Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

He has no clear answers on that. He just keeps repeating that without elaboration.

 

Well then, you should tell Mueller that he made a mistake.

 

1. Scandinavia was never fully socialist, I agree. It was always a blending of socialism with capitalism. But they were incredibly successful, not only economically, but in terms of quality of life as well. I have never advocated making America totally socialist. I've always felt we should keep the capitalist foundations for our economy, but simply adapt some positive socialist ideas & programs into it to soften the hard edges of our social classes, and make America more attractive to the majority of worker classes than now.
2. What conservatives keep overlooking, accidentally or intentionally, is that most regulations are for the purpose of increased safety in some capacity. Your example of a barber applies here too. There are significant issues of health & safety that are connected to the work of a hair stylist or barber. The nose, mouth, eyes or ears are all open expressways for bacteria to enter our bodies, and a comb, brush, shear or even towel dropped on the floor & used after, would be potential sources of infection for the customer. Knowledge of both techniques & the biology of the head, hair, skin, etc, are important for many reasons, and licensing is the most efficient way of guaranteeing this knowledge base is learned.
3. First of all, I saw Trump make that call for Russian hacking many times on TV news reruns, and I NEVER felt he was joking. There was no smiling or sense of kidding or lack of seriousness visible on his face at the time. I'm personally convinced he was serious--deadly serious. He was asking our most serious international competitor to illegally hack into Hillary's computer files & use what they found to help him in his campaign against her. I find that disgusting.

 

Please paste up a few quotes from the Mueller Report that you find especially relevant and persuasive.

 

Perhaps we should call the "Mueller Report" the Mueller Putsch".

 

So, if Putin or Arwan had released all the destroyed DNC/HRC emails to the FBI would that have been a bad thing?

 

I've been doing that.

I'm smart and interesting.

 

Aren't you ignoring Section 4 of Article II???

 

Yes, you are.
I am late to the thread will scroll back when I get the time.

 

Trickle down is a fabrication by Democrats.

However money does tend to flow from those with the money to the hands of those lacking money. This is a well established economic fact.

I mentioned Reagan's ACRS. This the media pretended was not new law. They screamed about benefits to the rich that did happen, but what truly moved the economy was the depreciation law.

This law could be used by almost all Americans so it was trickle to all of us.

I personally in my professional life experienced what Carter was doing and know what he did wrong. Carter did good too. He slashed many of the Democrats favorite rules that harmed all of us out of existence. Democrats later tried to claim this was done by Reagan. But Carter cut out a vast array of harmful trade rules.

I personally recall the enormous problem Carter had called stagflation. This amounted to a third world problem that never should have been the fate of America. Rapid price increases. Taxes going up. The public losing homes. Losing jobs too. Very intensely staggering high rates of interest. Savings and loan industry killed off. Carter really upset the nation. Reagan easily won as a result. And he remained very popular.

I have intensely studied economics from 1967 to now.

I made a good living when Reagan took charge. I had also made a good living under Nixon and later Carter. Carter only hurt us badly around 1979 forward.

Reagan made the economy hum like a swiss timepiece.

I voted for Carter because he was highly qualified. I did not vote for Obama for superficial things like color of the skin, but studied his lack of accomplishment in congress. I says, uh oh, an amateur got elected. And he remained an amateur almost to the end.

Bush is not the cause of the decline of the economy.

Let me tell you how to speed up the economy and each time it is used, it works very well.

I want to introduce you to the money principle known as velocity of money. This concept says to governments, create laws that actually cause the economy to speed up; Most think an economy can be made slower by the Feds, and that is true. But Bush did not pass laws that slowed things down. Bush pursued the velocity of money concept. I don't call it bad luck for Bush that the economy declined. He followed the right rules. When you have a super sized industry, known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, those are the too huge to fail companies.

Bush had to spin like a top to save both companies. That was what harmed the mortgage market. They suddenly were about to collapse.

