There is apparently this thing going around called "Fat Acceptance" or "Body Positivity" which takes the position that you can be beautiful and healthy at ANY weight.
I first tripped over it indirectly when I encountered a video on YouTube of women breaking their scales with hammers. I say women because the movement appears to be overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, composed of females.
I have to admit that I'm baffled by the very idea.
No, if you're morbidly obese you're not beautiful especially if I have to sit next to you on a plane or at the theater,
But we need to be careful quoting "overweight" statistics based upon the BMI. The BMI has all sorts of issues. For instance how can men and women use the same formula? Men have a larger percentage of muscle and muscle weighs more. I'm 6'1" and 192 pounds. That's a BMI of 25.3 so I'm "overweight, something that no one has ever accused me of.
Some folks argue that this is really a discussion about health rather than appearance.
If you really want to turn the discussion toward health then you have to consider that women, because of how they put on fat, can actually handle being more overweight than men. Similarly as one ages one tends to gain weight as their BMR goes down but it doesn't mean they're unhealthy. These are two more issues with the one size fits all BMI.
The bottom line is that weight and it's correlation with health can be complicated. Obesity on the other hand, a BMI over 30, is bad even with as doubtful a scale as the BMI. Morbid obesity, a BMI over 40, is death walking. There's the real danger in this fat acceptance idea. The absurdity that you can be even morbidly obese without detrimental affects to your health.
I do notice that most of the fat women championing this cause are still pretty young and youth can compensate for a multiplicity of ills.
Life is a lottery. It's like a game of Russian Roulette where it all depends upon the luck of the spin. But if you're morbidly obese, it's like playing with five chambers loaded rather than only one.
Saturday, October 07, 2017
Friday, October 06, 2017
Las Vegas
A man decides to take a dozen or so of his 42 guns to a room at the Mandalay Bay and then opens fire at a crowded country music concert.
This is nuts.
The big question is why?
'He didn't appear to be a religious whack job or have strong political associations. There was no outward sign of mental illness although some statements by his girlfriend that he would lie in bed screaming and moaning could have pointed in that direction.
He lived in Mesquite which about an hour and a half from Vegas and reportedly engaged in high stakes poker. But I haven't seen anything saying he ran up big debts.
His father was apparently a nut, a psychopath that spent time on the FBI's most wanted list who was captured not far from where the shooting took place after a gun battle with police.
Stephen Paddock's attack on the concert crowd left 58 people dead and 500 injured. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
This has re-opened the issue of gun control and even the NRA has indicated they might be willing to accept some additional restrictions on firearm accessories including items which allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into fully automatic weapons.
I'm a radical on gun control. This formula is 100% accurate. NO_GUNS = NO_GUN_DEATHS. If you ever figure out why it's wrong, give me a call,
This is nuts.
The big question is why?
'He didn't appear to be a religious whack job or have strong political associations. There was no outward sign of mental illness although some statements by his girlfriend that he would lie in bed screaming and moaning could have pointed in that direction.
He lived in Mesquite which about an hour and a half from Vegas and reportedly engaged in high stakes poker. But I haven't seen anything saying he ran up big debts.
His father was apparently a nut, a psychopath that spent time on the FBI's most wanted list who was captured not far from where the shooting took place after a gun battle with police.
Stephen Paddock's attack on the concert crowd left 58 people dead and 500 injured. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
This has re-opened the issue of gun control and even the NRA has indicated they might be willing to accept some additional restrictions on firearm accessories including items which allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into fully automatic weapons.
I'm a radical on gun control. This formula is 100% accurate. NO_GUNS = NO_GUN_DEATHS. If you ever figure out why it's wrong, give me a call,
Sunday, August 20, 2017
So what about those Confederate statues?
Well, it depends.
People don't fight other people. Political entities fight other political entities for political or economic reasons.
Soldiers simply fight to defend their homes and families. With some exceptions, soldiers are the greatest victims of war.
I'm opposed to monuments that celebrate the Confederacy itself. The Confederacy existed and went to war for the simple economic reason of defending slavery. This historical revisionism about state's rights is bunk. The only state's right they cared about was the right to keep slavery legal.
