Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

From the Senate intelligence committee report: (emphasis added)

 

Russian actors scanned databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process. The Committee has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified.

 

The Committee has limited information about whether, and to what extent, state and local officials carried out forensic or other examination of election infrastructure systems in order to confirm whether election-related systems were compromised. It is possible that additional activity occurred and has not yet been uncovered.

 

I note that the states and locations that had Russian penetration of registration databases are not named. Also, the committee cannot rule out that changes were made to registration bases, which would have caused immeasurable conflicts to some voters on election day.

 

This once again leads to question marks about the slim margins in the 4 swing states. Did database penetration and manipulation occur in those states?

[Al_U_Card]

There are many reasons for concern, but the one you address seems to me among the most serious. I don't think being a lone wolf is all that good an idea in today's world, being an unreliable lone wolf is seriously worse. When we entered the Iran deal my thoughts were "Well, I hope he [Obama] knows what he is doing". So that was skepticism. With Trump pulling out I cannot even muster up some skeptical hope that he [Trump] knows what he is doing. He just does things. The man likes to do things. And say things. Roller coasters were fun when I was 12. I'm past that part of my life.

Isn't this another part in Trump's dedication to undoing Obama's "legacy"? (Paris agreement, Obamacare, EPA secret science, and now the Iran deal) He did say, before the election, that he would do so. The Iranian situation is so strange (at least it seems so at first and second glance) that a better understanding of US/Iran dealings since WWII makes a case for why Iran might want a deal in the first place. Stephen Kinzer is a journalist and author with considerable chops in this region and this presentation kind of hits the nail on the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHx-D3XiJlE&t=2477s

[kenberg]

Isn't this another part in Trump's dedication to undoing Obama's "legacy"? (Paris agreement, Obamacare, EPA secret science, and now the Iran deal) He did say, before the election, that he would do so. The Iranian situation is so strange (at least it seems so at first and second glance) that a better understanding of US/Iran dealings since WWII makes a case for why Iran might want a deal in the first place. Stephen Kinzer is a journalist and author with considerable chops in this region and this presentation kind of hits the nail on the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHx-D3XiJlE&t=2477s

 

I have watched the first 36 minutes or so, I will probably watch the rest. I was aware of the general outlines of what he is saying but of course he can enlarge on it. Now I am skeptical of some of it, to put it mildly. For example, he explains that Iran was not originally to be part of the designated Axis of Evil, but someone read Bush's speech and noted that there were only two countries in it but an axis should have three, so somebody suggested including Iran and everyone said fine. I believe in being skeptical of the wisdom of our leaders, but I also believe in being skeptical of the critics. It's one thing to describe a policy as ill-judged, it's another thing to describe the people who put it together as frivolous morons.

 

So the general history as he describes it fits with my not well-informed understanding. I am also skeptical of the accuracy of my own general understanding.

 

Which gets us to the problem as I see it. There is no chance that I will become so well-informed on Iran that policy makers should come to me for advice. I want policy makers who are better informed than I am, and hopefully they are also smarter. Good judgment is a key. My role, as a citizen and a voter, is to choose those whom I hope I can at least provisionally trust. I can listen to this speech about Iran, or some other speech about Iran. On some items I will say "Yeah, I knew that". On others I will say "I didn't know that". On still others, as with the above example I will say "Uh, I doubt that". But I will never be prepared to call up the president, this one or any other, and seek an appointment with him to tell him what he should do in Iran. I hope to trust his judgment, it would make me very nervous if he chose a policy because he trusted mine.

[Winstonm]

They've been lurking for a while, but until Trump took the WH it was more of a fringe movement. Now they've been emboldened and they're getting their legislations pushed through.

 

The Republican Jihad is a serious consideration. From Yahoo:

 

Mark Harris, a Baptist pastor with a long history of social conservatism, won the GOP primary in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District on Tuesday night, ousting Rep. Robert Pittenger.

 

Pittenger is the first congressional incumbent of either party to lose a primary this cycle

 

Mark Harris is anti-gay marriage. The entirety of the Republican Jihad is fine irony as they want to use the power of their "small government" to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone else by claiming their Constitutional rights are violated if they are not allowed to do so, and that plus gun ownership makes them great patriots.

