Apr 14, 2019 11:39AM IllinoisLady wrote:
For those who have met on Breastcancer.org and want to continue growing their cybersibling friendships beyond cancer.
Posted on: Jul 31, 2014 08:27AM
Posts 36301 - 36330 (36,402 total)
Apr 14, 2019 11:39AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 14, 2019 11:40AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 14, 2019 11:43AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Having fun with this, but enough for now.
Apr 14, 2019 11:14PM ananda8 wrote:
Another interesting article about Pete Buttigieg and concentrated wealth. He answered the following question."
Pete Buttigieg, who’s shown an impressive knack for putting matters well in these early days of the 2020 presidential race, nailed it recently when Chuck Todd of NBC asked him about capitalism. Of course I’m a capitalist, he said; America “is a capitalist society.”
But, he continued: “It’s got to be democratic capitalism.”
Mr. Buttigieg said that when capitalism becomes unrestrained by democratic checks and impulses, that’s no longer the kind of capitalism that once produced broad prosperity in this country. “If you want to see what happens when you have capitalism without democracy, you can see it very clearly in Russia,” he said. “It turns into crony capitalism, and that turns into oligarchy.”
Apr 14, 2019 11:17PM ananda8 wrote:
The author of the above article went on to talk about Thomas Jefferson and the founders.
"Democracy can’t flourish in a context of grotesque concentration of wealth. This idea is neither new nor radical nor alien. It is old, mainstream and as American as Thomas Jefferson.
I invoke Jefferson for a reason. Everyone knows how he was occupying his time in the summer of 1776; he was writing the Declaration of Independence. But what was he up to that fall? He was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was taking the lead in writing and sponsoring legislation to abolish the commonwealth’s laws upholding “entail” (which kept large estates within families across generations) and primogeniture.
Mere coincidence that he moved so quickly from writing the founding document of democracy to writing a bill abolishing inheritance laws brought over from England? Hardly. He believed, as the founders did generally, that excess inherited wealth was fundamentally incompatible with democracy....
But their economic concerns weren’t limited to that. They saw clearly the link between democratic health and general economic prosperity. Here is John Adams, not exactly Jefferson’s best friend: All elements of society, he once wrote, must “cooperate in this one democratical principle, that the end of all government is the happiness of the People: and in this other, that the greatest happiness of the greatest Number is the point to be obtained.” “Happiness” to the founders meant economic well-being, and note that Adams called it “democratical.” "
Apr 15, 2019 09:58AM IllinoisLady wrote:
How necessary it is to cultivate a spirit of joy. It is a psychological truth that the physical acts of reverence and devotion make one feel devout. The courteous gesture increases one's respect for others. To act lovingly is to begin to feel loving, and certainly to act joyfully brings joy to others which in turn makes one feel joyful. I believe we are called to the duty of delight. -Dorothy Day
Apr 15, 2019 10:11AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Watch as Mayor Pete sort of formally announced his candidacy -- in an old Studebaker warehouse since it rained heavily outside in Indiana yesterday. He was pretty amazing. It is early but I'm truly impressed by this man who faces things head on as in pointing out during his speech that he would not go back in time because we cannot recapture the past. He meant that some work is diminishing and will not come back -- like coal.
Rather than lie to people and try to go backwards, he is facing what the future really is and saying so. So, I am pleased to see this truth teller who has fought for his country along with being a democratic capitalist and also a mayor and just doesn't try to flim-flam his way through. It is early, but he is definitely someone I will keep watching and will cheer on.
I do note Trump seems to be going way off the rains and hating apparently the idea that ( be what it may be ) the Mueller report will soon make its way to people. I think he knows that time here is a big enemy for whatever comes out will only whet the appetite for more. Same actually with his dumb taxes. I hope on the 23rd. if they are not forthcoming that Mnuchin or whomever it needs to be gets a much more serious threat about what will happen if they are not handed over.
Sarah Sanders has her own take. She basically says we are all too dumb to know what all those pages and pages of back taxes mean. Well Sarah, I don't think you're the brightest Press Secretary I've ever seen so maybe you should figure out how to clean up your own backyard and then we could go from there. Until then, you are just basically sounding as stupid as ever. You are laughable in your putrid defense of one of the most un-educatable presidents in history.
Apr 15, 2019 10:14AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 15, 2019 11:32AM IllinoisLady wrote:
For any cat lovers here.