As for monuments memorializing the soldiers that fought for their homes and families, such as those at Gettysburg, those I'm inclined to accept.
Does this includes statues of Confederate Generals such as Robert E. Lee? Yes it does. Does it include the carvings at Stone Mountain Georgia? No it doesn't. Because in addition to Lee and Stonewall Jackson the carving includes Jefferson Davis. Davis wasn't a soldier but the top of the political structure of the Confederacy.
What do I base this on?
First, because on Christmas Day 1868 President Johnson extended full amnesty to Confederate soldiers and restored to them full citizenship rights. He didn't make an exception for officers.
Second, in 1958 Congress passed Public Law 85-425 related to the pension rate for the widows of veterans. This law defined "veteran" for the purposes of the law to include "a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War…”
Also in 1958, Congress passed Public Law 85-811 dealing with the procurement of headstones for veterans. This law stated “That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of the following…” The first category listed is “Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War.”
In neither of these two laws does Congress make an exception for officers, high ranking or otherwise.
So while Congress never specifically declared that soldiers of the Confederacy are US veterans, the implication of these two laws is that they should be considered as such.
People don't fight other people. Political entities fight other political entities for political or economic reasons.
Soldiers simply fight to defend their homes and families. With some exceptions, soldiers are the greatest victims of war.
I'm opposed to monuments that celebrate the Confederacy itself. The Confederacy existed and went to war for the simple economic reason of defending slavery. This historical revisionism about state's rights is bunk. The only state's right they cared about was the right to keep slavery legal.
As for monuments memorializing the soldiers that fought for their homes and families, such as those at Gettysburg, those I'm inclined to accept.
Does this includes statues of Confederate Generals such as Robert E. Lee? Yes it does. Does it include the carvings at Stone Mountain Georgia? No it doesn't. Because in addition to Lee and Stonewall Jackson the carving includes Jefferson Davis. Davis wasn't a soldier but the top of the political structure of the Confederacy.
What do I base this on?
First, because on Christmas Day 1868 President Johnson extended full amnesty to Confederate soldiers and restored to them full citizenship rights. He didn't make an exception for officers.
Second, in 1958 Congress passed Public Law 85-425 related to the pension rate for the widows of veterans. This law defined "veteran" for the purposes of the law to include "a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War…”
Also in 1958, Congress passed Public Law 85-811 dealing with the procurement of headstones for veterans. This law stated “That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of the following…” The first category listed is “Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War.”
In neither of these two laws does Congress make an exception for officers, high ranking or otherwise.
So while Congress never specifically declared that soldiers of the Confederacy are US veterans, the implication of these two laws is that they should be considered as such.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Extra Biblical Evidence for Jesus
I've done this before but I'm going to do it again in order to provide a safe place to stick my most recent thoughts on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
The argument is not that there is no evidence, the argument is that the evidence is weak and better explanations exist for the emergence of Christianity than it originated with a historical figure. I keep running into Youtube videos repeating the same old supposed evidence. Tacitus - There is a major flaw with the Tacitus passage. Pontius Pilate wasn't a procurator, he was a prefect. This makes it almost certain that Tacitus did not get his information from official Roman records. Tacitus was writing in the early 2nd century about the Emperor Nero who had been dead for over 40 years. Tacitus is listing all of the attempts by Nero to dispel the rumors that he was responsible for the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He lists these items and ultimately gets to Nero supposedly trying to pin the blame on the Christians. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." "Called Christians by the populace" implies he is in fact working from hearsay or common knowledge. Accuracy in describing the Christians or their beliefs is not one of Tacitus' priorities here as it's just one more example of Nero trying to shed blame. Lucien - He is describing Christians and their beliefs. He never mentions Jesus by name. The beliefs of Christians are not in doubt. Suetonius - The position that "Chrestus" is the misspelled title "Christus" of someone not in Rome at the time is no more likely than it is the proper name of someone that was in Rome. Thallus - This is simply Julius Africanus arguing that Thallus is wrong about a solar eclipse he records. Why should anyone believe Africanus over Thallus? Pliny the Younger - Like Lucien, Pliny is talking about Christians and their beliefs. Again, Christian beliefs are not in doubt. As for their willingness to die, people are dying today in the Middle East for Allah and the promise of 72 virgins. Mara Bar-Sepion - The letter mentions the men of Samos burning Pythagoras but there is no record of this happening. How Pythagoras dies is unknown so how reliable should one consider the rest of the letter? Josephus - Then there's Josephus. Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew. He would never have called Jesus the Messiah so if it actually says that then it is almost certain that the main passage is at least a partial interpolation. If he was recording the beliefs of others then the entire passage is hearsay isn't it? Yes there is evidence but it isn't very strong and the silence of people such as Philo of Alexandria is deafening. Personally I was always of the position that Jesus was a historical character despite the weak evidence. Recently however Richard Carrier has been winning me over a bit so now I have to say I'm uncertain. The web site you reference presents nothing new. In order to accept that as sufficient evidence one would already have to be a believer.
