But the money is never a problem when 1000 trillion dollars needs to be spent on a war, or now 30 million at Mar-a-Largo during the first quarter of 2017. Not a problem at all!

I agree with you on the first point. However, the latter is a rounding error on the government’s budget. It’s not part of a mature discussion on government finance. Of course we need to keep the President’s family safe; you cannot simultaneously agonize over the fact that somebody might “have something” on our President, and then agonize over expenditures that *prevent* somebody from “having something” on our president.

So no, I do not but that conservative BS about no money for any social programs that benefit the 300 million people who live here and work and pay taxes. (…) )do you want to invest in life or death? I choose life. A lot of Dems claim they do, but I don’t believe those f@ckers really do either. Sick of the good cop/bad cop con.

If you read me at all, you know that I am suspicious of the Deep State and I am of the opinion that we spend too much on defense; I would prefer we just played nicer with the other children, and then maybe we wouldn’t NEED to spend so much on defense. But as you point out, you have no gripe here: the number of Dems who would actually CUT military spending if they could do so can be numbered on your fingers.

As for Donald Trump…sigh. You know people are so nuts about him

Stop trying to divert the discussion with sophistry. I am, like many others who are “supporters”, not “nuts” about Trump. However, I do think he may be a necessary evil.

(He is certainly doing that!) someone who is going to “drain the swamp.” Has a swamp ever been drained? It would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, given that a swamp is a force of nature.

Yes, it is. However, one of the first EO’s that he signed was a ban on political appointees taking a job in the lobbyist industry, and a LONG TERM ban on international lobbying firms. Something that been promised by both parties for years, but never followed through on.

But I agree with you that the “swamp” has a life of it’s own, and it fights back when threatened.

The defense industry itself is a multi trillion dollar industry. That is power. Anyone who comes along, trying to upset it or destabilize it in anyway will be attacked.

Of course. Eisenhower was correct.

Trump is trying but he’s not been given a fair shot because of the media, we have to be critical of the corporate media trying to destroy Trump, etc. etc. I have to admit if you want to see things that way, there is plenty of evidence to support that….In all of this lobbying and jockeying for the hearts and minds of people, the truth has been entirely lost. I always look for the evidence.

Without objection.

And yet supporters like you can overlook all of that, just ignore it, just disregard it, and believe that he can be an effective conservative politician.

I don’t overlook anything. However, up to this point, I see no evidence that he wanted this job for self-aggrandizement, and I’ve been looking for that evidence. Obviously, he didn’t check his ego at the door, and that ego has gotten him into some trouble. But when somebody says they want to step away from what they’ve been doing all their lives for public service, I’m willing to give them a shot.

But instead Caitlin Johnstone appeals to a conservative like yourself, even though she identifies as radical nonpartisan, because she has very little criticism of any of the Pubs. Hmmmmmmmm, that’s really nonpartisan. NOT.

Caitlin Johnstone is a Sanders supporter. I’m sure if and when she turns her guns on the GOP, it will not be pretty, since she is so well researched. But she appeals to be today because I agree with her that Hilary < Trump, and that the Deep State is trying hard to sell us on a Syrian war.

There are entire servers that could fill the entire capital building with all the corruption that Dems and Pubs have engaged in. She can only focus on Hillary though…and the DNC.

Well, there are only so many hours in a day. :-)

And I get it. Yes, you want to believe what you want to believe and if there was (and I am not saying there is) but if there was suddenly all this evidence that Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha, were crooks and liars, all the Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, would completely ignore all of that evidence, because they desperately need to believe in something.

You’re a lawyer; you know there’s a difference between evidence and proof; and as a lawyer, you’re also attuned, I would assume to the difference between real evidence, circumstantial evidence, and hearsay.

You’re giving an example for which all the evidence would be hearsay. Although I agree that people develop strong biases to defend their preferred positions, it’s not fair to criticize them when they don’t abandon their positions when spotty evidence is provided.

I do not and I will not have a conversation with you about why it’s perfectly fine that Jeff Sessions wants to kill all the black people.

That’s a good idea. Because even the suggestion that someone actually BELIEVES that that could be true ends any thought whatsoever that you have a rational mind.

Bored now.


Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.