Now the question must be asked: Why is Donald Trump behaving in a manner that would seem to be consistent with A WANNABE STRONGMAN/DICTATOR, WHOSE IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR ONLY SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THE EXTREMIST WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1- His Campaign Strategy was exactly what you would expect from a Candidate who sought to Divide the Country by RACIAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC LINES. There is NOTHING HE HAS SAID, OR DONE, WHILE OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE THAT SHOULD SUPRISE ANYONE WHO LISTENED TO HIS CAMPAIGN RHETORIC. TRUMP IS EXACTLY WHAT WE THOUGHT HE WOULD BE...
...AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE HE SITS.
2- He did not earn the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH A FAIR AND HONEST ELECTION. BOGUS VOTER TOTALS HANDED HIM THE OFFICE... (See my posts on this subject.)
...AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE HE SITS.
3- The Traditional Republican leadership supports him as long as Their Monetary Policies are tied up with the success of the SOCIETY OF HATE AGENDA THAT FUELS THE NEW FASCIST ELEMENT OF THE GOP. They only turn on him if Their Financial Agenda of DISREGARDING THE NEEDS OF MOST AMERICANS, TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHY, FAILS... ...AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE HE SITS. 4- Using the Office of President to Endorse and Promote "WEALTH BUILDING" programs on the Internet... ...AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE HE SITS. GIVEN ALL OF THE ABOVE, WHY SHOULD TRUMP HOLD BACK HIS DESIRE TO MOLD THE U.S. INTO A COUNTRY THAT MIMICS THE BELIEFS OF HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTERS, THE FAR RIGHT FANATICS. AFTER ALL, NO CONSEQUENCES SO FAR...
As the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES ITS MARCH TO THE ABYSS, PROGRESSIVES, LIBERALS AND OTHER GROUPS THAT HAVE OPPOSED HIM FROM THE BEGINNING MUST REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING: HE ATTAINED THE OVAL OFFICE THROUGH A SHAM ELECTION, WHERE THE RESULTS WERE INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAWMAKERS AND POLITICIANS WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE DONALD TRUMPS ABILITY TO USE WHATEVER MEANS IS NECESSARY TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF THOSE WHO HELPED HIM ATTAIN POWER. HIS DECISION TO BAR OR REMOVE TRANSGENDER AMERICANS FROM THE MILITARY IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE, FOR IT ACCOMPLISHED TWO THINGS; 1) IT GAVE THE FAR RIGHT A "TENTATIVE VICTORY" THAT IT COULD POINT TO AS PROOF THAT THEY WERE STILL A FORCE THAT COULD MOLD PUBLIC POLICY. and... 2) DONALD TRUMP RE-AFFIRMED, TO THE FAR RIGHT, THAT HE WAS STILL THEIR CHAMPION. THIS MEANS THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO ABANDON THE IDEOLOGY THAT THEY BELIEVE ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE FORCED TO CONFORM TO. That being said, what can be done to stop DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS SUPPORTERS FROM DRAGGING THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES INTO A HATE FILLED "HOLY WAR", WHERE DISAGREEING WITH, OR OPPOSING DONALD TRUMP IS MET WITH A TEMPER TANTRUM, AND FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. A good place to start is to acknowledge the following: That the Agenda of the FAR RIGHT FANATIC is to turn the U.S. into an OLIGARCHY, WHERE POLITICAL POWER RESTS IN THE HANDS OF A CHOSEN FEW. However, BEING OPEN ABOUT SUCH A GOAL WOULD NOT PLAY WITH THE AVERAGE VOTER, SO MORE SUBTLE FORMS OF PERSUASION MUST BE USED TO DECEIVE AND MISLEAD. ONE EXAMPLE IS THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. SINCE THE SENATE FAILED TO OVERTURN THE LAW, DONALD TRUMP IS CONSIDERING MORE INSIDIOUS WAYS TO GET THE LAW REMOVED. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE; CAUSING FAILURE BY SABOTAGE, AND NOT ALLOWING THE LAW TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON ITS OWN MERITS. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN... ...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT FAILING TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIC GOALS... ...AND... ...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BEING PREVENTED FROM ACHIEVING SPECIFIC GOALS. OR THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN... ...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT NOT BEING STRUCTURED PROPERLY, WHERE DEFICIENCIES CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AND CHANGED... ...AND... ...IGNORING THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST IN LAW TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES. SEE PART 2.