The argument is not that there is no evidence, the argument is that the evidence is weak and better explanations exist for the emergence of Christianity than it originated with a historical figure. I keep running into Youtube videos repeating the same old supposed evidence. Tacitus - There is a major flaw with the Tacitus passage. Pontius Pilate wasn't a procurator, he was a prefect. This makes it almost certain that Tacitus did not get his information from official Roman records. Tacitus was writing in the early 2nd century about the Emperor Nero who had been dead for over 40 years. Tacitus is listing all of the attempts by Nero to dispel the rumors that he was responsible for the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He lists these items and ultimately gets to Nero supposedly trying to pin the blame on the Christians. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." "Called Christians by the populace" implies he is in fact working from hearsay or common knowledge. Accuracy in describing the Christians or their beliefs is not one of Tacitus' priorities here as it's just one more example of Nero trying to shed blame. Lucien - He is describing Christians and their beliefs. He never mentions Jesus by name. The beliefs of Christians are not in doubt. Suetonius - The position that "Chrestus" is the misspelled title "Christus" of someone not in Rome at the time is no more likely than it is the proper name of someone that was in Rome. Thallus - This is simply Julius Africanus arguing that Thallus is wrong about a solar eclipse he records. Why should anyone believe Africanus over Thallus? Pliny the Younger - Like Lucien, Pliny is talking about Christians and their beliefs. Again, Christian beliefs are not in doubt. As for their willingness to die, people are dying today in the Middle East for Allah and the promise of 72 virgins. Mara Bar-Sepion - The letter mentions the men of Samos burning Pythagoras but there is no record of this happening. How Pythagoras dies is unknown so how reliable should one consider the rest of the letter? Josephus - Then there's Josephus. Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew. He would never have called Jesus the Messiah so if it actually says that then it is almost certain that the main passage is at least a partial interpolation. If he was recording the beliefs of others then the entire passage is hearsay isn't it? Yes there is evidence but it isn't very strong and the silence of people such as Philo of Alexandria is deafening. Personally I was always of the position that Jesus was a historical character despite the weak evidence. Recently however Richard Carrier has been winning me over a bit so now I have to say I'm uncertain. The web site you reference presents nothing new. In order to accept that as sufficient evidence one would already have to be a believer.
Charlottesville
Thing just keep going from bad to worse.
I admit that I've been a bad boy. I've haven't done any posts because they're too depressing but I can't let this one go by.
The background is a slow but steady movement to tear down monuments to the Confederacy across the south. The complaint is that they glorify the defense of slavery and slavery itself. The defense is that they are simply representative of "Southern Heritage."
You know, like lynchings and Jim Crow laws.
There is a statue in Charlottesville Virginia that some people want taken down. White Nationalists, including Neo-Nazis and the KKK, emboldened by a Trump White House, rallied in solidarity to protest any removal of Confederate monuments.
Left Wing elements, including Black Lives Matter and a group known as Antifa (Anti-fascist), rallied to counter protest.
Now, I wasn't there; I'm too old for that sort of stuff, so I really don't know what went on and neither do I care. When you put two such groups of people together there are going to be sparks, fist fights and flying debris. The Charlottesville police force would probably quickly find itself out of ideas for keeping things under control.
That seems to be just about what was going on but then something else occurred. A 20 year old right wing supporter from Ohio drove his car into the counter protest crowd killing one women and injuring 19 others.