Apr 15, 2019 09:45PM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 16, 2019 08:03AM carolehalston wrote:
Some funny memes. I like the one with the locusts!
Jackie, I'm impressed with Mayor Pete, too.
Apr 16, 2019 09:59AM IllinoisLady wrote:
A thin line separates laughter and pain, comedy and tragedy, humor and hurt. Our lives constantly walk that line. When we slip off on one side or the other, we're taken by surprise. But who said there wouldn't be surprises? Knowing God just means that all the rules will be fair; at the end of our life drama, we'll see that. We never know how things will turn out, but if we know with certainty they will make sense regardless of how they turn out, we're on to something. -Barbara Johnson
Apr 16, 2019 10:11AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Just wow !! I was so crestfallen to see Notre Dame on fire yesterday. So hard to believe and so far it does seem to have been accidental due to some restoration taking place. Never dreamed that something like that would knock the orange heathen out of the top spot in the news cycle.
Just my opinion but it sure seems like he is flailing away with a lot of issues coming one atop the other. Subpoena's for banks, Mueller report. I presume it is what a dyed in the wool crook feels like when he is being squeezed. Well, I say, though I worry about some of the decisions that could be made, bring it on. I'm thinking that things are very serious and that way too many Reps. are working overtime trying to keep the orange one afloat. I also read ( I'll put it in here later ) that Barr has/will likely take out 50 to 70 % of what we could see from the Mueller report. I don't doubt it -- that can be expected from the "best" toadies. I don't know if I can get the link in but I'll try. Seems that MSNBC Daily has a piece on Barr from several yrs. back ( first time as AG I guess ) where he did the same thing -- highly edited a report more to his liking, and later his conclusions turned out to be wrong. So, naturally -- I don't expect much here. I do think though that it is so widely known that some of it the junk will have to be let go of, but likely centered so we don't get quite the impact. Will just lead to more wrangling. Hopefully though, at some point and enough leaks and maybe even a court granting rights, we will get it.
Apr 16, 2019 10:12AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 16, 2019 06:18PM IllinoisLady wrote:
What holding Trump accountable looks like.
What holding Trump accountable looks like
With his hand-picked attorney general's help, Trump is obstructing every investigation into his corruption—including the release of Mueller's full findings.
What is he hiding? House Democrats are determined to find out for the American people.
We have a right to know just how deep Trump's corruption goes. Share this tweet thread to demand answers.
While Attorney General Barr picks and chooses which parts of Mueller's report to release, here's what House Democrats are doing to get answers:
TRUMP'S FINANCES: The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed ten years of Trump's financial information from his former accounting firm.
TRUMP'S FOREIGN DEALS: The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions for Trump's financial records. Deutsche Bank's mysterious relationship with Trump is a key focus of congressional investigations.
TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS: Every president since Nixon has released their tax returns—something Trump has repeatedly reneged on his promise to do. That's why the House Ways and Means Committee is demanding that the IRS release Trump's returns.
It's more clear than ever that we can't rely on Barr or Republicans in government for answers. Watch this clip to understand why.
Apr 17, 2019 10:21AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Forgiveness is unlocking the door
to set someone free
and realizing you were the prisoner!
- Max Lucado
I can only have peace of mind
when I forgive rather than judge.
- Gerald Jampolsky
Apr 17, 2019 10:22AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Apr 17, 2019 05:01PM IllinoisLady wrote:
Just sitting here thinking. I'll be glad to see people get the report tomorrow as I just read in a bulletin that the White House and Justice Dept. talked together a number of times about the report. So, as we have all known because it is obvious, there has been time to white-wash to whatever degree one can, the info that will be allowed ( un-redacted ) tomorrow. That said, people with enough brain cells don't really need that report in many ways. The truth of Trump and his un-qualified, and he too falls in that category, minions has been pretty evident for a long time.
I think there was some hope in the beginning for Barr but he is just as devious as a lot of people thought he could be. So, whatever there is to find out, and I think there may be a little, it won't have any huge effect. I do think huge pressures are out there for Trump and some of them may not be anything he can really mitigate. Such as banks he uses getting subpoena's. They are off the hook for handing out the info and I think they won't be in a big hurry to stall either. So, if we have to wait for some of Mueller's information, I thin soon enough other facts/information will be gleaned that puts more of Trump's life out for the world at large.