In the end, subsidized health care is not an economic issue. When we say that government has an obligation to provide all citizens with affordable medical insurance, a moral decision has been made. That does not mean that in the future such a decision will not lead to practical benefits, where the return is not in just doing what is right. I will get into that part of the equation in a future post, but for now I will stay on topic.
In the debate over Universal Health Care in the U.S, much of the rhetoric ignores the bottom line. Opponents are using objections that they wish us to believe are valid and on target, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen. They choose to criticize how the program is to be funded and administered, all the while avoiding answering the most important question; IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE SUBSIDIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE TO AMERICANS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE IT, THROUGH PRIVATE SOURCES, A MORAL OBLIGATION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ALL OF ITS' CITIZENS?
The above question is often not satisfactorily answered by the critics of subsidized health care, who choose to attack the mechanics of the new law. However, the criticisms are often based on misleading, false or incomplete data. This strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the debate away from the purpose of the program and focus it on issues that are easy to manipulate. Many times this is done by using assumptions and conclusions that are not based in reality.
I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1. To often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced:
Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION , NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.
Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit. Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities. This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own. However, unlikecurrent social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY. As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.
Those who have high enough incomes that make attaining quality health care plans a non-issue.
Private health care plans that are partially or wholly subsidized by an employer.
Individuals and families with an income that falls below a certain level, which is set by the federal government.
These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.
This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted. The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income. Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.
I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article.
The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole."
The subject- Health Care.
Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S and its' territories, is not an economic question.
If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage,
funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans.
This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;
Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide minimal affordable medical care to all.
That many people will, through taxation, provide a service that will be of direct benefit to others and not them personally.
That in the question of the right or wrong of a given situation, choosing a moral stand is;
1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.
2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection
of individuals.
To illustrate what I mean, here is an example. Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith. Now such decisions have two distinct implications;
Is the individual going to decide the morality of any given situation solely by religious instruction and nothing else. If not, they have invalidated their own moral code, for it is not universally applied. It contradicts any assertion that the doctrine of their faith, regarding morality, is to be accepted absolutely.
Does the individual wish to establish this system of morality for all of society, and punish any deviations.
If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?
NORMALLY I DON'T MAKE PUBLIC ANY PETITIONS THAT I HAVE SIGNED, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. HOWEVER, THE NATIONAL TRAGEDY THAT IS DONALD TRUMP MUST BE CONFRONTED BY ALL AMERICANS WHO STILL WANT TO LIVE IN A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY, WHERE LOGIC, REASON, AND EQUALITY FOR ALL ARE NOT REPLACED BY FASCISM, HATE, RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY, AND XENOPHOBIA. DAVID MCDONALD, PUBLISHER.
NANCY PELOSI. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
David: Nancy really needs you right now, because your support
means so much during these troubling times.
SIGN ON TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH & END THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
No one is above the law. This is about more than politics. This is about the kind of America we want to see. Add your name to stand with Nancy and let’s end this gross culture of corruption once and for all and expose the truth.
The Basis for much of this Type of Fallacy, is often ZEALOTRY being masked behind Specific Beliefs and Attitudes found in Religion and Nationalism. These are used as Reasons to claim that Certain;
- EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH.
- POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES.
- CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ATTITUDES, BASED ON CLASS DISTINCTION.
Are Supported by Individuals who claim They want what is Best for Every Individual, which Includes Families and Friends, and the Country as a whole. However, Upon Closer Analysis, we find that such Conclusions are not Based in Reality, and Often hide a SELF- SERVING AGENDA.
Unlike the SOCIOPATH, (See FEATURE ARTICLES), most People don't want to Think that others are Being Cheated, Harmed or Treated Unfairly. This is Especially True if They are Getting Benefits or Advantages Denied to Others. This can become a Crisis of Conscience, unless they can RATIONALIZE THE INEQUALITY IN A WAY THAT LETS THEM OFF THE HOOK. It may not take much to Alleviate any Feelings of Guilt, and POLITICS OFTEN OFFERS A CONVENIENT WAY OUT OF THIS EMOTIONAL DILEMMA.
This is the FOUNDATION OF ZEALOTRY THAT IS FOUND IN MANY PARTS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. It Allows SUPPORTERS;
- To Draw Conclusions about Entire Segments of Society, without providing any Real Evidence that All Members of such Groups Deserves to be Judged in the Same Light.
- To Justify abolishing certain Government Programs Designed to Address Economic and Social Hardships, if there are any Problems in how they are Administered, while at the same time ignoring the Positive Affects on those who were meant to be Helped. Further, these Same Types of Problems are Given a Free Pass, and are not Addressed, if They Occur in Programs that the Zealots Benefit From.