He's been arrested and is being held without bail to face a 2nd degree murder charge in addition to a dozen or so other charges.
This reminds me of the 1960s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War clashes but it's different, Those were conflicts surrounding mostly a single issue. This strikes me as a conflict about cultures and covers a broader range of issues.
The other thing that is different, and dangerous, is that we have a major political party in the Republicans that appears to be supportive of right wing radical politics.
Now, I'm going to be honest. I'm not sure if the GOP actually agrees with the extreme right wing or just wants their votes. I used to think it was the latter but I'm no longer so sure about that.
Worse is we have a president that first declares that blame is on both sides, then declares he's opposed to white nationalism, then declares that blame in on both sides and finally declares that there are some "very fine people" among the white nationalist demonstrators.
Someone seriously needs to put a muzzle on Trump. Every time he opens his mouth he sticks his head up his rear end.
I admit that I've been a bad boy. I've haven't done any posts because they're too depressing but I can't let this one go by.
The background is a slow but steady movement to tear down monuments to the Confederacy across the south. The complaint is that they glorify the defense of slavery and slavery itself. The defense is that they are simply representative of "Southern Heritage."
You know, like lynchings and Jim Crow laws.
There is a statue in Charlottesville Virginia that some people want taken down. White Nationalists, including Neo-Nazis and the KKK, emboldened by a Trump White House, rallied in solidarity to protest any removal of Confederate monuments.
Left Wing elements, including Black Lives Matter and a group known as Antifa (Anti-fascist), rallied to counter protest.
Now, I wasn't there; I'm too old for that sort of stuff, so I really don't know what went on and neither do I care. When you put two such groups of people together there are going to be sparks, fist fights and flying debris. The Charlottesville police force would probably quickly find itself out of ideas for keeping things under control.
That seems to be just about what was going on but then something else occurred. A 20 year old right wing supporter from Ohio drove his car into the counter protest crowd killing one women and injuring 19 others.
He's been arrested and is being held without bail to face a 2nd degree murder charge in addition to a dozen or so other charges.
This reminds me of the 1960s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War clashes but it's different, Those were conflicts surrounding mostly a single issue. This strikes me as a conflict about cultures and covers a broader range of issues.
The other thing that is different, and dangerous, is that we have a major political party in the Republicans that appears to be supportive of right wing radical politics.
Now, I'm going to be honest. I'm not sure if the GOP actually agrees with the extreme right wing or just wants their votes. I used to think it was the latter but I'm no longer so sure about that.
Worse is we have a president that first declares that blame is on both sides, then declares he's opposed to white nationalism, then declares that blame in on both sides and finally declares that there are some "very fine people" among the white nationalist demonstrators.
Someone seriously needs to put a muzzle on Trump. Every time he opens his mouth he sticks his head up his rear end.
Monday, July 10, 2017
Categories of Trumpettes
And now for a completely unscientific analysis.
In my experience I have found that there are two main categories of Trumpettes.
Category #1 — The Greedy. These are people who make a lot of money. They work hard and either through talent or luck have managed to place themselves in a position of wealth. These folks don’t like paying taxes and they don’t like it even more than the rest of us don’t like it because they think their money is going to help people too lazy to work for themselves.
They think they should pay a smaller share of taxes even though they benefit from government activity far more than people of more modest means. If nothing else they have more to lose. When I talk to these people I can’t help thinking of the Phil Ochs song “The Ringing of Revolution.”
“In a building of gold, with riches untold,
lived the families on which the country was founded.
And the merchants of style, with their vain velvet smiles,
were there, for they also were hounded.
And the soft middle class crowded in to the last,
for the building was fully surrounded.
And the noise outside was the ringing of revolution.”
Category #2 — The Spiteful. These are your uneducated white working and lower middle class folks who struggle to pay the mortgage, put food on the table and meet unexpected bills yet they have enough money to buy guns, cigarettes and cases of beer on a regular basis.
They claim to be highly religious but if they ever met the real Yeshua bar Yosef they would be horrified at both his appearance and his ideas.
