tar

all those "facts" are not wrong, but the case for Hilary not being involved is dashed by the missing fact that I posted before “Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.” This keeps all the facts true, except for the most important one. Could Hilary have stopped it? The above quote makes it clear that Hilary's opposition would have been enough to kick the decision up to the President.

The chronology seems to allow that the Clinton's and their circle of power were benefitted by the deal going through. There is no timing required however to define a time when letting Russia gain control of any of our energy reserves would have been a brilliant idea, or a desirable global power move. Maybe before Crimea one could have figured we could lower our guard and invite Russia into our fight against global terror, and such but after Crimea, we needed to tell Russia in no uncertain terms that they broke the civil rules of Global cooperation. NATO is primarily an agreement between the countries around the north Atlantic to consider an attack by Russia (U.S.S.R.} against one, would be an attack by Russia against all. At least that was the setup when I spent two years in Kaiserslaughtern at an old NaziPanzer Kasern, protecting West Germany against Soviet Tank invasion. There were Russian spies that frequented the bars in Kaiserslaughtern to talk to U.S. soldiers and get them to give away little pieces of information that they would assemble into troop strength and capabilities and such. If we are still adversaries of Russia, we should not be giving them little pieces of information, as might be gleaned from an unsecure server or a communication sent from an unsecured blackberry in a foreign country, by the secretary of state. If we are not adversaries of Russia, then we can let them buy a Canadian company that owns some of our Uranium reserves. Chronology wise, when was Russia our friend and global trading partner, and when was it our adversary? Important to know these things, to parse whether Uranium One was a sensible deal, that everybody welcomed, or a questionable deal that should have been halted. another fact to understand in this mix is that some in the Ukraine lean toward the West and some lean toward Moscow and a lot of the natural gas that the E.U. uses flows through the Ukraine the Europeans can't afford to shut off Russia, energywise This leverage that Russia has, allows Putin to take Crimea and we have no way to stop him, short of war. Under what circumstances is it a smart idea to give him leverage over our energy reserves?

please, I have no idea what you are trying to point out if it is that times change, I would completely agree. That is why it would be better for us to get along with Russia than to continue the cold war, but that idea is contrary the Dems talking points since Trump made the comment that he hoped Russia had the 33,000 deleted e-mails, that started the whole hate Trump because he is colluding with the Russians that are trying to destroy our democracy, thing. So was Hilary friendly toward Putin or standing in his way? Which way do you figure it? If the Obama admin wanted to punish Putin for Crimea and his current actions in Ukraine, why can't we threaten reversal of the Uranium One deal? Seems a great place to start. Or close all the Lukoil stations.

so the fact that 9 other agencies in addition to the state dept. had to OK the deal and that the deal was then also Oked by the president, does not include the fact that I supplied earlier, that the State Department has veto power over the other agencies even though the president can then overrule the state depts. decision. So Hilary, as head of the state dept does not have to be there to make the decision, but if the smart decision would be to stop the deal, she has a perfect right and all the power needed to say no. The president could still say yes, but she could have, on the record have showed her disapproval. So the question is, is the deal in the best interests of the U.S. In my mind it is a no brainer. We would not let North Korea gain control of any of our Uranium, and we would let Canada have control. We would let the Brits or the French or the Germans, but probably not the Iranians. Russia was our enemy in the cold war and the arms race and the Cuban Missile crisis. When and why did they change to a close enough friend to NATO that they should have control of 1/5th of our reserves of Uranium?

how do you rebut a fact? a fact is a fact all you can rebut is someone's opinion of the facts you rebut an argument not a fact an argument is a certain arrangement of the facts

The transaction should have been stopped because Russia, China, Iran, the Saudis, the E.U. and the U.S. (among others) are playing a high stakes chess game, for control of the Earth's energy supply. And we are not suppose to let a rival gain any advantage over us. Especially if the rival is not playing by civilized rules, concerning the Ukraine. The video had a representative from the RNC taking Trump's position. Trump is the de facto leader of his party, as it is the role of the president to be the leader of his party. I cited what the spin was, it was the leading questions that made the RNC woman just answer yes and no and not qualify the answers. Spin, meaning in my understanding that one person takes a top and spins it clock wise and another takes the same top and spins it counter clockwise. The facts are the same, but the meaning of the facts, or the hidden implications, or the import of the questions make the difference and tell you the mind set of the provider of the facts. Like I could kill a rabid squirrel with a shovel and depending on the spin you could frame me as a blood thirsty killer of helpless cute furry things, or a brave father protecting his 3 and 6 year old girls. Spin is not lying. Spin is looking at a situation with a certain color of glasses on. I have no interest in rebutting any facts. I have interest in using the facts to say Hilary let Russia gain a portion of Uranium One and Obama let them get the rest and now they own and control 1 fifth of the U.S. reserves. Thinking these are the facts, I wonder why they let it happen. Then when I see that a bank in Russia paid Bill half a million for a speech, I wonder what words he could have uttered that would be worth that much. I don't think there are such a string of words worth that much, you can buy works of great writers for 30 bucks. So I think the bank was buying some consideration. Maybe access to Hilary, or hoping she would look the other way and let the Uranium One deal go through. In other words she sold us out. Regards, TAR

