Ten oz

Being famous enabled him to mistreat women but what forced him out? You are working hard to ignore the politics aspects of his resignation. In my opinion it is apathetic positions like the one above which insist on pretending all is equal partisanship that has created the problem. During segregation in the South people were polarized between those who wanted segregation and those who did not. Polarization in itself doesn't make all sides equal. There can still be right and wrong, smart and dumb, useful and useless within partisan battles.

Per your expert opinion? Recovered for 2 of Clinton's eight years. Who followed Clinton? I already listened many people In the Bush admin that had been in Reagan's admin. The number of people in the Senate and House who had helped shape and vote on Reagan's cuts did the same for Bush 43's cut. You are totally ignoring the advocated positions of the 2 major parties here. You claimed Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since, and have yet to substantiate the claim. Rather you just keep referencing the misery index without explaining why that should be the standard we use.

This question poses a false premise. All countries exercise foreign policy based on their own self interests. What happens in the Middle East impacts the cost of fuel which in turn impacts the cost of travel, shipping, construction, and etc. International relations directly impact the daily lives of billions around the world. Less you live somewhere that produces all its own food, energy, technology, and etc you 100% live some place that "interferes"with other countries. The sensible thing to discuss is how and not if.

The OP clearly mentions the "plethora of sexual harassment new stories" which include but are not limited to people like Weinstein and Trump. If you go to the Weinstein thread there are a few posters ( including yourself ) that made the argument that things like Weinstein's history of behavior was a blight on Hollywood culture at large. First page of the Weinstein thread you posted: "But then again, I stopped considering 'Hollywood types' as normal people, a long time ago. How many of these 'stars' still support R Polansky so many years after the statutory rape ? ( maybe they think society's rules don't apply to them )" It seems you only want to include a perpetrators professional associations when it suits you. Politicians are more directly associated with their Parties (Parties being tangible things) than any individual producer is associated with "Hollywood Types". Who forced Franken to resign; you say Democrat vs Republican has no bearing here yet it is Democrats who forced Franken out.

It was inevitable?

"The British began their Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1915.[88] The war reached southern Palestine in 1917, progressing to Gaza and around Jerusalem by the end of the year.[88] The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917.[89] They moved into the Jordan valley in 1918 and a campaign by the Entente into northern Palestine led to victory at Megiddo in September. The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region in 1922.[90] The non-Jewish Palestinians revolted in 1920, 1929, and 1936.[91] In 1947, following World War II and The Holocaust, the British Government announced its desire to terminate the Mandate, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted in November 1947 a Resolution 181(II) recommending partition into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.[92] The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal, but the Arab Higher Committee rejected it; a civil war began immediately after the Resolution's adoption. The State of Israel was declared in May 1948." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) "After a period of stalemate in Southern Palestine from April to October 1917, General Edmund Allenby captured Beershebafrom the III Corps. Having weakened the Ottoman defences, which had stretched almost continually from Gaza to Beersheba, they were finally captured by 8 November, after the Battle of Tel el Khuweilfe, the Battle of Hareira and Sheria and the Third Battle of Gaza, when the pursuit began. During the subsequent operations, about 50 miles (80 km) of formerly Ottoman territory was captured as a result of the EEF victories at the Battle of Mughar Ridge, fought between 10 and 14 November, and the Battle of Jerusalem, fought between 17 November and 30 December. Serious losses on the Western Front in March 1918, " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign What has accorded since is obviously problematic but I think it is important to address how the region became so destabilized to begin with. I think a lot of people in the West just accept that the region has been constantly disputed and at conflict since biblical times without any real appreciation for what has happened to the region over just the last hundred years. "In World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany. As a result, it was embroiled in a conflict with Great Britain. Under the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine[293]but appeared to contradict the 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which contained an undertaking to form a united Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. McMahon's promises could have been seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, which became the real cornerstone of the geopolitics structuring the entire region. The Balfour Declaration, likewise, was seen by Jewish nationalists as the cornerstone of a future Jewish homeland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine Israel was created in 1948 however the British had been working on the territory for decades prior. To say Palestine was a few Nomadic tribes isn't accurate. It had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire and wrestled away during WW1 by the British and the territory purposely segregated to make way for the future creation of a Jewish state.