It would be nice to have the biggest part of the report, but Barr has a job to do and he will do it. He did the same thing during his Bush yrs. but this time the reason for Barr's being is different and I don't think he will be able to keep things under wrap for the length of time he did before. This is not a great way to end your career but Reps. have weird notions about things and Barr is in there with the weirdest of a lot of them. For treacherous Trump -- I would do nothing.
Apr 17, 2019 06:35PM Di2012 wrote:
Apr 18, 2019 04:01PM - edited Apr 18, 2019 06:41PM by ChiSandy
So it turns out there was plenty of evidence of obstruction of justice, but Mueller--being the obedient straight-arrow institutionalist he is--declined to try to charge Trump because as a DOJ appointee he felt bound by internal policy that a sitting President can't be indicted. He felt that to do so would be an exercise in futility on his part...but that it's up to Congress to determine if the conduct constitutes the "high crimes & misdemeanors" that trigger impeachment. Note that conventional legal burdens of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the elements of a crime that must be so proven, do not apply to impeachment & conviction--"high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress deems them to be.
He found that the Russians tried to help Trump get elected by means such as hacking, that members of the campaign knew about it, encouraged it, and inadvertently broadened its reach, but that he could not prove the strictly-defined elements necessary to prove conspiracy. ("Collusion" is irrelevant--the word appears nowhere in any statutes). The cooperation took place by individuals, not as a unified, planned & organized coordinated effort with the Russian gov't, so that's why conspiracy couldn't be proven. (At least not in a court of law--Congress is a different ballpark).
As to obstruction, he clearly stated that he found no evidence that could lead him to conclude that Trump didn't obstruct justice--only that anything he found would have been quashed by the current DOJ under Barr. (The WH argument that because there is no specific crime being alleged that Trump attempted to cover up, and his attempt hasn't yet succeeded, is bullshit. Obstruction of justice does not require that the government's case being obstructed have merit, that an actual charged crime was attempted to be covered up, nor that the attempt to obstruct succeeded. Messing with a prosecution, investigation--or even litigation--IS obstruction of justice).
Mueller didn't say, "hey, I can't draw any conclusions here, so whaddaya think, Barr?" He quite clearly wrote this report to inform Congress & the public about what he found and what investigations are ongoing, and put the ball in Congress', not the DOJ's court. And he explicitly stated that nothing he found exonerates Trump.
As to Barr, remember John Mitchell, Nixon's first A.G. who ended up in the slammer? It wasn't Congress who put him there, it was the courts.
And remember--DOJ policy is not binding on state courts. NYC & NYS could indict Trump for violations of state laws and municipal ordinances. Ditto DC & VA. Even while Trump is still sitting on his Tweet-throne.
Oh, BTW, investigation culminating in a decision not to prosecute is not "jeopardy" (as opposed to charging and then dismissing, or trial and acquittal). So a Democratic-led DOJ--should Trump lose in 2020--would have a green light to sue or prosecute the pants off him without triggering double jeopardy.
Apr 18, 2019 04:55PM IllinoisLady wrote:
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
Apr 18, 2019 05:12PM IllinoisLady wrote:
Sandy, good to see you here. You haven't been for a bit. Loved your ahem' summary and I think it hits the nail on the head. I think both Barr and Trump should be impeached soundly. I do suspect getting Reps. on board for that might not go well. They have had such reluctance to hunt for their ( up to now ) missing spines. Will just have to see how some of these things end up.
I was gone this morning before Barr or anyone took the 'stage'/'podium' and didn't hear or see any news at all until I arrived back home after 2:30 p.m. So, I haven't heard as much as I'd like but it sounds like Trump bailed on giving it a whirl of talking after Barr was through. He just plodded past reporters w/o so much as a by your leave, and got on the Marine One helicopter for Andrews and then on to I assume Mar-a-Lago where he likely hopes for a decent reception. Since I heard nothing of the morning "events" I'm wondering if Barr pulled his punches in a bit. Late last night there was ( I'm thinking mainly Nadler here ) huge distress that Barr was giving a speech and withholding the report until afterwards an hour or two. It is apparently bad form and just doesn't happen that way and it did in fact lead credence that Barr was trying to line Trump's pathway with less thorns. I think there were some fancy fabrications made by Barr and he has left little doubt that he is Trump's personal lawyer first and the people's lawyer second. Why I feel they both should be ousted but just my personal feeling. There is much more to come and I will welcome seeing Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell tonight.