Fox didn't bring up Uranium One, in the indictment thread. I did. And Russia owning 20 percent of our Uranium reserves is not old news it is the current situation. I saw a piece on Fox with Susan Rice saying the embassy bombing was a response to a hateful video. Fox bringing up old news? No. It was spin, to show the lies of the Obama administration, in combination with some real news that Trump had brought at least one of the perpetrators to justice. The reality is that Russia controls 20 percent of our Uranium supply. How did we let that happen? Were there payoffs or did Hilary think it was a great idea without any payoffs? She can't say she had nothing to do with it. She was secretary of state, it was her job to have something to do with it. Use is as leverage to get Russia out of Crimea or something. Nothing. So why? What is the rational to have Russia giving us spent uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons in exchange for fresh uranium? Anyone in the world can enrich uranium, and it is in our national security interests to control 100% of our Uranium specifically because of this. Energy is the currency of the world. Russia controls a lot of the oil and gas the EU needs. Now they control 1/5 of our Uranium. How is this in our interests as we clash with Russia in places like Syria for control of the oil supply? If Hillary and Obama let this happen on their watch, that is not a wonderful gold star to put on their resume. The woman on the left asked the woman on the right leading questions so the woman on the right could only say what the woman on the left was allowing. Any time the woman on the right attempted to qualify an answer, the woman on the left cut her off. You are trying to reverse the election. You actually can't. And you actually shouldn't try. We elected Trump.

iNow, I don't dismiss an entire source as bias, I just don't watch a predictable spin that makes me switch the channel. They all report the news, and they all add a spin. I don't currently have an average station to watch, as CNN was, before Tapper started doubling down to protect his credibility. He doubled down to the point where the only way he could not be an ass is if Trump actually was a criminal. So I just watch Fox and de-spin and come up with my own idea of what happened and what it means. I don't really need anybody to interpret. I just need a trusted news source. I don't have one at the moment, so I do the best I can. My current scheme is to take whatever CNBC says, subtract "Trump is a racist, sexist, fascist... and Putin's hand puppet" and take whatever is left as the news. Usually there is nothing else they say but that, so I don't watch. And I addressed your points. Hillary could have stopped it, and did not. Regards, TAR

“Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.” Thread. The fact that the decision was made by 9 agencies does not relieve Hilary from having the responsibility to stop the transaction. And Obama could have stopped it then and when Russia got 100% ownership of Uranium One. If the whole business happened under Hilary and Obama's watch and its OK to have happened and to continue to be the case, while we are trying to pressure Russia into respecting Ukrainian soil and independence, then we have a decent respectable give and take with Russia, even with the sanctions and there is no harm in Trump seeking to establish a relationship with Russia. We already have one. SwansonT, I don't watch CNBC or CNN since Jay Tapper broke the leaked dossier thing. Everything is spun as if Trump is a criminal. If I do see something I have to de-spin it, same as you would de-spin an article in Beitbart or on cable FOX. CNN during the election cycle I would watch as the middle of the road, slightly democrat best information. Fox I would have to de-right wing, and CNBC I would have to de-left wing. After the election loss, it became watch Fox for the news and watch CNBC if you wanted to see how a positive could be turned into a negative. It was so predictable, it made me sick and I stopped watching. Imagine that. I used to avoid Fox because it was so predictably anti-Obama. Now I don't watch CNN and CNBC because it is so predictably anti-Trump. Regards, TAR he could cure cancer and CNBC would have a piece about sexual harassment at the hospital that did the research he funded, and how his company profited because they built the hospital

initially to explore any coordination between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government

part of this, is a what did he know, when did he know it thing, and being such, I am sure he knew something at some point that he pretended he didn't know, but please remember that is like Hilary saying she had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. It basically means she was either an inept Secretary of State, and didn't know the Russians were getting control of a Canadian country that had control of a fifth of our Uranium. Either way she is wrong. But she has not done anything illegal until she is caught in a lie, made to congress or the FB

