Ten oz

If you watch the video I linked Putin was asked if he wanted Trump to win and if he had directed people to help. Putin answered yes and elaborated on why. It is important to note that Putin speaks English so one can't dismiss the interaction on bad translations. After the event both the White House and Kremlin changed the interaction in the transcripts they released.

Clearly under single party Republican rule is it moving in that direction. Trump has positioned himself as being above the law and regularly floats different ways he can use his position to hurt his detractors. In Donald Trump's America there are obviously a different set of rules for different groups of people. For the record before Trump was even inaugurated I posted that I thought the press should refuse to attend White House press briefings in protest if people like Spicer and Conaway were just up there lying. At the time most in here thought that I was totally wrong and the best way to hold Trump accountable for his lies was for the press to attend White House briefings and ask questions. How has that turned out? Sanders regularly wipes her *ss with the press, calling them names, bold face lies, cuts them off, and denies empirical facts. The few times Trump takes questions he plays both the victim and bully spouting propaganda even his own people struggle to explain. In my opinion the press should stop playing along. Stop agreeing to do one on one interviews where Trump's team control the questions and stop covering press conferences where known lies are being told. Just get up and walk out out soon as the lies and insults begin. Instead the press covers the conflict between themselves and the administration because it is good for ratings. However that conflict between themselves and the Administration isn't important. What the Administration is lying about and why they are lying is what is important and not whom they are lying to, "Fake News". The Press should just report that a press briefing was held but the Admin refused to answer questions honestly so they walked out and won't cover it then move on to news stories that matter.

Putin stood next to Trump in Helsinki and acknowledged that he wanted Trump to win and instructed his people to help. In the face of the admission Trump continued to deny it. Collusion by Trump himself directly can still be debated but accessory after the fact is a slam dunk. We have all seen it with our own stupid, fake, lying, and crooked eyes.

In my experience those who eventually wind up with lots of money found ways to make increasing amounts of it. Saving money is a great thing to do but in the absence of making more money has it's limitations. I never met a rich person who saved their way to wealth. Saving money limits what one can do with money and is limited by ones income. Boosting ones income increases the limits of what can be saved while affording one the pleasure of quality beer. For example. I own a home and I live in it. A buddy of mine, who's wealthy, regular tells me I am an idiot for living in my own home when I could renting it out and making money on it. His advice is for me to refinance to a longer mortgage which would lower my monthly costs. Then rent my place out (market value is over triple what that lower mortgage would be) and look to buy a second home. He owns something like 9 properties. He often tells me never to make large purchases I must pay off myself. I haven't taken the advice. I find it risky but it is working well for him.

Not for nothing neither Bush or Trump won the popular vote and in both cases there were legitimate arguments of corruption and voter suppression at the state level to secure needed electoral wins. FoxNews is just PR division of a much larger and more insidious system.

I agree with the direction iNow is leading you. It is your money and you need to consider your own liabilities (short term reasons you might need $) and what you are hoping to get in return for the potential risks that investment comes with. It is good advice. My advice is a little different. It doesn't seem like you know what to do or are educated about how to do it if you did. Last thing you want to do is lose your money or get in over your head with things you cannot handle. I recommend putting the money in Certified Deposits (CDs) for now. Perhaps a single year one and a longer term one. The single year one will ensure you'll have access to some money within a year and the interest rates on the CDs should keep your money from shrink against inflation. Doing this won't make you much money but CDs are safe and will give you time to consider other options while scratching your itch to do something with the money. I personally use to buy CDs regularly. A few times I even secured low to no interest loans against them when I needed to make big purchases. In those cases I was like spending the money in the CDs in a way that forced me to pay myself back. There are many more profitable things you could do with your money but nearly all of the more profitable options come with far more risk. Each invest type also comes with its own learning curve.

It is. Just not by FoxNews and it's audience.

My understanding is that the charge centers around Jeremy Corbyn. He has called Israel an apartheid state and is supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah being on record saying that their labeling as terrorist organizations is a mistake. It also appears that some antisemitic groups are supportive of Corbyn on social media though Corbyn himself doesn't directly appear to interacting with them. Basically his stance on Israel is strong, his stance against Hamas & Hezbollah is soft, and he isn't viewed as doing enough to reject antisemitic supporters. Does that mean the Labour Part is an antisemitic organization, no. That said political organizations shift over time and different bases are able to influence the culture of an organization. Corbyn seems to have a more aggressive view towards Israel than is commonly seen in the western world. So the antisemitic charge isn't surprising. Perhaps inaccurate but worthy of debate if only to ensure a culture antisemitism doesn't arise or gain influence within the party.

It is like the UK and US in that way.

Disagreeing with a specific bill is not equally to being anti Israel anymore than disagreeing with a specific bill in the Canadian Parliament would make one anti Canadian. Right, Israel is not a monolithic nation.

