Ten oz

Trump is now suggesting that Cohen's testimony before Congress conflicted with his summit with North Korea's Kim. It is mind bending that Trump calls Cohen a convicted liar & fraudster. The felonies Cohen has been convicted of were literally in service to Trump himself.

I am a big fan of the TV show Fringe. It starred Anna Torv. Secret City is the first thing I had seen Anna Torv in since Fringe ended. Like Pine Gap the show Secret City is a political thriller. The surprising thing about Pine Gap to me is how much I enjoyed the romance between the two intelligence analysis. Fairly standard stuff but the performances and simple writing made it feel authentic. At times their dilemmas bordered on juvenile but it never felt forced. I always sympathized with the IT tech who was trying to help the homeless girl. The show did a good just keeping that clean while at the same time acknowledging that often in life Auch relationships aren't clean.

I watched it. I found it interesting. Like with religion those who believe in Flat Earth, at least the ones in the documentary, have made it a way of live. It is bigger to them than merely being about physics. For many it is a conspiracy with roots in govt, media, education, and social interaction at large. For them to admit the earth is round would mean admitting any number of things about the nature of themselves.

I recently watch two Australian series Secret City and Pine Gap . I enjoyed both and hope they get follow ups.

Uniquely American and fantastic!

3yrs ago I would have agreed. Sadly I no longer do. In the current political climate we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. The ideas most viewed and most shared are the ones currently most likely to succeed. Harris, Warren, Booker, and etc have a finite amount of engagement time between now and Nov. 3rd 2020. All of the candidates combined will receive half the press Trump alone will receive. A finite amount of things voters will hear them say. Each new thing they add to the plate dilutes the time of other items. Right, but for different reasons. One job might offer healthcare but only pay $8 an hour. Another might pay $18 an hour but not offer healthcare. So a parent might work the $8 an hour job so their children have healthcare but get their main income from the $18 job. This is especially true in the gig economy. It isn't simple as more jobs equaling more money. Families has a variety of needs.

Some people cannot work. Whether it's an age related health conditions or disability present since birth or following a traumatic event many people physically/mentally cannot work in the prescribed manner the majority of jobs demand. Our current system has no answer for that reality. I think all they posters involved in this discussion understand that.

In my experience someone who works 3 jobs isn't living in poverty. Rather the 3 jobs serve to keep them above water at the lower levels of middle class. A person working 3 jobs more often than not has help. Someone is watching their kids while they are out all day working. Someone with 3 jobs more often than not is healthy enough to work all day. In my experience people with multiple jobs are often using the different jobs for various things. One job might offer a superior family healthcare plan while, the second better pay, and the third a more desirable long term career. Few, if any, of the people I have known who worked multiple jobs at once were doing so strictly for the money. I agree 100% that an additional $1,000 a month would help that person. However in my opinion that person isn't a good example of those living in poverty. In my opinion the poorest communities in the U.S. need healthcare, criminal justice reform, and education reform. A $1,000 a month within our current system won't fix public schools in poor locations, won't afford people the healthcare they need, and won't keep politicians from winning elections on the promise of putting poor people in prison. None of this is to say some form of Basic Income can't work. However I rather focus on things like healthcare. Things I believe without a doubt would significantly help everyone.

What does culture currently say where Vexen lives?

Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang and Sam Harris discussed a $1,000 monthly universal income on Sam's podcast several months ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9wvOv7_Evc. Yang's position (as I understand it) is that because $1,000 a month isn't enough money to live on it would be used in addition to employment to enable individuals to go back to school, start businesses, and etc. Yang ties in the gig economy and role automation has in transforming the employment landscape. I view the issue of automation as a bit of a separate discussion though. The idea of a basic universal income predates AI and the current state of automation. I think Yang is correct that most people who are already working would use the $1,000 a month to afford things they currently cannot. The money would boost consumer spending which itself helps create more jobs. However I still feel that a Basic Universal Income would further disadvantage poor people. Those living in middle class communities general have comfortable places to live even when they do not individually make much money. People in middle class communities can often live with relatives or friends who have large homes, have extra vehicles they can use, plenty of food, and can accommodate them without strain. For those individuals a $1,000 a month can be saved, put towards a business, pay for education, and etc. The extra income may very well be just what they need to elevate their situation as so much else is already being subsidies by relatives and friends. For poor people, those living in poverty, I think it is a different story. No one in their communities can afford to help them. They do not have relatives with large homes, friends with spare cars, and etc. These communities are also more heavily policed and pay higher prices for nearly everything because businesses view servicing them as carrying more risk. Healthcare in the U.S. is a still primarily operates for profit so Individuals with any number of medical conditions (mental health, physical disabilities, addiction) live in poverty. A $1,000 a month won't dig people living in poverty out of the holes they are in. A $1,000 a month would quickly be absorbed. A single prescription of medicine might cost a $1,000 a month and still leave a poor person several prescriptions short of what they need. BUI would obvious have no impact of wealthy people, would help elevate middle class (upper and lower) communities, and would do nothing for poor people. I think it would grow the distance between middle class people and poor people and in the long run make things worse.

The answer to the question will vary greatly based on geographic location, culture, and age. I moved out at 18yrs of age. However that was the late 90's and it was common in my community for kids to move out soon as High School ended. Had I attempted to stay I would have been forced out within month anyways. Culturally at the time 18yrs of age was viewed as adulthood and one was expected to have a job and pay their own way. Times have changed though. I have nephews in their early 20's who were raise in basically the same community who still live at home. Today the expectation is that they remain at home until they finish college and get a professional career.

This goes without saying. Even I am not so anti-Republican that I don't think they (most of them) believe their policies are in the best interest of the country. The Libertarian Party, Green Party, all parties should promote policies they believe a re best for the Country. That should go without saying in my opinion. Corrupt individuals who use a Party to win office yet don't care an iota for the platform or its impact on the country are the exception. My comments were directed towards the Primary. The goal of a successful Primary is to nominate someone who will both best represent the party's platform and has the best chance of winning in the General Election. While some candidates are clearly running to push other candidates one way or another on certain issues and/or to challenge the status quo a bit none should knowingly allow themselves to be distractions. None should allow themselves to become impediments to their party being successful. If an individual loses faith that a particular Party's platform is not in the best interest of the country they can always change parties, start a new party, or just run as an independent.

Hopefully Abrams runs for Perdue's seat in GA, O'Rourke runs for Cornyn's in TX, and Ojeda runs in W. VA.

It is unfortunate that so many people are choosing to run in my opinion. I don't really understand the point beyond self promotion. Assuming one cares about climate change, healthcare reform, college debt, and etc, etc the most important thing should be to see like minded individuals in office. That will only be accomplished in a coordinated manner. The President isn't a King. It takes controlling seats all over the country to enact policy. That is the whole reason parties exist in the first place. It seems some politicians conflate awareness with impact. I view it as problematic. Take Bernie Sanders for example. His uncompromising (uncooperative and unhelpful) approach in 2016 elevated the awareness of his policy positions. Some would argue that in 2020 Democrats will adopt some of those positions to campaign on because they were so popular. The problem though is that Bernie Sanders was a contributing factor to Trump winning in 2016. Democrats losing in 2016 had a negative impact on the very policies Bernie Sanders successful rose the awareness of. So while Bernie Sanders may beat his chest the awareness his impact has be terrible. The goal of any Democrat running needs to be that a Democrat wins. In coordination with other Democrats in Congress, Governors, state legislatures, Mayors, and so forth ANY Democratic President will tackle issues like Climate Change, Education, Healthcare, Immigration, and etc is a more progressive manner (relative to Democratic voters). Likewise with Republicans. None of the establishment want Trump but they have rallied behind him understanding that having a fellow Republican in office is better for there policy goals. If that isn't a candidates goal they should run as an independent. The system allows for independents. One doesn't need to hijack a Party's Primary to run for POTUS. I view having many candidates running and raising awareness of key issues in micro vs macro terms. Candidates who may not have much of a chance to win the nomination but are from Red States or key battleground states are helpful. A candidate like Julian Castro in Texas, Pete Buttigieg in Indiana, and Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota can help raise awareness of the Democratic platform in Red States and get people interested. I think Democrats need Candidates in places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia and etc to raise awareness. Castro, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg are good for the Democratic Primary. Provided they remain team players through the whole process of course. On the flip side I think Candidates who may not have much of a chance to win the nomination from solidly blue states John Delay of New Jersey, Tulsi Gabbard of HI, Kirsten Gillibrand of NY, and Jay Inslee of Washington State are merely raising there own profiles. If they want o help they would all be more useful as allies/surrogates for other Candidates with more promising prospects of winning the nomination. Awareness is already extremely high in these places.