[PassedOut]

JESUS ***** CHRIST

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pskgpwr15r48tx5/Executive%20Summary.pdf?dl=0

Why do people keep showering cash on Trump lawyer Michael Cohen?

 

To my point that when you engage Cohen you’re doing something questionable, let’s begin with AT&T. As it happens, the company was seeking a multibillion-dollar merger with Time Warner that has to be approved by the federal government. Trump opposed the deal as a candidate, and his Justice Department has sued to stop it; the matter is currently before the courts.

 

AT&T already employs a small army of lawyers and lobbyists, and indeed, the company issued a statement saying Cohen “did no legal or lobbying work for us, and the contract ended in December 2017.” So they paid Cohen a few hundred thousand dollars for nothing but his “insights.” Might it be that the company saw dropping a heap of money on Cohen as a way to get an inside track to the president and win his goodwill?

 

What insights did Novartis want? Its biggest priority is probably to prevent the government from taking any action to reduce drug prices, as Trump has periodically claimed he wants to do. Novartis, which has been questioned about this by Mueller’s team, says it “entered into a one year agreement with Essential Consultants shortly after the election of President Trump focused on U.S. healthcare policy matters,” for which it paid Cohen a remarkable $1.2 million. Ah yes, it was seeking Cohen’s health-care expertise.

Another company, Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd, which is contending for a large Air Force contract, paid Cohen $150,000. It told The Post that “the payments were to provide legal consulting to assist in the company’s reorganization of its ‘internal accounting system’ and did not involve the Air Force deal or other lobbying.” Sure, that’s believable. Why wouldn’t a large foreign corporation hire Trump’s lawyer, who certainly isn’t an accountant, to help it reorganize its accounting system?

 

And what about the Russian oligarch? What was he seeking from Cohen? Columbus Nova told the Wall Street Journal that it “hired Michael Cohen as a business consultant regarding potential sources of capital and potential investments in real estate and other ventures.”

 

Boy, there sure are a lot of people eager to acquire Cohen’s brilliant insights.

 

The most benign interpretation of all this would be that once Trump got elected, Cohen put out the word that if you wanted to make sure the president heard your case on whatever matters you might have before the government, a good way to do it was to slip his “personal lawyer” a six-figure check. This would have been quite foolish on the corporations’ part, since there’s little evidence that Cohen exercises any influence over Trump now, if he ever did. But Cohen may just have been capitalizing on his newfound renown by taking this corporate money for essentially nothing.

Certainly is unusual for the owner of a tax-cab company to have so such valuable "advice" to sell across so many fields. Seems that he learned a lot from his Uncle Morty.

B-)

[PassedOut]

Another example of the dangers of a free press: Here’s a Theory About That $1.6 Million Payout From a GOP Official to a Playboy Model

 

Let me offer an alternative explanation of the affair and the payoff. It is still just a hypothesis, but, I would argue, it fits more comfortably with what we know about the various players than the reported version of events: Donald Trump, not Elliott Broidy, had an affair with Shera Bechard. Bechard hired Keith Davidson, who had negotiated both Playboy playmate Karen McDougal’s deal with the National Enquirer and Stormy Daniels’s NDA with Trump. Davidson called Cohen, and the two of them negotiated a $1.6 million payment to Bechard.

 

At this point Cohen needed to find a funding source. Cohen asserts he took out a home equity loan to come up with a mere $130,000 to pay off Stormy Daniels, so it seems clear he couldn’t have fronted the $1.6 million for the Bechard deal himself. So Cohen reached out to Elliott Broidy, a very rich Republican fundraiser with several pending and highly lucrative business deals with foreign governments: deals that hinged on whether Broidy could convince the U.S. government to take various actions. By stepping up to take responsibility for the affair and to fund the seven-figure settlement, Broidy was ensuring that he could continue to peddle his influence with Trump to governments around the world.

 

Which is to say, it was a cover-up concealing a bribe. Indeed, it turns out that Broidy not only has a history of bribing public officials, but of bribing them in an uncannily similar fashion to the method which I hypothesize he employed in this case.

 

So, according to this hypothesis, when Cohen’s office was raided by federal prosecutors, they found documentation of what was actually a fabricated affair, concocted by Cohen and Davidson to create a justification for funneling Broidy’s money to Bechard, while creating a paper record designed to protect Trump from further exposure.