They think Christianity is under attack by the universities and educated people in the cities and suburbs. To a certain extent they’re right about this but they don’t understand why that’s the case. They don’t understand that hostility to religion is a backlash from Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else whether it’s abortion restrictions or raising massive stone tablets of the 10 Commandments on public grounds.
These people look around and think they see blacks, Hispanics, immigrants and basically everyone but them being helped by handouts from the government using their hard earned tax dollars. These people will vote for anyone who will put THOSE PEOPLE in their place even if it means hurting themselves.
Like I said, this is an entirely unscientific analysis based upon my own observations and probably significantly colored by my own prejudices. But I don’t apologize for that. People in these two categories are never going to see the farce and danger the rest of the world sees. One group is blinded by their greed and the other by their hate.
In my experience I have found that there are two main categories of Trumpettes.
Category #1 — The Greedy. These are people who make a lot of money. They work hard and either through talent or luck have managed to place themselves in a position of wealth. These folks don’t like paying taxes and they don’t like it even more than the rest of us don’t like it because they think their money is going to help people too lazy to work for themselves.
They think they should pay a smaller share of taxes even though they benefit from government activity far more than people of more modest means. If nothing else they have more to lose. When I talk to these people I can’t help thinking of the Phil Ochs song “The Ringing of Revolution.”
“In a building of gold, with riches untold,
lived the families on which the country was founded.
And the merchants of style, with their vain velvet smiles,
were there, for they also were hounded.
And the soft middle class crowded in to the last,
for the building was fully surrounded.
And the noise outside was the ringing of revolution.”
Category #2 — The Spiteful. These are your uneducated white working and lower middle class folks who struggle to pay the mortgage, put food on the table and meet unexpected bills yet they have enough money to buy guns, cigarettes and cases of beer on a regular basis.
They claim to be highly religious but if they ever met the real Yeshua bar Yosef they would be horrified at both his appearance and his ideas.
They think Christianity is under attack by the universities and educated people in the cities and suburbs. To a certain extent they’re right about this but they don’t understand why that’s the case. They don’t understand that hostility to religion is a backlash from Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else whether it’s abortion restrictions or raising massive stone tablets of the 10 Commandments on public grounds.
These people look around and think they see blacks, Hispanics, immigrants and basically everyone but them being helped by handouts from the government using their hard earned tax dollars. These people will vote for anyone who will put THOSE PEOPLE in their place even if it means hurting themselves.
Like I said, this is an entirely unscientific analysis based upon my own observations and probably significantly colored by my own prejudices. But I don’t apologize for that. People in these two categories are never going to see the farce and danger the rest of the world sees. One group is blinded by their greed and the other by their hate.
Sunday, July 02, 2017
The Obama Economy
It never cease to amaze me when people talk about how horrible the economy was under Obama. The latest criticism had to do with the fact that the number of people within 125% of the poverty line increased under the Obama presidency while real income declined.
They manage this slight of hand by comparing the numbers from 2007, BEFORE the great recession to the numbers near the end of the Obama presidency in 2015 while ignoring everything that happened in between.
If you think the economic meltdown under Bush had nothing to do with those numbers then you need to have your head examined.
The percentage of people below 125% of the poverty level in 2007 was 17.0%. Thanks to the 2008 Great Recession the number ballooned to 19.8% in 2011 and then dropped to 17.9% by 2015. Looks to me like Bush was the problem and Obama was the solution.
Now let's look at real income. The real median household income in the US in 2007 was $57,423. Again, thanks to the Great Recession it dropped to $52,666 in 2012 but by 2015 it was back up to $56,516. So again, the problem was Bush and the solution was Obama. Rather than bad mouthing the man based upon no facts, maybe next time people should check where the real problem was.
When Obama took office the stock market was at 9,000, unemployment was at 10%, the economy was SHRINKING and the deficit was over $1 trillion. When he left office the stock market was over 19,000 (Nov 2016), unemployment was down to 4.7%, the economy was growing and the deficit had been reduced to around $570 billion.
All of this while avoiding a double-dip recession.
They manage this slight of hand by comparing the numbers from 2007, BEFORE the great recession to the numbers near the end of the Obama presidency in 2015 while ignoring everything that happened in between.