You mentioned the Bush wars. Afghanistan was conquered in about 6 weeks or so. Iraq less time.

Our major cost for Afghanistan under Bush was paying the Northern Alliance millions of dollars to wage war on both the Taliban but also Al Qaeda. Bush also fed Afghanistan so that was an expense. We also were out the cost of bombers and bombs and missiles. But those all had been paid for much earlier. Bush had all of that in warehouses.

Bush conquered Saddam Hussein so fast with the combat losses of about 140 troops it was like a hot knife hit melted butter. Saddam had to hide for a few months. He was out of action.

About a year past Bush conquering Iraq the Muslims commenced to battle each other. Our losses were in general sneak attacks. Things like hidden explosives on paths. We had men killed but those same IEDS managed to kill a lot of civilians too. Bush did not set up the war to also take care of what many Democrats called a civil war -- the internal struggle by the out of power muslims fighting who they had treated like dirt for a long time.

Should you ask me, I will show you books on this that explain all of this. And experts wrote the books, not reporters. I truly do not like reporters books. They spin all the time. Generals are required to report factually since they are the senior leaders. I also can recommend a book by an ambassador.

Congress is the authority of budgets. Bush did not hide anything. If it got hidden, it was done by congress such as Nancy Pelosi. Along with the Senate that part of the time was for Bush. Other times against Bush.

How many lawyers can you name that are experts on taxes, on economics and on recovery systems? Obama had one of the most massive egos ever by any president. HE was too far over his head. At least with Bush, he was an expert on business and knew how the economy worked. But a lot of no-nothings .. especially in the media pretended Bush hurt the economy.

Lesser known is other experts on the economy defended Bush from the Democrats.

I have had as my first president FDR. I never saw Obama as all that honest. I do not see him as a criminal, but his talent was in conning the public.When he conned us all on the ACA, it was a major con job. I will not in this post explain other says Obama conned us. He conned us into thinking he was anti war. He waged war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Yemen for openers.

Obama has the gift of charm. That is why you regard him so much. I do not deny his charm. He conned the public into thinking he understood the economy. His talent was law. Even in law, most attorneys have more experience than does Obama. But no doubt that on law, he had talent.

It was not morals that attracted you to Obama, It was his gift of gab. You know., i recall Truman to this day. And he did not have the gift of gab but he turned out to understand the economy and of course was not too good at war. His lack of war expertise ended up dooming him.

Blacks are guilty of constantly yanking out the race card. I have no doubt of any kind that there are Americans who only saw his race. We have some fabulous blacks so I never thought his race was an issue.

Condoleezza Rice went from presidents advisor to Sec. of State and was wonderful in both jobs. Blacks have contributed much such as the present great black, Ben Carson. A truly great man.

We currently have voters who when asked do not know who is the president. It is stunning. We have some too who judge blacks by color. But that is a false flag. We had a decent General called Colin Powell. For a 4 star, he was short on combat experience. But he has enormous talent.

Washington. I do not wish you to think he wasted his time fighting. He simply took a very long time given it was not a large war. He was chronically short of an army too. Tax issues is what most claim he attacked England over.

We do oppose the current tax system. When the IRS started, all it had to do was take 5 percent of the rich peoples income. If today we took 5 percent, I do not see how any of us could object other than on grounds of not treating the rich as equals with the same rights as we who are very low taxed. 47 percent of Americans that enjoy benefits of Government pay to the IRS nothing at all to pay for Government., They are limited to benefits gained upon retirement as payments there. SS and Medicare. But that won't buy you roads nor aircraft carriers.

Besides on Washington, I ranked him based on what we know about all presidents. When he lived he was a hero. Except to Ameridan's who did not mind the King at all.

Slavery is either good for the country or bad. Washington was fabulously wealthy. Go to Mt Vernon where you learn more than you think you will.

