RedSpawn

Impeachment is a political act so the the perjury and the obstruction of justice votes were basically along partisan lines. It was not a barometer of the accused's true guilt or innocence. It was a barometer of political alliances and potential political fallout if a Democratic President were removed from Office. Every single Democrat senator said that BC was neither guilty of perjury nor obstruction of justice. They towed the party line. I guess this is because perjury really does depend on what the meaning of the word is. . .is. I feel safe in saying that this was a vote to end the impeachment process than it was a testament to the quality of evidence presented. It was kabuki theater because it was never an official criminal proceeding against a sitting President. It resembled more of an official censure. And as stated, BC had plenty of political capital to draw on in the Senate even as a lame duck President. This still ties in to the idea that "guilt" and "non-guilt" are influenced by money, power, political capital, and status. That's the way our legal and political institutions work (or don't work).

I am not suggesting that sexual assault by Presidents is acceptable. . . OUR legal system is! That's the problem....people who have great sums of money and power and status are able to avoid the fullest extent of the law and full prosecution for their acts and this emboldens and reinforces the criminal behavior and mindset. American society knows that lady justice peeks behind the blind fold; it's just not discussed that often. http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lady-scales-of-justice-peeking.jpg

The comparison was Trump's pu$$y grabbing versus BC's sexual peccadilloes. Then you have unproven allegations of unwelcome grabbing and kissing: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/index.html I then maintained that the behaviors in question reveal serious character flaws that people overlooked and/or excused. Some folks see them easily in Trump yet dismiss them when BC does it. Some still maintain that somehow Trump's statements are more lethal even though BC's sexual acts were somehow distilled to just lying under oath when the entirety of the misdeeds was much larger and far more extensive than that. This is proving the point that people dismiss serious character flaws when the shade of gray doesn't suit the narrative or the leader they support. They place a mental tarp over the train wreck of serious character issues and mitigate the acts in question to a more socially acceptable level. I am not saying BC is a bad person. I am saying he is a strong leader with MORE than just an "aberration" of bad character. These serious characters flaws are part and parcel. I am also saying that we don't hold the Office of the President in high regard if someone can commit those 11 acts and still remain in office afterwards. We are principled UP TO A CERTAIN POINT and our political establishment capitalizes on this vulnerability.

His crime under the articles of impeachment are as follows: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/starr-excerpt.htm I want to make one thing perfectly clear. When one masterminds a self-serving scheme, he employs any and all resources in his delegation of authority to control the narrative including lying, subjugating the truth, hiding evidence, witness tampering, and helping potential witnesses obtain jobs far away from the principal state of litigation. These 11 bullets address the choreography of deceit here. These actions taken as a whole easily besmirches the Office of the President and reveals a character flaw that we should be concerned about. Can someone explain to me how a man can perform jaw-dropping political gymnastics and still not get impeached AND FULLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE in light of these 11 bullets taken as a whole? It is called charisma and political capital. He had plenty of it. People who have these things are given much more latitude and leeway than the regular common man.

I chose BC because it was a clear criminal act. How can a subordinate give free and clear consent when she is subordinate to the authority of the accused? The subordinate is under the direct control of the accused. The accused can use his delegated authority and sphere of influence to punish any and all acts of resistance and retaliation by the subordinate. It's hard to suggest that two like and equal minds engaged in consensual sexual acts when there are likely professional rewards the accused will confer for the subordinate's complicit behavior. I am not supporting sexual assault because I said we have criminal proceedings if Trump did carry out any of the actions he discussed. What I said was people tend to look past serious character flaws relative to the amount of political capital (celebrity status) the accused has accrued and relative to his overall accomplishments, charisma, and leadership ability. One could make the case that this was the treatment approach for sexual assaults by famous athletes. Public sentiment is changing however. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/qatar-helium-production/532788/ Another financial angle I didn't consider at first glance....hmmmm. I didn't know the U.S. is largest supplier of helium and then followed by Qatar.