If you think the economic meltdown under Bush had nothing to do with those numbers then you need to have your head examined.
The percentage of people below 125% of the poverty level in 2007 was 17.0%. Thanks to the 2008 Great Recession the number ballooned to 19.8% in 2011 and then dropped to 17.9% by 2015. Looks to me like Bush was the problem and Obama was the solution.
Now let's look at real income. The real median household income in the US in 2007 was $57,423. Again, thanks to the Great Recession it dropped to $52,666 in 2012 but by 2015 it was back up to $56,516. So again, the problem was Bush and the solution was Obama. Rather than bad mouthing the man based upon no facts, maybe next time people should check where the real problem was.
When Obama took office the stock market was at 9,000, unemployment was at 10%, the economy was SHRINKING and the deficit was over $1 trillion. When he left office the stock market was over 19,000 (Nov 2016), unemployment was down to 4.7%, the economy was growing and the deficit had been reduced to around $570 billion.
All of this while avoiding a double-dip recession.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Trump and Comey and Sessions OH MY!
Watching this soap opera unfold in the Senate is an absolute joke. Basically everyone says everyone else is lying. Of course Trump can't make up his mind whether Comey "vindicated" him or told terrible lies about him.
Sessions say the whole Russian collusion idea is a lie. Well, Jeff baby, it's only a lie if the person making the accusation knows it's a lie.
What to make of this he said, he said, he said fiasco?
It's generally been my experience that people lie when either they (a) can gain something from the lie or (b) they need to protect themselves. I think we can pretty much exclude the altruistic white lie from the conversation.
The guy that appears to have the least to gain or protect is Comey. That doesn't mean he isn't lying but it's not clear to me what reason he would have for opening himself up to perjury charges.
Trump isn't making his statements under oath and I'm not sure Sessions knows the difference between a lie and the truth.
So I sort of suspect that Comey is closest to being completely honest, Sessions is a distant second and Trump still trying to get out of the starting gate.
Do I think Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the Flynn investigation? Yes, I do. Do I think he meant to obstruct justice? No, I think he was simply doing the same sort of backroom maneuvering he's used to in the business world and didn't realize what he was doing was illegal.
Do I think the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to tilt the 2016 election to Trump? Six months ago I would have said that's ridiculous but now I'm not so sure.
So what happens if that turns out to be the case? The proper thing to do would be for Trump and Pence to resign or be impeached leaving Paul Ryan as president.
Do I think that will ever happen? Not in a million years. Even if you could come up with sufficient evidence I'm sure the Republicans would come up with some "alternate facts" to try and smooth the whole thing over.
Do I think this could lead to civil war? Probably not. I don't think enough people are ready to start killing in the streets over this.
Sessions say the whole Russian collusion idea is a lie. Well, Jeff baby, it's only a lie if the person making the accusation knows it's a lie.
What to make of this he said, he said, he said fiasco?
It's generally been my experience that people lie when either they (a) can gain something from the lie or (b) they need to protect themselves. I think we can pretty much exclude the altruistic white lie from the conversation.
The guy that appears to have the least to gain or protect is Comey. That doesn't mean he isn't lying but it's not clear to me what reason he would have for opening himself up to perjury charges.
Trump isn't making his statements under oath and I'm not sure Sessions knows the difference between a lie and the truth.
So I sort of suspect that Comey is closest to being completely honest, Sessions is a distant second and Trump still trying to get out of the starting gate.
Do I think Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the Flynn investigation? Yes, I do. Do I think he meant to obstruct justice? No, I think he was simply doing the same sort of backroom maneuvering he's used to in the business world and didn't realize what he was doing was illegal.
Do I think the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to tilt the 2016 election to Trump? Six months ago I would have said that's ridiculous but now I'm not so sure.
So what happens if that turns out to be the case? The proper thing to do would be for Trump and Pence to resign or be impeached leaving Paul Ryan as president.
Do I think that will ever happen? Not in a million years. Even if you could come up with sufficient evidence I'm sure the Republicans would come up with some "alternate facts" to try and smooth the whole thing over.
Do I think this could lead to civil war? Probably not. I don't think enough people are ready to start killing in the streets over this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