Right. White collar vs blue collar crime. Defrauding insurance companies, investors, employee unions, and local regulators is fine provided one is a business man.

In my opinion the fact Trump wasn't already in prison for his many previous frauds over the decades speaks to how unequal justice is in the United States. During the same time that Trump has been committing tax, insurance, and other crimes with impunity less privileged citizens have been going to prison for things like Marijuana. Only now that Trump made it all the way into the White House do people care about his crimes. Trump has done an excellent job defining collision in his own terms. Trump's definition of collision is fairly fluid but seems to require a bribe or quid pro qou of some type. I think Cohen made statements that clearly show coordination with Russia. Cohen indicated that Trump knew Stone was in contact with Assange about leaking the stolen data on Clinton and the DNC. Cohen also indicated that he believes Trump was aware of the Trump Tower meeting. Only in Trump speak is coordination with crime not equal to collusion.

It is all still experience though. He has been around the court system long enough to know some of the basics.

Between federal and state courts Trump has been involved in 3,500 legal cases. It makes sense he would have some basic knowledge of how to shield himself. Considering his history I am shocked that he is as amateurish as he is.

The data was collected in the 10th of this month. It is recent. The second meeting had been known of and discussed. Perhaps something will change post the meeting. It seems to me North Korea is a big win for Trump. Polling has shown that. North Korea is one of the few areas where Trump's approval is comfortably above 50%. The con appears to be working. I think another factor is that even among Republicans there is unease about Trump's competence, demeanor, and general suitability for the office. No one wants to see a new war and especially no one wants to see a war under Trump. So the bar has been sit real low. Provided Trump isn't threatening military action against North Korea twitter most people satisfied.

I have to disagree. Trump has gotten what he wants out of this. Polling shows people are less concerned about North Korea than they use to be. That is a narrative win for Trump. Perception is more important to Trump than tangible things.

Gotcha. That may very well be possible however Trump and his associates would have more insights on other possible crimes Cohen might've than others might. So to me throwing them under the bus for appearances is risky if Cohen has something more to hide. Stones connection to Assange and Bannon's involvement in the campaign shows that Trump has the needed connections to get stories out under the radar. If Cohen we're guilty if other crimes, especially ones not related to Trump, I suspect those would have already been leaked to the media by now.

What influence over his sentence do Democrats have?

Mueller has requested an interview. Trump's team has rejected it. Link I saw several arguments yesterday where people tried to imply that Cohen was lying in hopes of pleasing Democrats who might then advocate for him to get a lighter sentence. It makes no sense to me. Democrats aren't in control of that. Plus Trump is in charge of the DOJ. The possible price of retribution from Trump is theoretically greater than any potential reprieve by Democrats. Trump is a perfect example of why laws and regulations are so complicated. Many Politician's throughout my life have noted the size of various laws and instructions as an example of bloat or an overly involved govt. Cutting the proverbial redtape and simplifying things has been a common campaign promise of many. A**holes like Trump are one of the reasons everything is so onerous. Because people like him take advantage of everything. They work around the clock to exploit everything and bend ever rule to it's breaking point. As you point out Trump probably wouldn't even see anything wrong with what he's done. Following the rules in a straight forward fashion is for suckers in his mind.

I think Harris, Warren, Booker, and Sanders are the only current candidates with a shot. Everyone else is running for VP, a cabinet position, or to promote something. Trump was considered a long shot so there is an argument that long shots can win. However Trump got wall to wall press. Alone his campaign eclipse all other Republican primary contenders put together. As it currently stands no one in the Democratic field has that ability to capture headlines which diminishes the chances of a dark horse gaining steam.

I am familiar with Yang. He openly acknowledges he is running to raise awareness of key issues and doesn't expect to be the nominee.