It's a dangerous world when the President of the United States believes the assurances of Putin more than the intelligence provided by our western intelligence agencies. Before we condemn this act as ridiculous and provocatively dangerous, we need to carefully review the intelligence failures and abuses and missteps that have led to this underlying mistrust between the defense department, intelligence agencies, and the President. There needs to be some kind of summit meeting between the factions because this type of divided government and intelligence gathering towards our foreign policy appears counterproductive and dysfunctional. I think Trump is asking us to dig deeper on the unquestioned motives of information supplied by our intelligence agencies. Remember, Russia is a big threat to our global monetary hegemony from an oil and natural gas reserve perspective so there could be a compelling financial incentive to keep Russia as one of our main enemies. It holds the 8th largest reserve of proven oil reserves in the world and THE largest natural gas reserve in the world so we need to keep them financially contained through economic sanctions. We need to make sure they remain on our watch list because they could build alliances to undermine the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the functional world reserve currency. We have to look at the whole picture instead of just the narrative supplied by the fourth estate.

Thank you for the link. I'm still at a loss as to how some of these allegations against Trump are good enough for a Gloria Allred civil lawsuit or a news article exposé but aren't substantial enough for criminal charges. But where there's smoke ... You brought up some great points. Consensual sex with a subordinate on its face is criminal; it is also an abuse of the position and power the Office of the President confers. When you take the sexual act against a subordinate and add the on-camera denials, the lying under oath, and the obstruction of justice and witness tampering.... you have a choice. You can view the past allegations against BC in a new light with this revelation of character or you can decide to place a mental tarp over this messy train wreck of character flaws and overlook or compartmentalize them because of his greatness as a leader. I think most people chose the latter, because deep down we all understand the human condition. We know we are very complicated people who have worn a Scarlett Letter "A" on our chest at one time in our lives. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Trying to remove and objectively analyze the onion layers of character through a political lense is a difficult exercise in psychology and philosophy.

Trump talked of grabbing the pu$$y so we need the ladies who were sexually assaulted to come forward and file criminal charges. Clinton knowingly and willfully participated in sexual acts with a government employee in the White House and then proceeded to lie about it under oath and BURY THE TRUTH aka obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Honestly, Trump seems to talk about his sexual proclivities while Clinton actually delivers on his proclivities with consensual sex and calculated cover-up. I think both men can be provocatively dangerous, but this is a matter of risk assessment and determining which shade of gray you perceive. I feel safe in saying that BC has been given various hall passes for his character flaws by his wife, the public, and the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/index.html Please review this list and the outcomes including settlements paid. I would submit that there is a pattern to this behavior. Watch our actions, for they become habits. Watch our habits, for they become character. This is not just an aberration... it is a habitual act that reveals a serious character flaw in terms of honesty, fidelity, accountability and self-discipline. It's unfair to compartmentalize these flaws and disassociate them from the greater leader. They are part and parcel and can not be surgically or ideologically removed from the man. However, the populace tends to overlook these peccadilloes and abuses of power in office because he is articulate, charming, charismatic, and has solid consensus-building skills. Also, his accomplishments in office overshadow this character issue. Even when he lied about the affair to the nation, he was impeached and still remained in office thanks to partisan votes in the Senate. Nobody likes to be called a bad judge of character. So even if Clinton's past caught up with him with Lewinsky, most people didn't want to see additional evidence of this character flaw aka "aberration". Many said this was a marital issue even when the sexual acts occurred in the White House and with a paid White House intern and even when the subsequent lying and cover-up under oath were all politically calculated, yet morally flawed choices. To me, that suggests being a womanizer and adulterer in office and lying about it and obstructing justice has consequences, but forcible removal from the Office of President isn't one of them. Long story short--we are principled RELATIVE to the person who is the hot topic and relative to the type of political capital the accused has accrued when he commits despicable acts. There are shades of gray when it comes to character. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