 

This account — as bizarre as it may seem at first glance — is actually more plausible than the story leaked to the Journal, the New York Times, and CNN.

What could the founding fathers have been thinking when they attached the first amendment to the constitution? No wonder Adams wanted the Alien and Sedition Acts!

:P

[kenberg]

Another example of the dangers of a free press: Here's a Theory About That $1.6 Million Payout From a GOP Official to a Playboy Model

 

 

What could the founding fathers have been thinking when they attached the first amendment to the constitution? No wonder Adams wanted the Alien and Sedition Acts!

:P

 

 

I offer a different comparison to Monica Lewinsky, different from the usual one(s). When the details came out, with cigars and all that, a conservative friend remarked that he was really glad his mother was no longer alive to hear it all. I am starting to feel the same here. I am not all that interested in other people's sex lives but if we could just get it all done with that would be very nice.

 

Added: A million bucks? I have just been going about life in the wrong way!

[Winstonm]

I offer a different comparison to Monica Lewinsky, different from the usual one(s). When the details came out, with cigars and all that, a conservative friend remarked that he was really glad his mother was no longer alive to hear it all. I am starting to feel the same here. I am not all that interested in other people's sex lives but if we could just get it all done with that would be very nice.

 

Added: A million bucks? I have just been going about life in the wrong way!

 

I suggest skimming the sex part as it is relatively unimportant - or just substitute "embarassing situation" for those parts and move on - and look at the important issues of cover up, pay offs, and the selling of U.S. policy for personal reasons.

[kenberg]

I suggest skimming the sex part as it is relatively unimportant - or just substitute "embarassing situation" for those parts and move on - and look at the important issues of cover up, pay offs, and the selling of U.S. policy for personal reasons.

 

Agreed, sure. In this case it really does seem as if the sex is the least of it.

My plan is to let Mueller handle it. The stuff that goes beyond sex is the sort of stuff he is hired to do, and I imagine he will do it.

It was just me expressing exasperation.

I liked it when Kathleen Parker referred to Ms Daniels as Windy or Snowy or something. It provided some much needed distance.

I just get really tired of it.

[Al_U_Card]

Agreed, sure. In this case it really does seem as if the sex is the least of it.

My plan is to let Mueller handle it. The stuff that goes beyond sex is the sort of stuff he is hired to do, and I imagine he will do it.

It was just me expressing exasperation.

I liked it when Kathleen Parker referred to Ms Daniels as Windy or Snowy or something. It provided some much needed distance.

I just get really tired of it.

Ken, with your perspective, would you say that US politics/foreign "policy"/socialization has improved or declined since the 1950s?

[Winstonm]

Agreed, sure. In this case it really does seem as if the sex is the least of it.

My plan is to let Mueller handle it. The stuff that goes beyond sex is the sort of stuff he is hired to do, and I imagine he will do it.

It was just me expressing exasperation.

I liked it when Kathleen Parker referred to Ms Daniels as Windy or Snowy or something. It provided some much needed distance.

I just get really tired of it.

 

I certainly understand. But history tells us we cannot shun our responsibility to self-govern. If there isn't a massive change of direction in both 2018 and 2020, it may be time to find a new home country as this one will not be fit to live in.

[kenberg]

Ken, with your perspective, would you say that US politics/foreign "policy"/socialization has improved or declined since the 1950s?

 

Interesting that you should ask. I am going to Minneapolis/St. Paul next week for the 80th birthday of a friend from childhood. For example we took a multi-day bicycle trip, just the two of us, when I was 13, camping along the St. Croix river. A book of memories is being assembled and I found a picture of the class of 1952, my friend and I are in it, from my elementary school. I sent it off to the organizer. So my mind has been wandering back.

 

The brief answer: I liked growing up in the middle of the last century. Of course I realize that I am white and I am male. Got that. Everyone in that elementary school photo is white. And fwiw, I realized that I can identify with name and some detail, several of the boys, others I can clearly recall but not remember their names. But I recognize only one girl, she lived directly across the alley from me. I can think of several other names of various girls but I cannot match any girl's names with faces. So yes, I was/am a white male. It mattered then, it matters now. But I am also an adopted child of an immigrant who came to this country when he was 10, finished eighth grade, and went to work. Both his parents were dead by the time he was 12. My life has been orders of magnitude easier than his and I think both he and this country had a lot to do with that. I have good reason to look back with gratitude and pleasure.