Throughout my life I heard the lazy line of thinking that both parties are the same, all politicians lie, 2 heads of the same snake, and etc. For some the lazy apathetic attitude is used to mask or excuse one own lack of knowledge on the subject while for others it is a false equivalent to hide behind. For those paying attention it clearly isn't true. If a person claims to not see a stark difference between Obama and Trump they are either mentally impaired our lying. Same goes for the basic principles of the party at large. Both John Conyers and Al Franken were prominent party members Democrats can ill afford to lose yet both were asked by the party to resign. Al Franken made it clear that he isn't admitting to guilt and feels some allegations are not true but ultimately he was forced out all the same. Meanwhile on the Republican side denial reigns supreme. Neither party members or their voters at large seem to have the personal constitution to take a principled stand. Meanwhile Democrats have already done so.

"The Sykes–Picot Agreement /ˈsaɪks piˈkoʊ/, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between the United Kingdom and France,[1] to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916 [2] and it was signed 16 May 1916.[3] The deal, exposed to the public in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917 and in the British Guardian on November 26, 1917,[4][5] is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.[6][7] The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[8] France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[8] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia.[8] The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas.[8] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration in the "brown area" (an area including Jerusalem, similar to and smaller than Mandate Palestine), the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.[8]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement The problem started at the end of WW1 when several nations were arbitrarily created to satisfy European interests. Parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and etc had all been The Ottoman Empire for several hundred years up to that the conclusion of WW1. The decisions made at that point in history transformed the region. The creation if Israel after WW2 was just icing on the cake. Please explain?

I think arbitrarily drawing borders without any respect for the region or cultural knowledge after ww1 was the people. Bulldozing critical points heritage absolutely wouldn't have been useful. Such is akin to arguing that forcing all non-European (Europe minus Spain) descended people out of the U.S. post the Civil War would have fixed race relations.

More accusations against Franken have come. Nothing reprehensible as sleeping with teen age girls but terrible all the same. Perhaps Franken should resign. Obviously a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law but in the current political environment, as a party, I don't think Democrats cannot endure the Whataboutism opportunities Franken creates. In 2018 both Franken's Minnesota Senate counterpart Klobuchar seat is up and there's a gubernatorial race. Losing either or both because of Franken, who wouldn't even be on a ticket would, would be devastating. I also think it is important for progressive s to walk the walk when it comes to believing victims. It it turns out Franken in innocent, if that is proven somehow, he can run again in the future.

The feeling to do something new is palpable when a situation has seemingly stagnated however things today are better than they have been in a very long time. I personally think the pragmatic and disciplined approach at this moment is to analyze what has worked, attempt to gain consensus about what has worked, and continue doing those things. My take is that this is a move by radicals designed diminishing the influence of moderating forces.

Mitch McConnell who is currently the Senate Majority leader and who was previous the Senate Minority leader and who has also been the Whip and sat on numerous chairs won his seat in the Senate during the Reagan revolution in 1984; McConnell is a Reagan Republican. Cochran, Hatch, Grassley, McCain, and other prominent Republican senators have also been around since Reagan. Comparing the Reagan admin's impact on the current Republican to Civil Ware era politics to the Democratic Party is silly. Some of the same people are still in office from the Reagan days where as everyone from the Civil War is dead and gone. You say Bush II was terrible yet his cabinet was a who's who of Reagan cabinet members: Powell was Reagan's National Security Adviser, Rice worked on Reagan's council of foreign affairs, Gates was Reagan's deputy Directory of the CIA, Bolton was Reagan's assistant Attorney General, and etc, etc, etc, etc. You reference 30yrs like it is an enormous period of time yet there are relevant Republicans around in every branch of govt and lobbying govt from the Reagan admin. People like Newt Gingrich who is still trotted out on the cable news circuit regularly, worked for Trump's campaign, and his wife was given the Ambassadorship to the Holy See by Trump. Anyway, I am not pinning this on all on Reagan. I called Reagan a turning point; didn't say it is all his fault. I think the numbers support saying it was a turning point. Both debt and interest rates made huge shifts starting with Reagan and neither has recovered. I am not sure what your point is. You introduced the Misery index as anecdotal evidence that Reagan had been successful yet haven't explained why that is the standard we should be looking at rather than other any other number of statistics which speak to unemployment, housing, education, annual salary, upward mobility, debt, mortality, etc, etc. In my opinion interest rates are a major issue because cheap money has over inflated other markets to a point where a normalizing of rates would collapse the system. For example look at the charts below and explain how it makes sense that starting during Reagan's admin home values skyrocketed despite no increase in salary's (adjusted for inflation). It is not sustainable.