As a former RE appraiser, I can just spin my mind thinking of the present market value of Mt. Vernon and what is there is a tiny piece of what Washington owned. HE was staggeringly wealthy.

I compliment you for your assessment of Jefferson. I am not running him down but trying to classify him among all of our presidents.

Abe would really leap up had he not waged war on the South. Say it was now Trump.Say he got pissed off that in KY, some men with small guns shot at the walls of Ft. Knox. While no soldier got harmed, he decided to call up a large army and have them march into KY. Would you approve that too? Abe got pissed off that in one state, in one harbor, against a powerful fort, men hit the walls with cannon balls. We have powerful cannon today. Those men of that era had low power cannon. A modern day Howitzer could put a fast end to Ft. Sumpter and kill all of them there. But not in 1861. Black powder is a weak gunpowder. Abe also could have refused to enter VA. Those poor people never shot at Sumter. Don't we value sitting down and making deals? Abe did not go for a deal. It is amazing you actually defend a republican.

Abe did not invade VA due to race. And at the time one might see what was going on as very bad. Today no black is a slave. Your Jim Crow laws were all Democrats Jim Crow Laws.
Most of the time,.slaved did not drift too far from the plantation on assignments. Whites were so used to blacks they actually were often time friends. Even slaves came to truly like the white plantation family that treated them well. Those who beat a slave gave us today a black eye on how we saw the plantation owners.

Today some whites beat up animals. But unless you are a bigot, you do not say whites beat up animals. I recall a black pro football player that abused his dogs but do not to to war over a black mistreating his dogs.

The so called civil war ruined the South. They had nothing to offer blacks. When you blow up a white plantation, and his home no longer exists, how can you fault him when he has nothing to hand to blacks. Democrats Jim Crow laws would not exist had Abe not invaded the South and destroyed their homes and cities. Want a good photo of Richmond when Abe destroyed it?



Abe reduced blacks from living in homes and where gardens were to existing in the above conditions.

Charlottesville was no issue over blacks other than by antifa. Charlottesville was to stop the north from destroying remaining monuments in that city of the South. The north has plenty of monuments it can destroy. Why not rip down the statue of Arthur Ashe on a main street in Richmond. I actually like his monument there but mention it to make a point.

The South was virtually destroyed by Abe and your own party had to survive somehow.

Mitch packed the court? It was viturally an even divide prior but Kennedy was no Democrat. He broke bread with both teams.

Mitch was nowhere as dangerous as was Abe Lincoln.

FDR knew better than to stuff over 130 ships of war in the tiny harbor that is shallow known as Pearl Harbor.

Imagine if you will that Trump stuffed our navy in a tiny harbor close to China or even Russia. FDR was begging to get attacked by the Japanese. How own fleet command warned him he was doing wrong.

Also, rather than see Hitler as an evil man, FDR was mimicking Hitlers economy.

How friendly to Hitler was FDR? Well he allowed Ford and Charles Lindbergh to travel at will to Germany and other famous Americans. They visited Germany due to the fabulous but socialist Germany. The closest Socialism came to working was Germany prior to Hitler waging war on other countries. He might be lauded today for economics had he not waged wars.

I urge all lovers of history read this article.
http://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/

Part 1 starts in the next post.

Now, thank you so much for a great discussion with a man who knows a lot of true things.

 

Part 1

More Americans Supported Hitler Than You May Think. Here's Why One Expert Thinks That History Isn't Better Known

BY LILY ROTHMAN
OCTOBER 4, 2018


These days, and especially since the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., last August, it has become clear to many Americans that the specter of Nazism in their country is not resigned to 1930s history. But until very recently, even that part of the story was less well known than it is today.

In fact, when Bradley W. Hart first started researching the history of Nazi sympathy in the United States a few years ago, he was largely driven by the absence of attention to the topic. Hart’s new book Hitler’s American Friends: The Third Reich’s Supporters in the United States argues that the threat of Nazism in the United States before World War II was greater than we generally remember today, and that those forces offer valuable lessons decades later — and not just because part of that story is the history of the “America First” idea, born of pre-WWII isolationism and later reborn as a slogan for now-President Donald Trump.