 

It is very easy to look at the past with rose colored glasses. But the fact is I remember those days with pleasure. My life was good then, but it is also good now. So maybe part of the answer to whether it was better or worse, now or then, is better or worse for whom?

 

I guess I have mostly responded to the "socialization" part of the question. It's the part I feel most competent to respond to. Politics? In 1952 it was Dwight Eisenhower versus Adlai Stevenson. Yeah, I think that was better than Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. That one I find easy/obvious. Foreign Affairs? There was Korea. There still is.

[barmar]

It is very easy to look at the past with rose colored glasses. But the fact is I remember those days with pleasure. My life was good then, but it is also good now. So maybe part of the answer to whether it was better or worse, now or then, is better or worse for whom?

And I grew up in the suburbs on Long Island in the 60's, in a middle class town. It was mostly populated by Jewish families who had moved out of Brooklyn -- there was one black kid in my grade in Junior High School, and I think I had one Christian friend. Since the town was predominantly Jewish, we never, to my knowledge, encountered any anti-Semitism -- I don't think I even knew that it existed until I was a teenager and heard about it on TV (e.g. Archie Bunker using the epithet "Hebes"). Kids went to school by themselves -- there were no parents at the school bus stop, and the only time they ever drove us to school was when we overslept and missed the bus. Kids played in the streets and playgrounds with little supervision. I'm sure my parents were concerned about what was going on at the time (Viet Nam, civil rights), but as kids we were insulated from it, and it seemed like an idyllic childhood. I do remember in elementary school that we had a mock 1968 election -- I didn't understand any of the politics (I was only 7), I just didn't like Nixon (probably mostly because he was ugly and had a gravelly voice); I shudder to think what my 7-year-old self would have thought of Trump vs. Hillary.

[Winstonm]

Quoting Yahoo News:

 

Tic

 

The president has already abandoned ideas to lower drug prices that he supported during the 2016 election campaign, including allowing the government’s Medicare plan for older Americans to negotiate prices directly with drugmakers.

 

Tac

 

Critics say the Trump administration has been swayed by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, which increased its reported spending in Washington by 30 percent last year. Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is a former Eli Lilly & Co executive.

 

Toe

 

Earlier this week, Swiss drugmaker Novartis admitted it paid $1.2 million to a consulting firm created by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who is under investigation over a payment made to a porn star who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump more than a decade ago. Trump denies having sex with the actress

 

Quoting from Vox:

One year into Donald Trump’s presidency, as he delivered his first State of the Union address, he has more or less abandoned his outspoken pledges to bring down the cost of America’s medicines, the highest in the world.

 

“Despite continuing rhetoric that the pharmaceutical companies are getting away with murder,” said Rachel Sachs, a Washington University in St. Louis professor who follows drug pricing, “he has done absolutely nothing on this issue, and that has actually surprised me.”

[kenberg]

And I grew up in the suburbs on Long Island in the 60's, in a middle class town. It was mostly populated by Jewish families who had moved out of Brooklyn -- there was one black kid in my grade in Junior High School, and I think I had one Christian friend. Since the town was predominantly Jewish, we never, to my knowledge, encountered any anti-Semitism -- I don't think I even knew that it existed until I was a teenager and heard about it on TV (e.g. Archie Bunker using the epithet "Hebes"). Kids went to school by themselves -- there were no parents at the school bus stop, and the only time they ever drove us to school was when we overslept and missed the bus. Kids played in the streets and playgrounds with little supervision. I'm sure my parents were concerned about what was going on at the time (Viet Nam, civil rights), but as kids we were insulated from it, and it seemed like an idyllic childhood. I do remember in elementary school that we had a mock 1968 election -- I didn't understand any of the politics (I was only 7), I just didn't like Nixon (probably mostly because he was ugly and had a gravelly voice); I shudder to think what my 7-year-old self would have thought of Trump vs. Hillary.