Ten Oz, Where the problem comes in, in my mind, is that Hilary knew more than she said, and knew more than Trump about what wiretaps and things were going on, being that FBI investigations are somewhat private. If Trump knew for instance, that it was HIS staff being wiretapped he would have perhaps fired that staff member, not wanting to have a criminal or a Russian agent on his staff. If you go into this trying to show that Trump is not fit to be president, you can't use your assumption to prove he is guilty by association with anybody on his staff that ever talked with a Russian. Clinton wished to deflect the idea that she deleted emails that Trump thought might contain information that we would be interested in, to the idea that Trump wanted our democracy interfered with. So the probe is for what? What are you going in, looking for? State it now, in clear words, what it is you thought Trump did wrong, to hurt our country, and then we will see if that is what happened. This shotgun approach is dangerous. You think Trump is dirty, so you say just look and you will find some dirt. Oh he didn't get the golden shower? Oh that is not important it is that he colluded with the Russians to undermine our democracy. Well suppose he didn't. Then it is a witch hunt. Or suppose he did. Then it is an important investigation to remove a criminal from the WH. But what crime do you think he committed? Lying? Well knowing Trump, he probably did. So guilty as charged. Send him to the electric chair. Or tell me what crime you think he specifically committed. For instance, perhaps obstruction of justice happened on the plane on the tarmac with Bill and the AG or happened on the plane Hilary was on with Obama on her way to a political event, WHILE Comey was recommending no charges be brought against her, regardless of her mishandling of government documents. Those would be actual crimes. Did Trump do something like that? What? Make an allegation. We will see if its true. Or you can just figure he is already guilty of something, and you are willing to just wait and see what it is, and then you will say "see", I told you so. Regards, TAR By the way, I have very thin skin. If you have a problem with a post of mine please tell me what it is, so I can defend my ideas. Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.

so I am sure that some illegality will be uncovered Trump was baited by the Russians, baited by his political opponents, both GOP and Dem. I am sure he took the bait, on more than one occasion, and lied about taking the bait, as to not be considered duped. And he was surrounded by thousands of operatives, both for him and against him, during the transition and after. Someone that wanted to see the election reversed, for whatever reason, could set up a situation, where he would have to lie to protect his pride. So this is how I see this witch hunt going. None of the initial charges that brought on the investigation are true, but somewhere in the mix, somebody lied to somebody, and if that happened before congress or before the FBI somebody is going to jail. Personally I think the Dems have ten times the chance of having to lie in front of congress about real crimes. So you want to talk about crimes, or lying to the FBI or failing to file as an agent of a foreign government? Notice the political aspect of this investigation. It is supposed to be about treason against the U.S. on Trump's part, colluding with the Russians to undermine our political system, so the first two charges are conspiracy against the U.S. It has to do with conspiracy to defraud the government in terms of taxes, and has nothing to do with hacking the election, but the word conspiracy is in there, and everybody says "see" its true, Trump is dangerous for the country (falling into the narrative spoken again and again during the election by Hilary and Obama) So who is the dupe?

