Bob in Mich

Ya know, I get mocking the panic. There is nothing that has happened anywhere near real dictatorship so yuck it up. The problem as I see it and why the panic is more warranted than you may consider, is because the right dismisses EVERY Trump questionable act as not a big deal. There is absolutely no evidence that Republicans can or will control Trump's impulses and he is doubtlessly impulsive and vindictive. If you see any Congressional Republican that will call out Trump if you goes too far, please name him. Anyone that does is immediately vilified, excommunicated, and not to be believed. (for example, Mitt) If you feared that Trump may now start using the Justice Dept to attack his opponents - political, media, and personal - you might understand the concern a bit better. It is sort of like looking at a runaway truck that is heading downhill and wondering who and how can it be stopped.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/12/trump-stone-judge/ The tweets and his statements to the press are his attempt to influence the Stone sentencing. If you missed that, check out this article

Yes, yes, no. I consider the source when I am criticized around here. More specifically, your criticism typically does not faze me. I always ask for what specifically was so off base and seldom hear back. You want to elaborate on your claim that I am not understanding this issue, then please do. I suspect that you have nothing, but what, where does my reply demonstrate lack of understanding?

Rob, I have been saying that this WH interference with Judiciary is way more open, obvious, and provable than the 2016 tarmac pressure. The tarmac incident was suspicious but essentially unproven even after an investigation in which Lynch testified under oath. Folks, such as yourself, have been countering by saying that the Clinton misdeeds were way worse than Stone's. That question has importance but conveniently skates past the point of the WH interference....if you didn't like the appearance of WH interference in 2016, how can you overlook Trump's much more obvious interference now? Not you personally but while I am on my soapbox, that logic is used here all the time. Trump does something that the left claims is 'bad'. Trump supporters defend him by pointing to some past administration action that they thought was similar and wrong. Then they claim that Trump doing it is now is just fine. Why wrong then but OK now? Also, wasn't there a recent report that essentially said the Hillary email mistakes were not as intentional or egregious as you implied? Here is a politico article https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails-051380

Len, pardon me if I don't shed tears for Stone because he got arrested outside of normal business hours, with a knock on his door. In Michigan, to arrest people suspected of basement cannabis gardens during the early days of medical marijuana, law enforcement swat teams routinely arrested non-violent, non-flight-risk elderly folks, by kicking in their doors in the middle of the night, sometimes shooting their pet dogs, at times using concussion grenades, and at times shooting the startled homeowners who came to investigate the intrusion. As is a popular refrain around here....I didn't hear you complaining then. Not that I would have expected you to. I just wanted to use it lol You don't like our justice system that punishes and pressures defendants for cooperation, that is fine but let's agree that is the way they have always worked. You don't like swat teams going on 'practice raids', endangering the accused for no logical reason? I agree. To claim that the Stone arrest was highly unusual and that everyone is just picking on Don and his friends though, is just misleading https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/20/judge-delays-roger-stones-sentencing-until-feb-20-088813 from the article A jury convicted Stone in November on seven felony counts of lying to investigators, obstructing a congressional probe and witness tampering — crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.

Rob, quite the take there. Very creative reasoning. And, if you are asking, sure, please paste my past postings/opinions. That would be interesting. As an aside, maybe sometime you can explain the apparent contempt your replies to me contain. Am I misinterpreting that or am I not recalling a past interaction that got ugly. Certainly possible ...lots have gotten ugly around here. So, a suspicious looking though utterly unknown conversation between the EX-PRESIDENT, who had been out of office for 16 years, and the AG, who denied wrongdoing under oath, is somehow worse than this shameless public Trump interference? Stone is Trump' personal friend, right? Trump is the AG's boss today, right? Would you feel more pressure to follow advice from your existing company president or from an ex company president that worked there 16 years ago? Amazing what political goggles can do for one's vision and reasoning In this Stone situation, you have the President's wishes stated clearly on Twitter. No unknown conversation in this case. Not accusations of improper pressure as with Lynch, but undeniable written instructions to his Roy Cohn in the Justice Dept. Next day, we are supposed to believe that coincidentally Barr decided on his own, independent of Trump's tweet, to get involved. Pulease. I am close to Stone's age. If I was convicted of the charges that Stone was, would you be out here claiming I was being wronged? Or, might your bias lean the other direction?

I knew he got convicted by a jury of lying to Congress and interfering/threatening a witness. I won't pretend that I know what he should have gotten as far as a sentence. I don't think the 7-9 years were the max sentences though, were they? I will say though, I think the handling of this case should all flow through normal judiciary channels - prosecutor, jury trial, and judicial sentencing - and should be free from Trump interference. It looks pretty certain that Trump is interfering to protect his friends. So, in addition to pardon power, he now seems to direct investigations and to dictate sentencing guidelines too. Any of that troubling yet?

