserving nature part. That too is a perfectly legitimate view.

I have a problem with trust in this instance. If I keep my land private and am adjacent to public lands, can I trust them to maintain the drainage network? It is a law that they have to maintain them. That is subject to the availability of funds though. So could I be forced to sell because there was never any "funds" available? I mean, it's not like there's a threat of government shutdown over budgets every two years or so, right?

In the 1930's Indiana decided to straighten their part of the river. So for about 90 years now that sand has been working it's way into our section of river.

So, you see, that sand is not a natural part of the river. Indiana screwed up. Our section being clogged up because of a mistake by man.

http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/sediment-choking-out-wildlife-in-the-kankakee-river/article_46c1a389-7f22-5d38-9516-73a27acc2f04.html

Now for the past 50 years DNR and Army Corps of Engineers have been attempting to clean the river of sand. Once again, the problem has been of funding. We have lots of studies of what to do, but we cannot actually act upon those suggestions.

Now you wish to throw Fish and Wildlife into the mix. The guys that insist that the nearest refuge can only be walked on foot. I have my doubts that they will allow heavy equipment into their areas.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #899 on: October 30, 2017, 08:02:16 AM »
gentmarch -

Can you explain what you mean by when you say "I see an operation to shuffle minorities around under the guise of preserving nature"?


I'm also a tad confused by something that you said earlier "I mean, if your retirement plan hinged on selling your house and moving somewhere only to find that it's losing value as you approach retirement, you would be angry too, right?".  The area that you hold your land has been has been economically downtrodden for 40 years now.  What made you think that buying the land was going to be a good investment plan for retirement in the first place?