FWIW, my attempt to quantify "scam".

I will admit I do not know the veracity of this analysis but open to any counter statistics. Admittedly, I would have thought the number was greater than 70-80% and admittedly, its not broken down by region/origin.

Reduce Refugee and Visa Fraud | NumbersUSA

LOL. I expected nothing less. Yes, silly me. You said "these people" and I assumed you meant all.

My bad.

I'm now convinced that the best, and perhaps only, Democratic candidate to beat Trump in 2020 is Andrew Yang. While other candidates are playing to the base, I keep seeing people on the Internet write stuff like, "Trump supporter in 2016, but changing party affiliation to Democratic so I can vote Andrew Yang in the primaries." No other Dem candidate I see is getting people to cross party lines to support him - and his platform is still progressive in nature.

I'm all on board with Yang. That said, no way he makes it through the primaries, because the Dems gonna Dem and put up an establishment candidate (Sanders/Harris/Buttigieg).

EDIT: Yang is also the only Dem candidate that the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are trying to bring down and discredit. They must know he has the knowledge to make real change.

The only things I know about Yang is that he wants UBI (though I'm not sure how he wants to pay for it and what's to stop inflation) and that he wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders. I have no problem with someone convicted of simple possession being released but sellers are basically peddling poison for their own profit. They should be locked up.

I saw Bernie had raised 18 mil this quarter.

Im a Yang fan as well. But no way he can compete with that.

And I was looking at Bill Weld. But he has no chance against Trump. I havent seen a lot of his policy ideas. But I like Gary Johnson, so I would listen.

Sanders is *totally* establishment

That's an interesting list to give as an example of establishment candidates. One isn't actually a Democrat. One is a gay small town mayor that none of us had heard of 2 months ago. And one is a black woman. I think I'll agree with you that Harris is establishment, but most of the other people running are more establishment than she is.

And I know nothing about Yang, but I'm a UBI fan, so I do agree with his one major policy proposal.

Only in this election could someone like Harris be named an establishment candidate, LOL. Any other (and I guess pre-Trump) she'd be considered a long shot due to lack of experience. Same with Buttigieg. Then again, it's a long primary season.

Yeah, it's weird. Biden is establishment.

Calling just about any of the others that have thrown their hat in so far establishment is a stretch.

I'll grant that it's odd to call them establishment, but I call them that because they're getting a buttload of corporate donations, whereas Yang is all grassroots. Take Buttigieg, for example. He comes across as a good guy and says all the right things, but he worked for McKinsey & Company, which has its tentacles in all kinds of powerful corporations. And right now he, Harris, and people like Beto are all fluff and not giving much in the way of policy, whereas Yang (and to be fair Sanders) is presenting a lot of policy ideas.

I just feel like there are a lot of Democratic candidates that are saying a lot of anti-establishment stuff but have a lot of corporate backing. Please give me someone that's not in bed with Big Business.

And just because you are a black woman or a gay, small-town mayor doesn't make you anti-establishment.

I may argue, however, that Governor Inslee and Senator Klobuchar could be considered establishment candidates due to the amount of years both have spent in their respective roles, and Inslee was a Congressman before that (and arguably Senator Gillibrand and Governor Hickenlooper - though he's kind of a weirdo).

In a normal election, Inslee would be a front runner. Long term Congressman who become a successful Governor of a large state.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

These numbers are absolutely pathetic. Kudos to Romney and Obama for being outliers.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0ab5c41d1974




EDIT: I now wonder if this might explain some of the disconnect a couple of months ago about the new tax laws...

And this year with the huge number of candidates, I didn't know he was running.

'Experience' seems like it be kind of a bugaboo in politics, depending which way the wind is blowing. For all of Hillary's experience she didn't have much to hold up as any kind of trophy for people to grab onto, rather than some kind of lifetime service award. It's a fine line between being painted as an unproductive career politician vs. a longtime effective leader.

Romney at least has to give 10% to the Mormon church, I assume.

I'm not going to fault Gillibrand, and certainly not Inslee. They're roughly in the ballpark of my wife and I, and what we donated in clothes and a 25yo Saturn don't add up to those totals.

Yeah. We are a little above Klobuchar territory and don’t donate all that much. Some clothes and foods with some money to make a wish.