“There’s certainly a raw and visceral shock to seeing swastikas displayed in American streets,” Hart tells TIME. “But this is a topic I’d been working on for quite a while at that point, and while it wasn’t something I expected, it was a trend I’d been observing. I wasn’t terribly shocked but there’s still a visceral reaction when you see that kind of symbolism displayed in the 21st century.”

Hart, who came to the topic via research on the eugenics movement and the history of Nazi sympathy in Britain, says he realized early on that there was a lot more to the American side of that story than most textbooks acknowledged. Some of the big names might get mentioned briefly — the radio priest Father Charles Coughlin, or the highly public German American Bundorganization — but in general, he says, the American narrative of the years leading up to World War II has elided the role of those who supported the wrong side. And yet, American exchange students went to Germany and returned with glowing reviews, while none other than Charles Lindbergh denounced Jewish people for pushing the U.S. toward unnecessary war. In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe.

So why was that past overlooked for so long?

In part, Hart theorizes, it’s because the American story of World War II is such a powerful national narrative. The United States, that narrative says, helped save the world. Rocked by Pearl Harbor, Americans stepped up to turn the tide for the Allies and thus solidified their nation’s place as a global superpower. That narrative doesn’t have much room for the relatively small, but significant, number of Americans who were rooting for the other side.

“It’s always been uncomfortable in this country to talk about isolationism, though the ideas are still out there,” he says, “It’s part of the American mythology. We want to remember ourselves as always having been on the right side in this war.”

It was also possible for those who had participated in Nazi-sympathetic groups to later cloak their beliefs in the Cold War’s anti-communist push — a dynamic that had in fact driven some of them to fascism in the first place, as it seemed “tougher on communism than democracy is,” as Hart puts it. (One survey he cites found that in 1938, more Americans thought that communism was worse than fascism than vice versa.) Such people could truthfully insist that they’d always been anti-communist without revealing that they’d been fascists, and their fellow Americans were still so worried about communism that they might not press the matter.

“We still don’t totally know the scope of this,” he adds, noting that some important documents are still classified.



History Newsletter
Stay on top of the history behind today’s news. View Sample
SIGN UP NOW

Plenty of the story’s beats have modern counterparts. For example, the Foreign Agents Registration Act that ensnared Paul Manafort was a product of that time. Hart’s book also covers controversy over whether those with extreme political views should be allowed to speak on college campuses, a debate that still rages today. The most interesting parallel to Hart himself is that between the type of social-media misinformation campaigns that popped up around the 2016 election and the use of propaganda by Nazi agents in the United States. (In one remarkable incident, a German agent and a sympathetic congressional aide were able to take advantage of franking privileges — free mailing services available for Congressional communication with constituents — to distribute amassive amount of official-looking propaganda.) In both cases, one major goal of those involved was simply to create a situation in which Americans weren’t sure what to believe. The takeaway, he says, is that the effect of unreliable news may be more important than the actual content of those stories.

“They weren’t trying to push the U.S. into an alliance with Nazi Germany. They see that as outlandish, though they would have loved it. What they want to do is confuse American public opinion. That’s what we’re seeing coming back in the era of social media,” he explains. “Confusion means there’s no public will to do anything and in a democracy we rely on the public will to take action.”

But perhaps the biggest reason why it’s possible for the U.S. to have forgotten about this history is that its worst potential — a sympathetic politician reaching the highest levels of power on an isolationist platform — was never realized.

“The real threat here, which the U.S. was fortunate to avoid, was a figure like Charles Lindbergh managing to bring all these groups together in time for an election,” Hart says. “The timing just never really worked out for that, fortunately.”