This is not Reagan vs Obama for me. It is you who has asserted that Reagan inherited a terrible situation. In context I am merely asking you to quantify those assertions and am using other Presidents as a comparison; as are you. You list a chart showing total debt added by President and I added context. Reagan basically doubled the amount of deficit spending by year during his tenure while Obama cut it in half. Yet you hold the "stimulus against him and Bush II"? I don't understand what you metric truly is. You seem to be implying deficit spending is bad and using the total number to grade Obama down despite that fact he reduced deficits yet are giving Reagan a pass for doubling deficits Let's leave punditry out of this as it is just a giant rabbit whole to nowhere. We both can link op-eds for the rest of the week were people argue that either Reagan or Obama were Jesus in the flesh or the the Devil incarnate. It is useless. Thailand, Austria, China, South Korea, Germany and many others are ahead of the U.S. There is a list of the very link you provided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

On Tuesday, a research alliance representing two professional associations of criminologists lodged a formal statement of concern with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and acting FBI Director Christopher Wray over a number of data tables that were missing from the FBI’s 2016 Crime in the United States report. FiveThirtyEight obtained a copy of the letter, which was signed by Peter Wood, chair of the Crime & Justice Research Alliance, a joint project of the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and which called for the FBI to “immediately revise the 2016 report to make this data available.” (You can read the full letter here.) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/criminologists-are-asking-jeff-sessions-to-release-fbi-crime-data/

Jared Kushner failed to disclose his role as a co-director of the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation from 2006 to 2015, a time when the group funded an Israeli settlement considered to be illegal under international law, on financial records he filed with the Office of Government Ethics earlier this year. http://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-disclosure-form-west-bank-settlements-israel-white-house-729290

It is a boom and bust economy that by design must always be in a state of peril. From the federal deficit to student loans, 401K's, mortgages, and etc enormous amount of money are tided in debt or institutions which own debt. Reagan started an economic system where growth was borrowing increasing amounts of money which would be circulated into the economy and paid for by other rounds of borrowing in the future. It works provided interest rates can be adjusted low enough so that what one can borrow always exceeds what one owes in total interest. If the total economy owe 100 trillion towards debt a year and can access 200 trillion in credit it is good. The following year so long as it can access more again it will be good again, and so on. Only once what it owe exceeds what it can access will it be in trouble. At that point a recession begins. New money isn't entering the economy and what money there is pays debt. What is the solution.....cut interest rates! Debt gets refinanced which allows for greater levels of borrowing and we are back off to the races. The problem with this is a recession is interest rates can't continuously fall forever. If the govt were to do things which might permanently stabilize the economy like fix soc. sec., medicare for all, and etc interest rates would rise.

@ Outrider, lets agree on a couple things upfront. President doesn't start with a clean slate. They don't walk in to office and everything resets to zero. Federal agencies already have their own budgets which include multi year contracts to build equipment, facilities, provided entitlements to their employees, and etc in place as law through Congress. Looking at the state of affairs when a Presidents starts vs ends paints a clearer picture that just charts showing bulk numbers. When Reagan came into Office Carters final Budget had the annual national debt at 79 billion a year. That is where Reagan started. Reagan's final budget had the annual national debt at 153 billion. Reagan basically double the the annual national deficit. Bush 41's budget deficits soared up to 255 billion for his final budget. That is where Clinton started. Clinton ended with a 126 billion dollar surplus. Bush 43 started with that surplus and ended with a final budget deficit of 1.4 trillion. It is also important to note that Bush 43's annual deficits are actually worse that they appear because he didn't add the cost of the wars to them but instead had Congress pass separate spending resolutions. Obama included the war costs to his budgets. That 1.4 trillion is where Obama began and he ended at 585 billion per year or 666 billion per year depending on the way you view the continued budget resolutions. So while Reagan double the annual deficit Obama cut it in half and Clinton eliminated it completely. You insist Reagan inherited a mess but have yet to quantify what that mess was. Reagan inherited 79 billion dollar annual deficit. Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. When Obama came into office this was happening: "A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September. The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended." It was worse than what Reagan experienced. Additionally the U.S. was engaged in 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). When Reagan came into office there were no wars.