I’m a fan of letting people do what they want with their money.

There's more to charity work than giving cash, but I'm okay with putting heat on the top 10% to give more. I could give more than I do, but I'm north of everyone's percentage other than Romney and Obama and I'm making far less.

Ideally I'd like to do more for charity, but it all depends on circumstance. In our case, yes we are combined making a nice amount of money. But that's new -- my wife has only gone back to working full-time recently. Why? Because I had no income for 2.5 months in 2017. Our finances were such that we couldn't really absorb that well even with her working, so we had to rely on credit cards, etc.

And, that was given that we were probably already not doing the best job with consumer debt. Not horrible, but we probably weren't as frugal as we should have been. We also have two teens, at one point had four cats and one medically unsound dog...things like that add up.

(I love pets. But we're down to two cats now, and part of me is looking forward to not having to pay for as much in the way of food and vet bills.)

Oh right, also college.

Now, this isn't to say we're particularly stingy. When we go to church (which admittedly isn't as often as we once did) and are either visiting or don't have our donation envelopes, we'll just drop a 20 in the offering. My wife will give to little things like animal charities and I won't necessarily ask for a receipt. And really, with how taxes have been reworked it doesn't make sense to track all that bc we won't be able to itemize anymore. I'll cook for marching band events (technically we're not a tax-exempt entity anyway) or her PEO fundraisers w/o reimbursement. And for the band I put in a TON of time as Treasurer/parent.

I can also tell you that my daughter is pretty charitable with our money where hosting friends is concerned. ;)

So I dunno. Circumstances are different. I don't know what Klobuchar's or Gillibrand's or Beto's are. When I get to be Bernie's age, maybe I'll be in a different place. Kids long moved out, college hopefully paid for. Probably won't have any expensive hobbies. *shurg*


edit: our continued YMCA dues could probably be considered charity considering how rarely any of us go there :P

The Attorney General is holding a press conference tomorrow morning to discuss the Mueller Report release. The press conference is at 9:30, before the copies are to be delivered to Congress at 11, so it's very likely the purpose of the press conference is to spin it as favorably as possible.

The DOJ has been meeting with the White House and Trump's lawyers over the past week to help them write a rebuttal of the Mueller Report.

And finally, I'm so old I remember when Bill Clinton talking to the AG was enough to cause the GOP to go into fits.

edit: And the report being sent to Congress will be on a collection of CDs. lol

I wonder if they considered floppy disks.


On another note:


Yemen war: Trump vetoes bill to end US support for Saudi-led coalition - BBC News



Mr Trump described the resolution as an "unnecessary" and "dangerous" attempt to weaken his constitutional powers.


Ah, the irony ...

Bracing myself for the inevitable, endless stream of MSM analysis of the redacted Mueller report. Should be a fun Easter weekend (playing FO76).

TBH, we don't give $ as much as we could but do donate clothes, toys, books etc. to the Goodwill Store and drop spare Christmas cash for the Salvation Army. For a couple years, donated for matching funds to a college. We have donated (not loaned) money to less-fortunate relatives.

We (okay, my wife ... so the household) has volunteered serious time in providing supplemental teaching to kids needing help on weekends.

Kid in college and another coming up, and of course, saving up for retirement, so everything is focused on that right now.

So if factor in cash and non-cash, family and non-family donations, I feel good about our charity but yes, we can certainly do more.

My household donates very little in terms of cold, hard cash. We have created a long-running charity event that has been running for nearly ten years now, however - pretty sure I've advertised it here, as my band typically plays. This year we helped raise over $25,000.

Can't wait for the "he was frustrated" defense to obstruction of justice to catch on nationwide.

We have the Shaggy Defense. No reason this can't become known as the Trump Defense.

I can't believe there's anyone that watched that press conference and feels this is how our government should work.

Well yeah, that’s the name of the game for the GOP. You either buy the argument or get disgusted with how our government works. Win/Win for reactionary politics.

What's stopping Mueller from giving the full report to Congress without redaction? Releasing it to the public without redaction?

Damn, some people on this forum make bank... anyways my wife and I donate 3-4% in cash (and a bit more in time). We'd probably give more if our student loans were so egregiously high (10% of our income).