 

My neighborhood was a mixture of religious backgrounds, meaning Jewish, Catholic, Protestant. And mixture means "A lot of each". Stan Robbins had to go to Hebrew School, I think at least for a year or maybe two, before Bar Mitzvah. As near as I can recall, that is the only reason his religion ever came up. It interfered with other things we wished to do. With Denny Bloom I once said something about "dirty germs", because he was about to drink something from a pop (aka soda) can that wasn't his. He thought I said "dirty Jews", I was stunned, we quickly cleared up that little misunderstanding. My parent's closest friends were the Catholic family across the street. At one time Mae, the mother, was telling my mother that she should take me out of my elementary school and send me to the Catholic school that her kids went to since it was so much better. "We aren't Catholic" was my mother's obvious response and that brought that discussion to an end.

 

I very much think that people of varying religions getting to know one another on a daily basis is the cure for a lot. We did not know any Muslims but surely it would apply there as well. In the neighborhood that I live now, few people much know each other at all. I suppose the kids do.

 

This is a Trump thread, but I think all of this is relevant. We need to see fewer people as enemies. Fewer as the other.

[Winstonm]

Quoting Kenberg:

 

This is a Trump thread, but I think all of this is relevant. We need to see fewer people as enemies. Fewer as the other.

 

From my point of view, this sentiment seems so sane and incontrovertible as to be axiomatic; alas, it is not. And it is in perfect keeping with the Trump thread.

 

Trump is divisive, a conman whose faux leadership obfuscates the goal of his base of supporters for a Moral Majority Jihad to establish an American Right-wing Caliphate. From that viewpoint, you must be either with them or against them.

[ldrews]

Quoting Kenberg:

 

 

 

From my point of view, this sentiment seems so sane and incontrovertible as to be axiomatic; alas, it is not. And it is in perfect keeping with the Trump thread.

 

Trump is divisive, a conman whose faux leadership obfuscates the goal of his base of supporters for a Moral Majority Jihad to establish an American Right-wing Caliphate. From that viewpoint, you must be either with them or against them.

 

So you see Trump as "other" or "enemy". Exactly what Kenberg is talking about.

[MrAce]

So you see Trump as "other" or "enemy". Exactly what Kenberg is talking about.

 

No, he is merely saying that Trump and his base of supporters, just like Jihadists, see the rest of us as either with them or against them.(at least that is how I read it) This is a true statement IMO, both for Jihadists and far right wing in USA.

As I wrote before many times, had Jihadists and far right wing people in USA was born in same country by coincidence, they would be arm to arm. Having lived on both sides, I know that as a fact.

 

Having said this, I for one, who hates Trump, do not see his supporters as an enemy or "other". Yes I have my opinions about the way and ability how they see, believe or think about things and these are not positive as you can guess, however that is also exactly the same reason why I do not get into any political or religious exchange with them in forum, at the bar or anywhere, knowing that my life and time is way too precious for me to waste it by trying to change the way these people think. I disagree with them, but I do not try to change them. Perhaps because my life experience taught me that trying to change these people, try to teach them something, try to communicate with them in political and religious matters, especially the way WinstonM or Richard trying to do in this very topic, is actually like spraying fuel to the fire. I mean seriously, the way they debate in this topic, they almost made ME wanna vote for TRUMP!

[Al_U_Card]

Childhood in an anglo enclave (having learned to read, I asked my mom why the truck delivered late (lait) milk to us...) the neighbourhood was 49/49 protestant/catholic (divided by school boards) with 2 jewish families. I noted this because a girl in my elementary school class had "special" holidays and I would take her homework to her after class. Only a move to a rural area for high school exposed me to a 50:50 french/english demographic. At university I heared a slur ("Paki") for the first time. My exposure to the French-Canadian society came through my kids' mother. My first trip to the US, at that time, was a golf junket with my Dad to N.C.(1976). I noticed the clear divide between whites and blacks (kind of like my experience with French/English and Protestant/Catholic from my childhood) but when we phoned for a tee-time and were told to just show-up, my Dad informed me that it was a way to see our skin colour before allowing us access to the golf course. That really woke me up to the ease with which our society divides along tribal lines. Some things dont, wont or cant change I guess. Democrat/Republican are just a variation on that particular meme.