Well I surely can't speak for 'The Left', but as an Independent and since I am left leaning most of the time these days, let me say that I have no problem finding wrongdoing of Left leaning politicians. If not trying to weaponize the Justice Dept, certainly investigate wrongdoing by Dems, Repubs, Independents, and all other political and apolitical Americans - All Americans. He needs to be careful, imo, to not allow Trump to steamroll the Justice Dept. Remember when Trump, about every week or two, would lament that his AG is not protecting him....no Roy Cohn? We don't hear that anymore because he now does have his protector in place - Bill Barr. My contempt for Barr rises from his apparent willingness to take direction from the WH. His slanted summary of the Mueller report was the first clue. This Stone situation is just further proof. When Trump orders Barr to open investigations on Bernie or Pete, y'all still think he will just be sniffing around for corruption?

I guess Barr would have to recuse himself when the Justice Dept eventually investigates him, wouldn't he? This Stone situation looks bad for Justice and justice both. Anyone here remember in 2016 when Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch on the infamous tarmac and there was great suspicion that he was trying to influence the Justice Dept in investigating Hillary? Remember how attempts to pressure an investigation were thought to be improper back then? Times sure have changed. Now interfering with the Justice Dept is cheered.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11 from the article The budget, if it were to pass as is (which is seen as very unlikely), would trim about $505 billion from Medicare over a decade, and $35 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The proposal calls for tightening eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and toughening Medicaid eligibility requirements, such as enforcing asset limits. The good news for Medicare and Social Security retirement beneficiaries: These cuts don’t directly affect participants’ benefits. The bad news: provisions within the proposal could undermine retirement security all the same.

Just curious, what did you find the most tasty, was it the hook, the line, or the sinker? The implication that we need continue to spend at this level, is the myth. We have been plenty ready for war for about 75 years. If we happened to be short on a particular ammo type, it was likely an ordering screw up and a temporary shortage....or did you feel vulnerable then?

Buy votes? I guess that is one way to look at safety net programs. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a place without decent netting. I hate walking by beggars on the street. One never knows are they truly needy or are they scamming. Either way I typically walk away feeling bad for the person and the situation. Now, imagine beggars everywhere around you every day. Imagine grilling a steak while the poor neighbor's kids are looking at you through your fence, or watching people go through your trash bins. I think it is wrong to assume poor people must deserve their fate out of laziness or bad life choices. I support helping the needy. I could never enjoy my own life if so many around me had to beg to survive. Of course we need a strong military....but we have one. Unless several existing countries simultaneously declared war on us, we are not really in danger militarily, even if we stopped military spending completely for the next 10 years. It is a myth that we need to spend this much to compete. It is perpetuated by those profiting off of the myth - politicians and military industry.

I know about every few weeks or so FoxNews does a piece on welfare fraud or waste. They have the 'food stamps for lobster' story or the 'supposed disabled guy that just won the local ironman contest' story. Perhaps that is why I have found many of my right leaning friends think that at least half of the money spent on safety net programs is fraud. I hear things like, well Bob, I am not talking about you but most of those people on disability are just faking. I think that mindset is why so many want to cut from those types of programs. If you think these people are just stealing from you, why wouldn't you want to cut from them? I don't think that view is based on facts however. If you think these programs are helping those genuinely in need and still see that as the best area for cuts, you may be lacking an empathy gene. To find where I think we need to look to save, I would ask you to examine our annual military spending. If you enjoyed finding the welfare queen's $14K in wasted dollars, I would think examining the military budget for $14 million waste items to cut should make you giddy. Our politicians, D & R's are so bought and paid for by this industry it is disgusting. It should be criminal the percentage of our budget that is spent here. Before you tell me I hate the vets, let me head that off with, a 'bite me'. Support the soldiers, honor all of our commitments to our vets, pay them, but stop spending so much on unnecessary bases and unwanted weapons systems. I would propose a 10 year military spending plan with 5% cuts annually. Put the generals in charge of deciding what they don't actually need and if they can't decide, threaten to let the politicians decide how to cut. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/

That Nova program showed that we are actually now in a generally cooler period for earth. Temperatures have fluctuated much higher and lower than today. The correlation between CO2 levels and the hotter periods is very strong. How they determine these things from so long ago is pretty ingenious. Anyway, the CO2 levels have fluctuated long before the Industrial Revolution. In other words, man had nothing to do with these previous fluctuations. Startling though is that since the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 content has risen sharply and has significantly exceeded those past historical levels, even the hottest periods within the past 3 million years. So, yes, CO2 and temperature fluctuations have always happened on earth. Man's contribution to planetary CO2 levels is pretty difficult to deny though, if you believe this Nova. It seems undeniable that we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and higher sea levels.