- To Claim Discrimination or Unfairness if New Laws or Judicial Decisions take away Their Privileged Status, and Offer Equality Under the Law by Legalizing Social Behaviors and Civil Contracts that will give all the same Status.
ZEALOTRY IS OFTEN THE FACE OF INTOLERANCE, JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR IRRATIONAL THINKING.
ALTHOUGH I USE THE TV SHOW,"THE BIG BANG THEORY" FOR AN EXAMPLE, TODAYS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CLIMATE ARE FULL OF THIS, ALL TO COMMON, LOGICAL FALLACY.
For this example, we can again turn to "BIG BANG THEORY", to give us an idea on how this Fallacy Works in the Real World.
Do you remember these Episodes;
- Where Penny claimed that Sheldon went on a Psychotic Rant when she tried to create Horoscopes for the others. She Refers to him as a "TYPICAL TAURUS."
- That ended with Leonard agreeing to visit Pennys Psychic, and her refusal to read a Book Debunking Psychic Phenomena.
- That saw Raj agreeing with Sheldon that according to Hindu Tradition, he was responsible for Controlling his Sister Priyas Baser Instincts, because that was the Job of the Closest Male Relative. However, when Priya points out that the same Tradition Punishes Raj for Consuming Beef, he backs off saying some of it is crazy, some of it isn't. (Referring to Hindu Tradition.)
These are examples of the FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE, WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AS: CRITICIZING OTHERS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THEIR BELIEFS AS VALID AND/OR DESERVING OF RESPECT, BUT REFUSING TO HOLD THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT DOING THE SAME FOR THOSE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS.
This is a Fallacy that can appear in many different ways, but Applying it to the CATEGORIES OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, POLITICS, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SEEM TO BE THE MOST PREVALENT FORMS IN TODAYS SOCIETY.
HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF ARTICLES THAT FACEBOOK TOOK OFF ITS PAGES. (THERE ARE MANY MORE.) THEY USED THE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST EXCUSE OF: "AGAINST THEIR COMMUNITY STANDARDS", NEVER BEING SPECIFIC. IF YOU THINK I'M BEING UNFAIR, GOOGLE "DONALD TRUMP" GROUPS ON FACEBOOK, AND SEE WHAT THEY ALLOW TRUMPIANS TO PUBLISH.
QUICK HITTERS. FOR THE PEOPLE...?
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES- PARTS 1 AND 2.
FICTION THAT SENDS A MESSAGE: USING RELIGIOUS FAITH AS A WEAPON.
LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #7. THE FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE. PT 1.
From the first MINUTE of his presidency, Trump has spewed racism, cozied up
to dictators and fired anyone who disagrees with him. Now the House has opened an
impeachment inquiry against him! Despite all this, Trump still thinks he
should get to keep damaging our country for FOUR MORE YEARS.
The
American people know better: CNN
just released a poll saying six in 10 Americans believe Trump does NOT
deserve a second term –
If this
can be confirmed, it would be HUGE for Democrats, so we’re conducting our own
Trump Approval poll.But we’re still 62
responses short in 02771 to reach statistical significance, and the poll
closes at 11:59 p.m. tonight. Tell us now:
A visitor to the at the National Rifle Association annual meeting walked past signage for the event in Indianapolis, Saturday, April 27, 2019.
Michael Conroy/AP
Updated at 11:53 a.m. ET
The National Rifle Association acted as a "foreign asset" for Russia in the period leading up to the 2016 election, according to a new investigation unveiled Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Drawing on contemporaneous emails and private interviews, an 18-month probe by the Senate Finance Committee's Democratic staff found that the NRA underwrote political access for Russian nationals Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin more than previously known — even though the two had declared their ties to the Kremlin.
Then-NRA vice president Pete Brownell, who would later become NRA president, was enticed to visit Russia with the promise of personal business opportunities — and the NRA covered a portion of the trip's costs.
The conclusions of the Senate investigation could have legal implications for the NRA, Wyden says.
Tax-exempt organizations are barred from using funds for the personal benefit of its officials or for actions significantly outside their stated missions. The revelations in the Senate report raise questions about whether the NRA could face civil penalties or lose its tax-exempt status.
Attorneys general in the state of New York and the District of Columbia are conducting separate probes into alleged wrongdoing at the gun rights organization. These probes have a broader scope than the Senate report, which focuses on Russia.
Majority response: This is overblown
The Republican majority on the Senate Finance Committee, which was consulted periodically throughout the Democrats' investigation, said Friday the report was overblown.