[ldrews]

 

Having said this, I for one, who hates Trump, do not see his supporters as an enemy or "other". Yes I have my opinions about the way and ability how they see, believe or think about things and these are not positive as you can guess, however that is also exactly the same reason why I do not get into any political or religious exchange with them in forum, at the bar or anywhere, knowing that my life and time is way too precious for me to waste it by trying to change the way these people think. I disagree with them, but I do not try to change them. Perhaps because my life experience taught me that trying to change these people, try to teach them something, try to communicate with them in political and religious matters, especially the way WinstonM or Richard trying to do in this very topic, is actually like spraying fuel to the fire. I mean seriously, the way they debate in this topic, they almost made ME wanna vote for TRUMP!

 

I share many of your attitudes about trying to change other people's minds. I am happy to accept that other's opinions and ideas do not match mine. Where I have a problem is when anyone, me or others, attempts to use the force of government to impose certain views, opinions, or ideas as laws on the rest of society. You believe in single-payer health care; that is fine, just don't pass laws implementing same and assessing penalties for not participating. You believe that the US should be the world's policeman; find, just don't pass laws implementing same and don't start wars or "police actions" without the declaration of war from Congress. Etc., etc. etc.

[Cyberyeti]

I share many of your attitudes about trying to change other people's minds. I am happy to accept that other's opinions and ideas do not match mine. Where I have a problem is when anyone, me or others, attempts to use the force of government to impose certain views, opinions, or ideas as laws on the rest of society. You believe in single-payer health care; that is fine, just don't pass laws implementing same and assessing penalties for not participating. You believe that the US should be the world's policeman; find, just don't pass laws implementing same and don't start wars or "police actions" without the declaration of war from Congress. Etc., etc. etc.

 

This is fine, except that many Trump supporters pick and choose where they want to feel like this.

 

They believe that exceptions should be made for the causes that they think are self evidently right in the face of all the available evidence and use false equivalences.

 

Creation as valid as evolution, and separation of state and religion - except for christianity of course.

 

Everybody is equal - unless you're gay or black ...

[ldrews]

This is fine, except that many Trump supporters pick and choose where they want to feel like this.

 

They believe that exceptions should be made for the causes that they think are self evidently right in the face of all the available evidence and use false equivalences.

 

Creation as valid as evolution, and separation of state and religion - except for christianity of course.

 

Everybody is equal - unless you're gay or black ...

 

I can only speak for myself. The behavior that you are noting I see on all sides of me, Trumpers, anti-Trumpers, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, etc. It seems to be easier to reach for the weapons of government to try to enforce our ideas than to persuade via dialog or negotiate to a mutually beneficial solution.

[ldrews]

verybody is equal - unless you're gay or black ...

 

I disagree with your statement. Nobody is equal. We are all born into different circumstances with different innate abilities and environments. The best we can do is to provide equality before the law. And even there it is uneven due to differing financial circumstances.

[hrothgar]

I share many of your attitudes about trying to change other people's minds. I am happy to accept that other's opinions and ideas do not match mine. Where I have a problem is when anyone, me or others, attempts to use the force of government to impose certain views, opinions, or ideas as laws on the rest of society. You believe in single-payer health care; that is fine, just don't pass laws implementing same and assessing penalties for not participating. You believe that the US should be the world's policeman; find, just don't pass laws implementing same and don't start wars or "police actions" without the declaration of war from Congress. Etc., etc. etc.

 

Governments exist to coerce individuals into obeying the laws of society. This is one of their basic functions.

 

The Supreme Court decided that the Obamacare mandates are valid. You might not like this decision, but it is the law of the land.

If you want to ignore this, please, go ahead. Just understand that there will be repercussions.

 

Personally, I think that it is right and proper for the government to impose fines and lock you up in jail for failure to pay your taxes.

And if you decide to use force to defend yourself, I won't cry a tear if the government guns you down like a wild dog.

[Cyberyeti]

I disagree with your statement. Nobody is equal. We are all born into different circumstances with different innate abilities and environments. The best we can do is to provide equality before the law. And even there it is uneven due to differing financial circumstances.

 

My comment was meant in the context of "before the law". Unfortunately in the US and the UK there is more truth to "A man is considered innocent until proven broke" than I'd like.