OK, now we are getting down to it. IF Trump did this or did that it would be bad. So did he do what you presume he did for the reasons you presume he did them? We have already presumed that to talk to Putin about defeating Hilary would be treason against the U.S. Not correct, it would be bad for Hilary, but not per se bad for the U.S. What would actually be bad for the U.S. is to have Russia control a fifth of our Uranium supply. OK if Canada controls it, but not good for a global political and military rival to control it. If Trump had promised Putin power over the U.S. in someway, in return for help defeating Hilary, then that would be treason. However, perhaps Trump had different motives than you presume. And at each stage, the rules for what he could or should or would do, in terms of agreement with the Russians is different. What he would do as a private citizen, looking to gain an advantage on some real estate deal is one scenario. What he can, should and would do as one of 12 Republican candidates is a new condition, surrounded by new rules. What he could should and would do after winning the Republican candidacy brings new rules, new information, new protection and responsibilities, but still he is a private citizen. After the election, a whole new set of rules came into place. He got new information, daily briefings and the like to bridge into actually being president and get ready for the transfer of power, from Obama. During this transition period, having already defeated Hilary, his connections with the Russians were expected. He needed to create channels of communications, negotiate and so on. He should not undermine the U.S. or the security of the U.S. and from all we know, he did not. The only person that might have negatively affected our potential relationship with Russia, was Obama who threw out Russian spies that had been instrumental in hacking our internet. So any collusion with the Russians to defeat Obama and Hillary would be campaign related and not illegal. Same as if there were people on this board in Lancaster, that knew the prime minister, posting pro Hilary, anti-Trump spins. And anything Trump did to change the relationship with Russia, after the election, during the transition, he did as soon to be, president of the U.S. After the inauguration, any disrespect you show the president, you are directing at me, because he is my president. Under these different states, different assumptions and presumptions are made. The way you guys are talking, you view it as a victory if Trump is impeached. This is not the case, with me. I would not view it as a victory for us, I would view it as a victory for Putin. Did you know it is actually illegal to publically threaten the life of the president of the U.S.? Consider the different presumptions a Sanders supporter has, or a Trump, or and ANTIFA person has, when somebody holds up the bloody head of the president. The presumptions don't matter. Legally it is a felony for a senator to get a crowd riled up, saying she is so mad, she is going to go up to the White House, and get the president, tonight. Regards, TAR by the way the same senator accused the President about colluding with Russia over Korea Not only, as it turns out was there no collusion between Russia and Trump over the invasion of Crimea, but she shouldn't be a senator. the only illegal thing, so far that has been uncovered by Mueller concerning Russia is lying to the FBI the cover up is often the thing that makes a situation a felony

Ten Oz, No evidence except for the fact that little reports of this or that country or company or political organization attempting to win an ideological battle through the media and the internet is more or less common knowledge of the way the world operates. It is, in my mind a political witch hunt, to suggest Trump should be impeached, because Putin hated Hilary or Obama. Regards, TAR That Trump utilized Putin's desire to unseat Obama and Hiliary was politically savvy and did not rise to the level of treason. If you were a Hilary supporter you might view it that way, but right now, if you are talking about Trump, you are talking about the president of the U.S. If you are an American (meaning U.S.A.) then Trump is your president. The same way that Obama was the president of the leader of the KKK. The law should be politically blind.

Phi, Granted. But collusion has not yet been charged. So far lying to the FBI, shady offshore money laundering and such are the indictments. Collusion to manipulate the vote, is only implied. Putin could have had bots on this board pitting American against American to swing votes toward Trump and away from Clinton, thinking he would get more favorable treatment from Trump, and it still would not be collusion. There were, I am sure, companies and countries spreading lies aboutTrump to help Hilary. Collusion? Regards, TAR

iNow, Still to come are any misdeeds related to the wiretapping and FISA warrants on Manaford. Certainly not misdeeds if the integrity of the U.S. was at stake, but if done against political enemies, based on false information provided in the dossier for instance, then it was misdeeds. It is not difficult to find a misfiling or a failure to register as a foreign agent and such and some of these activities may or may not rise to the level of traitor like behavior, depending on ones point of view. It is for instance illegal to leak FBI and grand jury information, so how did Hilary know, as a private citizen that this stuff was going on. I easily connect the dots and say "real estate" "not releasing taxes" "money laundering" "Putin lobbists and lawyers in a meeting with Trump's son and Manafort" and I see a problem. But equally I connect the dots and see big donations to the Clinton Foundation and silly large speaking fees going to Bill Clinton during theW time Hilary was pressing the reset button and Obama administration OKing a sale of a Canadian Uranium company to associates of the Clintons, and some trucking payoffs, as problematic. I am afraid, in the end result that the King makers of this world will operate without our vote. It probably does not matter much who you vote for, you are really voting for the media moguls and the industrial giants and the oil and gas magnates where the wealth and power of this world is concentrated. Why else would it matter how much money a campaign got. Advertising costs money, but changes minds, and "fools" one group or another into thinking a candidate is on their side. Us average to above average individuals that are not in power and do not have any direct access to power, are most likely dupes of those who inhabit the swamp. George Bush for instance was not smart enough to fool everybody. He was on my level, and I could tell when he was trying to fool me. Bill Clinton was way above me however, and I did not trust him because he was so good at fooling me. The investigation will take Mueller wherever there are felonies. It might not me limited to Trumps inner circle. And it might not bypass the people that used their position in the government to damage a political opponent. Even if that opponent was a shady dealing King maker. Regards, TAR However at this point it looks bad for Trump and unfortunately he can pardon Manafort and Gates and fire Mueller so it might be constitutional crisis time.