Equality laws like freedom of religion beat protect cultural identity. Not govt endorsements of specific groups over others. Again, it is why so few countries do it and the ones that do are criticized few for it. I have already said I disagree with the practice every place it exists. This thread isn't about Argentina, Poland, Greece, England, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Also if you peak in the BUI & Utopia threads I have criticized Scandinavian countries for have economic caste systems. So your point that other countries aren't being criticized is inaccurate. I am done your whataboutism. This thread is about Israel. Considering you bit about not qouting people this bit is rather ironic. All religious beliefs are legal to practice but one has been officially endorsed and in various areas has preference over others. Except of course those families who have been displaced by those settlements. Change is one of the few constants. In my opinion humans need to get past silly allegiances to temporary conditions. Israel, U.S., Canada, UK, Saudi Arabia, and etc, etc are all temporary. They have not always existed and will eventually expire to time and other nations will follow. Humans should be committed to humanity as whole. Protectionism of any Institution is futile just ask the Romians or Aztecs.

I clearly said the list wasn't good company. That obviously implies I disagree with them all. Israel is being singled out because they are the most recent ones. Also, there have been many discussions which have criticized middle eastern theocracies. I am calling this whataboutism because that is what your arguement is. Rather than addressing the issue directly on its own merits you carrying of about inaccurate falsely equivalent matters like whether or not U.S. has an official language (it doesn't). What Israel has done also codifies the settlements which you previously conceded were wrong for them to have taken.

The standard operating playbook that nearly all world govts/economies have followed since the industrial revolution is growth. In Western countries with lower birth rates they bring in migrants to make up the difference. Until societies reject the growth models which dominate our govt's and businesses over population won't be tackled. Education, as it currently exists, won't provide solutions as it promotes growth. Businesses must produce more year after year which means they need more costumers year after year. Colleges follow this model which is part of the reason student loan debt is such a huge problem. Campus are expanding, fees are increasing, and a ever increasing number of students are needed. A complete shift in the global monetary system is required. Sustainability needs greater focus but would require sacrifices I fear few are willing to make.

This is all just a bunch of whataboutism riddled with inaccurate claims. Their is not an official language in the U.S. nor is Italy a religious state. Your inaccuracies highlights the problem with what Israel is doing, it is un-democratic. Nearly all Democracies avoid such declaration. Take a look at the Countries globally that have officially endorsed a Religion. It isn't good company. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

1 - Palistine doesn't actually exist as a governing body. 2 - Two wrongs don't make a right.

This isn't a purely philosophical discussion. The Israeli govt currently holds all the terroritories being disputed and are calling the shots.

When it is a post responding me what I think is relevant. The devil never feels they have enough of those.....

You are attempting to say that Palestinians have it good in Israel, better than they would have it anywhere else, and thus there is no problem. That is the same sort of arguments which is used to defend mistreatment of any number of people. Here in the U.S. conservatives use that same notion to defend the migrant family separations. They carry on about how nice the facilities they are are being separated in are compared to where the families originated from. It is totally besides the point. It doesn't speak to the lack of equal treatment under the law and isn't democratic. One doesn't get to choose for another whether or not they're comfortable, happy, or etc. I read it as indifference to their plight. In political policy discussions when one doesn't think their is a problem it is often because they has dismissed the position or pleases from a specific group. Palistinians are protesting. Palistinians are dying in protests. Palistinians are saying there is a problem. To understand that and to respond with "I'm not really that concerned" does reflect a lack of caring about what the Palistinians themselves have to say and are going through.

Is there a meaningful difference between not caring vs not being concerned?

Simplest too is realitive. For me one should forgive if applicable, if not they should walk way, and if they cannot walk away then types of reprisal must be considered. Reprisal being the last resort.

When there is no other option implies walking away should be a last resort. I see an eye for an eye as the resort.

I did not say walking away was best option for all situations. I said it was a common option. When people are dating have conflict the solution is most often to break up and each walks away. Likewise when a person has conflict with their employer quitting and walking away is a common solution. Right and wrong is all realitive. All wrongs cannot be made right, all people cannot be forgiven, and only so many eyes are useful. Walking away is a choice we have most of the time.

Again, this could be said of the U.S. during Segregation. Blacks held various political offices throughout Segregation. Your own govt (Canada) provides 300 million in what it calls "humanitarian" aid to Palestinians and has condemned Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Your own govt considers Palestinians living all the terroritories settled since 1967 (millions of people) to be living under Israeli occupation without adequate human rights. Both Jewish and Palestinians use to live in the region together Peacefully when it was established as Palestine and even before then when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. How you can say a Palestinian in Israel has it better than a Jew is pre 1948 Palestine is hard understand. It seems as though you either are unaware of the history or simply do not care much for Palestinians as a whole.

Would you sooner be a Jew living in Palistine per 1948 or a Palistinian living in Israel today?

It absolutely can be. Have you never walked away from something?