The real heroes of this story, as Hart sees it, are America’s political parties, and the establishment politicians who kept extreme isolationists off ballots. Today, now that primary elections generally make those decisions instead, that’s a role that falls to every American.

“The responsibility has passed from party elites down to primary voters,” Hart says. “That’s something that anybody who votes in a primary should think about: Is this person I’m voting for really the right person not just for the party but for the country?”

Write to Lily Rothman at lily.rothman@time.com.

 

I'll take your word for it.

Since when did he become my spokesman?

 

Clearly, you like Trump & his behaviors. I find him & his behaviors disgusting. I want a President who not only makes us feel proud of America, but makes us feel proud of our President. Trump isn't that person. Unlike Trumpsters, I don't feel being arrogant & aggressive & demanding & demeaning toward others is an admirable trait in our national leaders.

 

You prefer Obama's apology tour, I don't. Trump makes me feel proud of America, and our president.

 

It failed is all.

 

Socialist economists John Roemer and Pranab Bardhan criticise Nordic-style social democracy for its questionable effectiveness in promoting relative egalitarianism as well as its sustainability. They point out that Nordic social democracy requires a strong labour movement to sustain the heavy redistribution required, arguing that it is idealistic to think similar levels of redistribution can be accomplished in countries with weaker labour movements. They note that even in the Scandinavian countries social democracy has been in decline since the weakening of the labour movement in the early 1990s, arguing that the sustainability of social democracy is limited. Roemer and Bardham argue that establishing a market socialisteconomy by changing enterprise ownership would be more effective than social democratic redistribution at promoting egalitarian outcomes, particularly in countries with weak labour movements.[65]

Historian Guðmundur Jónsson argues that it would be inaccurate to include Iceland in one aspect of the Nordic model, that of consensus democracy. He writes that "Icelandic democracy is better described as more adversarial than consensual in style and practice. The labour market was rife with conflict and strikes more frequent than in Europe, resulting in strained government–trade union relationship. Secondly, Iceland did not share the Nordic tradition of power-sharing or corporatism as regards labour market policies or macro-economic policy management, primarily because of the weakness of Social Democrats and the Left in general. Thirdly, the legislative process did not show a strong tendency towards consensus-building between government and opposition with regard to government seeking consultation or support for key legislation. Fourthly, the political style in legislative procedures and public debate in general tended to be adversarial rather than consensual in nature".[66]

In their paper "The Scandinavian Fantasy: The Sources of Intergeneration Mobility in Denmark and the U.S.", Rasmus Landersøn and James J. Heckman compared American and Danish social mobility and found that social mobility is not as high as figures might suggest in the Nordic countries. When looking exclusively at wages (before taxes and transfers), Danish and American social mobility are very similar. It is only after taxes and transfers are taken into account that Danish social mobility improves, indicating that Danish economic redistribution policies simply give the impression of greater mobility. Additionally, Denmark's greater investment in public education did not improve educational mobility significantly, meaning children of non-college educated parents are still unlikely to receive college education, though this public investment did result in improved cognitive skills amongst poor Danish children compared to their American peers. The researchers also found evidence that generous welfare policies could discourage the pursuit of higher-level education due to decreasing the economic benefits that college education level jobs offer and increasing welfare for workers of a lower education level.[67]

Nima Sanandaji, a libertarian, has also criticised the Nordic model, questioning the link between the model and socio-economic outcomes in works of his such as Scandinavian Unexceptionalism[68] and Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism.

 

You're welcome, but it was also for the benefit of other posters. Especially me. Having to read the fact free sentiments of uninformed posters is an unnecessary ordeal for everyone.

 

We buy food from an unlicensed food merchant.

Yet we buy both fine and bad products.

I was told by my own city tax division I do not have a city license but a paper saying I paid taxes.

What we can't ignore is most regulations come from Democrats. This meddling in our business lives is an anathema to Democrat when supposedly done to the working class. Yet they meddle all the time in the lives of the working class.