"On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times." "The Trump transition team ignored a pointed request from the Obama administration to avoid sending conflicting signals to foreign officials before the inauguration and to include State Department personnel when contacting them. Besides the Russian ambassador, Mr. Flynn, at the request of the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, contacted several other foreign officials to urge them to delay or block a United Nations resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html?referer=http://www.google.com/ Is this deep state tar? Seems to me Trump's Transition team was area Russia had meddled and sought to repay them for their meddling with favorable foriegn policy. Deeply unpatriotic!!!

"On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

Sally Yates testified under oath that while acting Attorney General she briefed Trump that Flynn had lied to the federal investigators. Yet in the press brief above given after Flynn was fired and several weeks after the Yates brief Trump says Flynn did nothing wrong other than the way information was given to Pence and blamed the media for the whole ordeal. Lying to federal investigators was what Flynn plead guilty to as part of a plea deal. Other potential charges he was facing include violating the Logan Act. Trump was aware of the Logan Act concern and the lying to federal investigators yet still claimed on national TV that Flynn didn't do anything wrong and it was the media's fault.

Above are questions I previously asked waitforufo. If were are going to discuss how good or bad the economy was under different Presidents we need to identify the goal posts. A lot of different numbers get used to make a lot of different arguments. You say Reagan inherited the "biggest mess". What specifically made it the "biggest"? When Reagan came into office the federal debt to GDP ratio was at 33% which was the lost it had been since 1932 (it is currently over 100%). Both Clinton and Obama came into office during a time when unemployment was rising rapidly. Obama in particular inherited worse unemployment numbers than than Reagan. Not only did Obama inherit a collapsed economy (worse since the great depression) but the country was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287 https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet When you say Reagan had the "biggest positive change" I assume you are referencing the misery index? That is an accurate statement. One I personally would take with a grain of salt though. Currently if we look at the global misery index countries like Malaysia, Vietnam,and China are better than the U.S.. The Philippines better than Australia & Canada, Pakistan is better than Russia and India. The misery index is merely the sum of inflation and unemployment. It doesn't speak to quality of life, global economic power, or the stability of institutions. I personally feel the Reagan set this country on the wrong track. National debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen during every administration FDR - Carter but has grown during every administration Reagan - Trump. Reagan was a turning point I don't feel has been for the best as it relies of unsustainable rates of growth. The tax cut pass by the senate yesterday is a percent example. Debt is at 110% of GDP currently and the Senate is cutting taxes?

Are experts that know a lot more than you necessarily the people who are elected or promoted to office? I would agree 100% with that sentiment experts where the ones voters empowered but they aren't. Doctors don't run govt healthcare agencies, Environmental Biologists don't write environmental protection laws, social psychologists don't help decide foreign policy, and etc. Here in the U.S. I do not believe people with the relevant expertise at calling the shots. In my opinion those who choose to support policies which have repeated failed to produce any positive results are the one with a low ability cognitive bias with illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. Appearances more often than solutions win elections. As a result appearances are generally valued greater than solutions by politicians. I disagree. Kim's posturing is for external consumption. Donald Trump's is for internal consumption. As a side not to that point how do you think China really feels? The U.S. needs China's help dealing with North Korea and that has taken a lot of the U.S. pressure off them (China) regarding their activities in the South China sea. An issue your country seems (Australia) is worried about. Currently there are many sanctions in place that hurt North Korea's economy. Leaving them alone would be equal to helping there economy at this point. That said it is obvious when we look at the state of world world equalizing prosperity globally is not a goal the powerful are or have ever been interested in. There has always be winners and losers, rich and poor, and many wars have been had to keep it that way.

Rgr that, thank you.

As will his SCOTUS appointment and Tax cuts.....

Kushner was a billionaire when he married Ivanka. He doesn't need Donald Trump's money. Besides, what is Trump actually worth????