In the Republicans' analysis of Wyden's report, the majority argued that it does not account for U.S.-Russia relations at the time and contains "much conclusory innuendo... and repeatedly attempts to paint a picture that does not exist."
The Republicans also argued that if the NRA committed any infractions, they would be small and do not put the NRA's tax-exempt status at risk.
"To the extent NRA funds were used improperly in any facts discussed in the [Democratic report led by Wyden], it appears to have been minor, hardly a rounding error for an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year and nothing that cannot be corrected with minor intermediate sanctions," the Republican analysis states.
Kremlin links were clear
Wyden's 77-page report centers on Butina — a convicted Russian agent now in federal prison — and Torshin, a former Russian government official who has been sanctioned by the United States.
The report indicates that top NRA officials were aware of Butina's and Torshin's links with the Kremlin even as they sought to work more closely together under the banner of gun rights.
In an email later circulated to two senior NRA staff members, Butina wrote that a purpose of the 2015 Moscow trip was that "many powerful figures in the Kremlin are counting on Torshin to prove his American connections" by showing he could bring prominent NRA officials to Russia.
At another point, Butina suggested to participants on the 2015 NRA trip to Russia that she might be able to set up a meeting between them and President Vladimir Putin, referring to him as "Russia's highest leader."
NRA facilitated political access
Despite these declarations about their ties to the Russian government, NRA officials paid for and facilitated Torshin and Butina's introduction into American political organizations.
Butina and Torshin received access to Republican Party officials at NRA events.
It was a explicit interest expressed by Butina: In one 2015 email to an NRA employee, Butina wrote, "is there a list of U.S. governors or members of Congress that might be present at some time during the [NRA] annual meeting?"
The employee responded with a list.
The NRA also helped them forge connections with groups such as the Council for National Policy, the National Prayer Breakfast, the National Sporting Goods Wholesalers Association and Safari Club International.
"NRA resources appear to have been used to pay for membership and registration fees to third party events for [Torshin and Butina] as well as to arrange for transit to and lodging for many of those events throughout 2015 and 2016," the report states.
Report contradicts NRA denials
The Senate report notes that in 2018, then-NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch repeatedly denied that the group leaders' 2015 trip to Moscow was sanctioned by the gun rights group.
But in a letter obtained by the committee, then-NRA President Allan Cors wrote to Torshin on NRA letterhead after consulting with NRA staff and former NRA President David Keene.
Cors designated two NRA figures to lead the trip: "Dave Keene and [top NRA donor] Joe Gregory will represent the NRA and our five million members better than anyone else," he wrote.
During the course of the investigation, Brownell's lawyer also told the committee that Brownell believed the trip was an official NRA event.
This view is further strengthened by the committee's evidence that NRA staff prepared itineraries, gathered briefing materials, applied for tourist visas, paid for some of the travel expenses, and provided the delegation with NRA gifts to give to Russian officials.
The Senate investigation also found evidence that the NRA tried to hide various payments related to the trip.
Brownell covered approximately $21,000 in expenses related to the trip; in June 2016, the NRA reimbursed Brownell just over $21,000.
After questions were raised about the trip in 2018, Brownell paid the NRA $17,000 — a transaction that Brownell's lawyer told the committee was requested by the NRA as a way of "getting the trip off the NRA's books."
NRA leaders sought business opportunities
The Senate investigation concludes that a number of NRA figures on the 2015 trip traveled to Russia "primarily or solely for the purpose of advancing personal business interests, rather than advancing the NRA's tax-exempt purpose."
Brownell, then a vice president of the NRA, is the CEO of a major firearms supplier bearing his last name.
In an email to a staffer at his business, Brownell described his trip as "an opportunity to be hosted in Russia to broaden our business opportunities ... to introduce our company to the governing individuals throughout Russia."
"The NRA directly facilitated Brownell's effort to travel to Moscow early to explore business opportunities with Russian weapons manufacturers," the report concludes.
Another member of the trip, NRA donor and then-Outdoor Channel CEO Jim Liberatore, told the Senate committee through his lawyer that his participation in the 2015 Moscow trip was "purely commercial."
Wyden seeks IRS probe
Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said at the conclusion of his investigation that his staff had revealed information that shows that the National Rifle Association may have abused its tax-exempt status.
The next step, he says, is for the IRS to launch its own inquiry.
"The totality of evidence uncovered during my investigation, as well as the mounting evidence of rampant self-dealing, indicate the NRA may have violated tax laws," Wyden said. "The IRS needs to examine these findings and investigate other publicly reported incidents of potential lawbreaking."