My first wife had an education in hair styling but only by studying the before license vs the after license do we learn why they get a license.

Take CA and my real estate brokers license. We are a class of people who come very close to playing the same role as a specialty of lawyers. Both can write real estate contracts.Both can offer advice to the consumer for a fee. Both are held to high standards and must abide a rigid code of ethics. But we handle clients money. We tightly control the movement of clients funds. We keep outstanding records that the state can study.

But who called loudly be licensed and promise to follow all laws?

We called for the State to play that role. When it finally agreed, it set up a Department of Real Estate. CA may not then have been ruled by Democrats but those times were different than today. People living in say 1910 minded their own business where today the Democrats mind our businesses. I also include private parties.

My former wife naturally would never pour a bottle of bleach on her customers and she was required to know about hair coloring. Cutting hair was a different topic.There to do a good job, she learned about cutting hair correctly. I do not pretend to know the licensing laws of every state but I know Californias.

I must know more about law of CA than of say VA. I visited RE brokers in VA and they do not operate as we do in CA. They must hire a lawyer. We do the work of a lawyer.

 

Why send other posters on a fruitless chase? Why not support your own claims with evidentiary facts?

 

You could have legally done it. I could legally have called for it. Trump was not president. HE was in the same legal class you and I are in.

But to presume the Russians listened to Trump is so damned funny.

I heard that and from a purely legal view, I saw it as a huge ribbing to Hillary for hiding her thousands of e mails that were official property of the USA

Had Hillary did it to Trump of course then it was fine and dandy.

 

Hillary paid for Russian opposition research. YES she did.

If the Russians were pro Trump, why did they supply Hillary with the research?

 

Many have similar complaints, including his tweeting, but the real question is whether or not he is an effective President. Obama's demeanor was okay but he was ineffective. So was Carter. Trump is getting the job done, and that's what matters..

 

There in Berlin is a old famous monument. It is called the Siegessaule. I have my black and white photos but let's see it in color. I have walked around that monument.

Obama went To Germany to apologize to the Germans and they cheered him on. A shameful day. There at the tower, dedicated to German victory, was Obama yapping his face off to the Germans apparently not aware of it's true purpose.

He was as a private citizen making the Germans bold promises. But e was not legally able to do it.

See those bronze things? Those are cannons. That is a Victory Tower. It is a conquerors tower.
The Victory Column (German: Siegessäule (help·info), from Sieg ‘victory’ + Säule ‘column’) is a monument in Berlin, Germany. Designed by Heinrich Strack after 1864 to commemorate the Prussian victory in the Danish-Prussian War, by the time it was inaugurated on 2 September 1873, Prussia had also defeated Austria and its German allies in the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), giving the statue a new purpose. Different from the original plans, these later victories in the so-called unification wars inspired the addition of the bronze sculpture of Victoria, 8.3 metres (27 ft) high and weighing 35 tonnes, designed by Friedrich Drake. Berliners have given the statue the nickname Goldelse, meaning something like "Golden Lizzy".[1]

The Victory Column is a major tourist attraction in the city of Berlin. Its viewing platform, for which a ticket is required, offers a view over Berlin.

 

JBJ yanked out his huge penis and screwed women in the white house. Will you get as upset at Johnson as you do Trump. Why do you think they call a mans penis a Johnson?

 

The only authority Mueller lacked was the authority to indict. Mueller violated no laws, and broke no rules, by doing what he did - which was to preserve the evidence for a possible future prosecution.

Congress would not be making up a crime; his actions are consistent with obstruction of justice if they can establish corrupt intent.

You are ignoring Trump's obstruction of justice. Mueller explicitly did not exonerate Trump of this.

If you think it reasonable to assert Clinton committed crimes, despite there being no charges, then you should similarly accept that Demcrats are reasonable for asserting Trump committed crimes despite no charges. A double standard would be hypocritical.