The Justice Department authorized the Special Counsel's investigation, not Congress. Ken Starr was authorized under the old Special Prosecutor rule by Congress that lapsed in the 2000's for the whole Clinton thing.

That's where I am as well. Just checked. 90th percentile is somewhere in the 160-165K household income range, so all the folks mentioned in the article (and many of us posting in this thread) are easily above that number. Though I'd never want to force people to do more, I think those who make more *should* do more. And let's face it: when talking about the candidates, we're talking about people who knew that their tax returns would probably need to be made public, so surely they gave at least a *little* more than they would have "in secret"...right?


I'd always assumed that 10% of net was a general standard, and that those who weren't giving to Christ-centered stuff were just giving to United Way, American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood, St. Jude's, or whatever. So, yeah, this discussion does explain the disconnect on the tax laws.

Is it possible for the Mueller report to say that Trump colluded with Russia, but Barr say that it doesn't, redact where it says it and we never know?

Scrooge are there no prisons - YouTube

Live look in at me....

On paper we gave right at $20k last year.
But that number is less than half of my true charitable giving. I prefer to give to local individuals, typically anonymously, in need and there is no way to deduct that. There is a single mom that is battling health stuff and has a child with her own health issues...we've paid her entire mortgage for just at 2 years now....it makes me happy when I hear about the local community bank being so gracious and working with her... but I cant deduct that. But I do it because I'm called to care for my brothers and sisters who are less fortunate.


Dont know what the right answer is there. And if I didnt live in a small community I probably couldnt do that so it may not be applicable to those in the article.

No, because members of Congress will get the unredacted copies.

I was under the impression that ignorance is not a defense?

I mean the report clearly states that Don Jr. and Kushner broke the law but won't be charged because they are too stupid to realize they broke the law.

it depends on the law. Sometimes doing something "knowingly" is an element of the crime.

Here's the foundation of the report:

The Russians worked to help Trump win, including the DNC and Podesta hacks

Trump's campaign worked with the Russians and Wikileaks to better use their resources(stolen and legit)

Trump tried to repay the Russians through the RNC platform and sanctions relief, but was mostly unable due to the Russia investigation

Trump and others repeatedly lied to the public about what happened

Trump, after firing Comey, tried to fire Mueller and asked for other officials to stop or hinder the investigation, but officials mostly ignored him

That may not be criminal, but it sure as hell should be enough to start hearings towards impeachment. I expect the Dems, though, certain Trump can't possibly win again, will get cute and try to use this in 2020.

dola

Mueller: After telling McGahn to get the special counsel fired, Trump told McGahn to deny reports that he had done so.

McGahn also told Mueller that Trump scolded him for taking notes, saying, "Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." pic.twitter.com/4cdVfcm0ik

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 18, 2019

Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?

Yep, and ironically, Trump's officials who ignored him ended up saving his ass - Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but couldn't get anyone to actually do it! :lol:

Exactly right, especially in criminal cases, intent (mens rea) is a requirement. Sometimes a prosecutor won't prosecute if they know they will have a hard time proving criminal intent.

Quotes from Mueller:




I think it's clear Barr is doing exactly what he was brought in to do and I also think it's likely the early leaks claiming there wasn't much found by Mueller came directly from Barr himself.

For the Trump administration to claim this report as vindication they know they can say/do anything without losing their base and that Senate and House Republicans are ready to die on a hill for Trump.

Some more from the report:


Below only the part in Italics was used by Barr in his summary.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told @DanaBashCNN .

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 18, 2019

They're going to regret again betting on Trump to lose.

But honestly. what would be the point of impeachment? The senate is never ever ever ever ever going to convict. If they had video of Trump promising Putin the nuclear football, and then blowing him, the senate is never ever ever ever going to convict Trump. Use the report as best you can on the trail. Continue the investigations in congress to bring out as much as you can. But actual impeachment is a complete waist of time,

An impeachment would get a vote on the record though. It would force Repbublicans to say that they don't think blowing Putin and giving him the nuclear football is an impeachable offense, to use your example.

It also makes the Dems look desperate, gives Trump campaign fodder so he can make comments like " they know they can't beat me fair and square" which his base will eat up.

And that does....what???


A failed impeachment does nothing but get more Trump supporters to the polls in 2020.