To be perfectly fair, a man involved in abusing his position and power and authority to get sexual favors from allegedly vulnerable woman should logically be grounds for disqualification. However, it just doesn't seem to prevent the populace from looking past trysts and seeing "the greater potential" of his leadership. Looking back, one would think Clinton's past alleged sexual peccadilloes as Governor would prevent him from gaining the Presidency, but he was so damn charismatic, calculating, and focused from a leadership standpoint, that he won the popular vote. His alleged sexual escapades didn't seem to matter so much once his wife knowingly and willfully stood by her man. Some would say Clinton was an unfaithful, opportunistic womanizer, but that didn't stop his ascendancy to President.

Cartruck referred to opening this hand as 2 clubs as "fool's gold" -- that is being a walrus. I haven't heard a sound reason for starting the bidding at a conservative 1♠ which he recommended. Cartruck stated that a Q♠ was needed instead of J♠ before a 2 ♣ bid should be made. Why do we need 11 playing tricks for a 2 club open? That pedestal seems a bit too high.

You can make the case that both Trump and Clinton are untrustworthy, but I honestly don't think you can make the case that Clinton is an "honest" or trustworthy politician. Clinton was groomed to run in 2016 after losing to Obama in 2008. The behavior of the Democratic National Committee towards Clinton and against Sanders seems to reflect this sentiment. I am not sure the Democratic side was provided a fair number of Presidential candidates. The Democratic party thought it was "her" time to become President so there was no need for a slew of "interfering" candidates to upset the outcome

Admittedly, I cringed when I used "American exceptionalism" which is one of the reasons I qualified it with quotes. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/27/443446996/two-charts-that-help-explain-boehners-resignation But I think the election of Trump was a revolt of sorts. The average voter really doesn't trust Washington to look out for his interests anymore. The populace thought by electing Trump they had a chance to give Washington a rude awakening and a new political calculus. However, the histrionics in Washington for the last 7-8 months is nothing like I have ever seen. I feel like the Washington D.C. patient is rejecting the "organ transplant" in the White House. :unsure:

No one wants to commit to a hand value for this hand. This hand is worth 22 points if not more once you evaluate its features. I look at TOTAL points. This hand is by no means weak and has more total points than 21 points. I am still waiting to hear a full on point value on this hand for its features. Is it just a 21 point hand for opening purposes?

Winston . . .Clinton is untrustworthy... There is not a "dislike".... She has a husband as a continuous scandal albatross, seems too cozy with Wall Street, and I won't let her campaign off the hook on how they accepted "assistance" from the Democratic National Committee for debate questions at Bernie Sander's expense. That doesn't make Trump a great choice or a good choice, but the "choices" we were given were hardly inspiring. The choices we had for President were not examples of "American exceptionalism". See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-sunset-of-american-exceptionalism/532548/

https://morningconsult.com/trump-clinton-unpopular/ This webpage describes our Presidential choices. You have untrustworthy and potentially corrupt running against politically inexperienced and potentially racist (sexist). Not the best of choices from the start. See article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4666622/Qatar-responds-Arab-nations-demands-crisis-meeting.html And the crisis continues...