Ten Oz, Well Manafort and Gates were indicted on 12 counts of conspiracy against the U.S., wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and more. Gates and Manafort worked for a pro Putin Ukranian president and shady deals were done. Allegations of wrong doing bridge from 2005 right through the 2016 election cycle where Manafort was Trump's campaign chair in charge of delegate count and instrumental in the establishment of the Republican platform including Trump's stance on sanctions against Russia. Manafort and Gates were part of the money laundering scheme that included funneling money through off shore accounts (Cyprus I think) and then into real estate in the U.S. to hide the money from tax considerations and so on. This looks really bad for Trump, being a real estate guy who might have somehow been involved. Of course in this country we are innocent until proven guilty, but I apologize for putting my faith in Trump, and today feel he may have hornswaggled me...and 46 million others. Regards, TAR

Ok. I deleted my draft response to Strange. Let's see what Mueller has found, and talk then about the implications and where we should go from there.

Strange, I take offense at that remark. Regards, TAR Disrespect your own president. Not mine. who is your president, by the way?

so anyway, most everybody here is doubling down on the Trump is bad deal And you can't be wrong, because even if it turns out he was unfairly accused of being a traitor, you will find some character flaw to nail on him. Good for you. Let's see what Mueller has found.

Ten Oz, I think we are all Americans, and I love you all equally, as Americans. It gives me no joy to see us bickering. Some very close family member and I had a raise your voice discussion about Trump's handling of North Korea. She thought Trump wrong to tell the North Korean leader that he would be destroyed if he menaced us or an ally. She said that bullying like that is why the North Koreans feel they have to have defense against us, that we want to destroy them. She would not accept that the North Koreans are programmed to want to destroy Americans, and that we should let Trump be our president and side with him, over a leader that wants to kill us. I said, let's see if Trump's approach works. It is us that will be hurt by the devastating attack Kim Jong (un) has planned for us. But she is already pissed at me, as is my father, as are you, that I voted Trump and that I support him as my president. So I will have no problem turning on him, if he proves to be all the things his political opponents have accused him of being. But I know there is a middle ground, where he can be a narcissistic, sexist, upper class jerk, and still be a patriot, that loves his family, loves his country, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, is a great negotiator and a smart no nonsense leader. I think you are right, that Monday will not seal the deal one way or the other and prove that I am the idiot that needs to apologize, or you are the one that needs to eat some crow, but it shouldn't be framed so black and white. Neither the left is right on everything they say nor the right. I am not even going to try to stake out the middle ground for us all to camp in, because everybody is so polarized, we have all extended ourselves way beyond where we would have normally reasonably stood. Regards, TAR

Lord Antares, It makes me feel good to share an insight that I see as valuable and have someone else see it. It gives me dopamine. Better than a drag. Same dopamine. Just getting it for a real reason gives me a second dose. So plus one on that. Thanks for the dopamine. I used to tell that pretty woman, I did not smoke with, that she was my fix. That was before I knew that the nicotine receptors in your brain release dopamine. So I knew, without knowing, that looking at a pretty girl was pleasurable. So over the years that I have been quit, I have built on that thesis, that pleasure is whenever we experience something good. And now, it is easy to not smoke, because smoking is just one way to feel good, and there is still the whole rest of the world to enjoy, with no chain around your neck required. So helpful to me was Phi for all's idea to just board up that way of feeling good, feeling alive, getting a reward, and never use the way again. The realization came to me, that not smoking did not mean, as I feared, that I was giving up ever feeling good again. It just meant I was not going to use that way. It is not an option. Besides, if you only have one way of feeling good, you probably have a problem. (Smoking, gambling, winning, drugs, alcohol, domination, overeating, can all cause an unhealthy addiction to dopamine.) My further insight, that I am trying to bring to the professionals dealing with the opioid crisis, through my involvement with municipal and county alliances, is that we are all addicted to dopamine. We all want to feel good. It is not a crime. Bad though when your addiction hurts people, or damages your own self, or makes it so you can not fulfill your responsibilities. So perhaps bimbo36 is in no danger of substance abuse, and does not want to give up feeling good, for no reason. That is OK. Smoking is not bad, it actually makes you feel good. Better perhaps than if pulling wings off of flies was the only thing that brought her/him joy. And better if she/he just continues to lengthen the time between cigarettes until the time period is long enough (4 or 5 months) to get over the actual physical addiction. Then the choice is not whether to continue to deny yourself the pleasure of a cigarette. The choice becomes what other enjoyable ways are there I can spend that 8 bucks. Regards, TAR