This is a very dangerous quote. If the Department of Defense (DoD) paid double the market rate on ammunition, we need to know about it. If the DoD paid double the market rate on chicken or washing powder, we need to know about it. If the military paid an extra $28 million on uniforms, we need to know about it. Seeing stuff like this, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/21/pentagon-blew-28-million-uniforms-afghan-soldiers-report-says/413219001/ makes me wonder what other savings opportunities abound at the Pentagon. If DoD can't avoid a $28 million procurement error like this, what other outrageous procurement purchases are flying beneath the radar? Please note it is a Special Inspector General who uncovered this mismanagement of resources. A normal or periodic management review did not uncover these wasteful expenditures. See how the Pentagon is hiding up to $125 billion in cost savings===> https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.47b4af04c025 I am not questioning IF the DoD spent their entire budget; government agencies are very good at doing that. We need to know if the DoD has responsibly used the resources that were appropriated to them. The devil is in the details NOT in the $6.0+ trillion year-end accounting entry to balance the books. With a $600 billion ANNUAL budget, the last assurances we need to hear from management is, "Trust us. We spent the money well. You have our word on it." $600 billion is the monetary equivalent of winning a $1,000,000 lottery 600,000 separate times. We need to get a strong handle on exactly what's being spent in that budget. We have a duty to "trust but verify" as Former President Ronald Reagan would say. What Congress and the public doesn't know is HOW the DoD spent that money; if it's being spent responsibly and with due care; and if procured items are essential and necessary. Perhaps mismanaged or diverted money can be used towards that 2.1% wage increase for the military personnel. Please do not downplay the fact that the Inspector General has issued a disclaimer of opinion over the DoD's financials for the last 17 years. This is not just some rinky-dink IT problem that is overshadowing the financials. Congress can't control what it can't accurately measure. If DoD management wanted to issue transparent financials, they would have done so within a span of 17 years. However, being dubious and opaque is good for intransigent bureaucracies. Very few people will question the DoD about being 54% of the discretionary spending of the federal budget. But we needn't argue over the other departments when there is potentially so much low-hanging fruit from the DoD tree. Procurement and Operations & Maintenance is over 1/3 of $1 trillion annually. We need to review that detail because I am convinced there's plenty of cost savings if only the DoD would provide some reliable financial statements (and supporting schedules) we can sink our teeth into.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/rural-hospitals-closing#6 And keep in mind we haven't touched on the closure of rural hospitals problem despite the annual price increases in health care.

These are nice ideas, but my gut tells me if we alleviate tort claims against doctors and hospitals, they will have a bigger bottom line to mismanage with business and accounting as usual practices. These are goals to think about once we get the largest service providers to overhaul their outdated cost accounting systems. If they can't break down their cost structure between outpatient and inpatient services realistically and they are receiving annual reimbursements in the millions of dollars, their cost accounting system is out of whack. Thus, they won't know how much of their management/service overhead is redundant or too much. They also won't know their profit margins by type of service which is seat-of-the-pants hospital management. We need to sour the working capital (insurance reimbursement) milk we supply them to get them to update and revolutionize their cost models. We need transparency of their cost structure to determine if the price inflation is market related or mismanagement related or both. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/10-reasons-why-hospitals-are-shifting-to-advanced-cost-accounting.html

We need to delve here: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1190216/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2018-budget-proposal/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2016/05/10/pentagon-spending-out-control/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/overseas-contingency-operations/ Before we look for tax cuts, can someone on the left or right of the aisle tell me... 1) why does the Department of Defense request a war contingency fund of $52 billion called the OCO? See link #1 and #3. It's a slush fund. 2) why does our defense cost almost $600 billion annually ... See link #2. It is approximately 55% of our annual discretionary budget and is more than defense of 7 different countries' military budgets COMBINED. 3) how does the Department of Defense know it needs these amounts when it can't fix a $6 trillion year-end accounting entry problem over 17 years and can't produce reliable financial statements approved by our own Inspector General in ANY of those years? These are very fair questions for the white elephant in the room.

.deleted

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/07/531886684/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-comes-to-an-end-as-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-taxes I think this provides a bit more clarity about the trickle-down nature of tax cuts for businesses.

We can't control what we can't measure. Hospitals have been so focused on growing revenues and delivery of services that they have virtually ignored controlling the bottom line. If most hospital revenues are discounted or written off due to unrealistic price inflation, then we have an industry whose main problem is cost containment. They have a COST ACCOUNTING problem 1st. And when you ask them to fix this problem, they usually opt to close the hospital or combine with another hospital. STOP GIVING them A PASS ON MANAGEMENT (Cost) Accounting! If you can't manage your bottom line, then you don't deserve to receive insurance reimbursements in perpetuity.