Mueller has put us in a very good position this weekend. That is, good for introspection. On my threads I have brought up the linguistic idea that the same exact thing framed in the first person is good, second person is neutral and third person is bad. So, each of our arguments are turned on their head depending on whether Mueller knocks on the President's door, or Bill Clinton's door. But it gives us a rare opportunity to inspect our own thinking. Rehash the whole value thing on each point from each perspective. My desire, during the whole election cycle was for people to stay united as Americans, give each other the benefit of the doubt, follow ones heart and mind and adhere to the laws and ones most lofty dreams and move forward together. Reality gets in the way of lofty dreams however, and we never really know the truth of what is going on. People are smart and smart people can fool those less smart most of the time, those of equal smartness now and again, and those smarter on rare occasion. We all wish to be not fooled. But it comes down to having to align oneself with a really smart person who has your best interests in mind. However, you have no insurance that your trust is properly placed. Bill Clinton could have been the recipient of the golden shower, as easily as Trump. Problem is, they are both presidents of the United States. And if Putin is interested in weakening us, he can impugn either or both or set us against each other by floating rumors or fanning the flames under any burning issue to get people yelling at each other, morally outraged at each other, and basically getting us to the point where we are referring to our own president in the third person. consider the internet or this board There is no guarantee that someone posting here is not paid by the British government, or the North Koreans or is sympathetic to the teachings of Buddha or Marks or some economist. It would be stupid to think our election was not influenced by foreign governments and peoples who might not align themselves with my way of life, as an American. But if someone worked for someone in the Ukraine, who leans to the West, they would be us, and if they worked for someone that leaned toward Putin, they would be them, and as we wonder what is going on, and we are in our car, listening to the radio, at the Lukoil station...

bimbo36, One last try to quit? I don't think that is the way to look at it. You are allowed to not smoke for another Sunday next week, or mentally log that you went without smoking for 12 hrs and go for another 8 starting right now. It is important to remember, that what makes you feel good is not automatically what would make another feel good. Two things. One, I recognized about a dozen things that I "missed" when not smoking. Like lighting up a cigarette when you finished something as a little reward, or lighting up as a punctuation mark during the day. Here I looked at each thing and found a substitute. For instance, at work, I would go outside and smoke a cigarette when I finished a stage in a project...well once I made smoking not an option, I went outside anyway and talked with my smoking buddies, and the pretty coworker and such and got the break and got the reward and then went back in and started the next stage (just got some dopamine without nicotine required). Two, have a reason. My reason was I was 60 or so, had been smoking since I was 13 and was finding it was not always easy to take a deep, full breath, in fact I could not take a deep full breath. This scared me, and I am a little claustrophobic, and the idea of being on a lung machine when I was 70, and knowing I had done that to myself...gave me a reason to quit. Not try to quit. Quit. There are plenty of easy reasons, the stink, the expense, the inability to go certain places that disallow smoking, the health risk, the annoying of others, etc. But you can rationalize all those away. Heck, a drug addict will steal money from their Mom's purse to get high. The draw of the drug is powerful. However, it will not kill you, if you don't smoke, and you will still get dopamine naturally, even without it. So make a list. All the pros and cons. The draw of the drug will make the pro list longer. So you will always end up lighting up, unless you have a reason to not. Once you have the reason though, you will find it easy to enjoy life, without a smoke. Think how easy it was to have fun when you were 12... or before you took that first drag. You didn't have to find life at the cigarette counter, or go to the vaping bar...it was right there in front of you, free and always available Still is. Forget all the reasons to smoke. One by one come up with a better way. When your hand reaches for the cigarette, say " not now". "later". It might turn out that you will never need that way of feeling good again. Then you are a non-smoker. Regards, TAR I can take a deep full breath now, (well I just took one, and coughed, but I took another, and did not cough.) I could not do that just before I quit. oh, I had another reason That pretty girl coworker I was talking about said she would quit, if I did. So her kids were always asking her to stop, and she did not, right away, but several months later I was pleased to hear she did. So there is a reason for you. Anybody you love that would be inconvenienced by you lighting up, or having a health problem? A week after I quit, my wife came back from a trip and it was her birthday, and I gave her a card with a significant amount of 20 dollar bills in it, saying "here is some money, for you to burn, because I did not"