Anyone see this new PBS Nova episode - 'Polar Extremes' ? I thought it was pretty informative. It is nearly 2 hours but before blowing it off for that reason, start it and see. https://www.thirteen.org/programs/nova/polar-extremes-mfaum5/

Taro, thanks for playing along. Jim, thanks for the suggestion too. I think I need a white board

Not sure this question belongs here but thought it could be interesting if you feel like thinking about it. Hypothesis: If the glaciers melt they will raise sea levels. I know it will be incredibly gradual when it occurs but still they will rise over time. How does that impact rivers that flow into these raised oceans? Won't rivers need to rise too to be at the same level in order to flow as they do today? If so, does that mean that Lake Ontario will accumulate water gradually in order to keep flowing out the St Lawrence? Above the Falls, the Great Lakes wouldn't see any changes, right? Might other rivers deepen or even form lakes, or no ? What do the deep thinkers here think?

Of course Trump can hire and fire to refine his staff. I feel the obvious retribution here though will discourage anyone that perhaps should speak against Trump for even valid reasons. It should strike you as odd that many of the government employees who you are now implying are traitors, were perfectly fine Trump admin employees before they spoke out against Trump. Some of these long time govt employees have been able to toe the line for different administrations of both parties and have adapted to many policy changes over years. They witnessed what they viewed as activity that ran counter to our national interests and being done for personal political purposes and, imo, rightfully spoke up. The REAL crime to you is ratting on the boss here, right? Is it preferable to you to have all government employees be people that will remain loyal and will lie to cover for Trump, regardless of what he might do? Other descriptions for that type of employee are, unethical or mob-like. The inner circle has proven that they will lie to cover for him already. Trump actually has them compromised now. "You lied and covered for me before and you will do it again." Many here imply a huge conspiracy where admin employees laid in wait to spring this Ukraine trap on Trump. I saw a post where Vindman was allegedly talking about impeaching him in 2017, but that suspicious conversation is far from proof of anything. Whether Vindman was involved in trying to get Trump since 2017 should be investigated for actual wrongdoing but either way, Trump's behavior was improper. One does not cancel out the other. Undoubtedly in your eyes, all who accused Trump while under oath, were lying and/or motivated by blind hate while Trump and his team, who refuse to go under oath and are known to lie for many reasons, are just victims of another evil conspiracy? C'mon Lenny!

You are correct! In fact, it has been used for ages before that too as you likely know. Here is a post from page 1 of this very thread. Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Many folks are unaware that cannabis has been used as medicine for about 50 times longer than it has been prohibited by the US Government. Once you know that it has been called medicine in the past it might be a little easier to accept now as medicine for some people. See these excerpts from the US Pharmacopeia dated 1900. These are instructions as to how to make an extract of the ground up cannabis plant. This is remarkably similar to the method shown on that video where Rick Simpson 'washes' the cannabis with a solvent and then boils off the solvent. The plant was outlawed and vilified in the 1930's and pretty much all research halted then. The American Medical Association opposed the prohibition at that time because they feared that research would be halted on the plant. They were right. http://antiquecannab...dix/USP1900.htm A pre-prohibition (pre 1937) look at cannabis in the USA. http://antiquecannabisbook.com

Buddy

This study https://newsroom.aaa.com/2020/01/fatal-crashes-involving-drivers-who-test-positive-for-marijuana-increase-after-state-legalizes-drug/ From the article The average number of THC-positive drivers increased, too. In the five years before legalization, an average of 56 drivers involved in fatal crashes each year were THC-positive. In the five years after legalization, the average jumped to 130. The new numbers bolster the findings of a similar report the AAA Foundation released in 2016. The study did not attempt to determine if marijuana contributed to the crashes included in its latest research. It focused only on the prevalence of drivers who tested positive for active THC. https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/16405 Wacka, this study raises some questions but it also seems to make the same 'mistake' we have seen over and over in cannabis studies. The article implies causation when we are seeing just a correlation. THC blood tests and urine tests for cannabis metabolites are used to determine impairment in the study. The fact is those tests can determine cannabis use but are not able to say how recently it was used or whether the person was actually impaired at testing time. So, if a person used cannabis Saturday and was involved in a crash the following Thursday, in this study, they would most likely test positive and be consider THC-positive at the time of the accident. The detection methods are able to uncover cannabis use for up to approximately 30 days - way, way, way beyond impairment. Also, for heavy users, even recent use does not seem to have much impact on driving ability so implying impairment in this situation is questionable too, especially when ignoring whether impairment contributed to the accident. Finally, if you consider legalization likely means more people in that state tried cannabis, it is reasonable then that more drivers and, in fact, more citizens overall would test positive after legalization. My opinion, and I am not a med professional, is that cannabis is not all that different from many other drugs that can impair mental abilities. When using it initially, use caution until you know how it affects you, sort of like the warning on the pharmacy bottles. Newbies, like new users of alcohol or pain medicine, are likely the most dangerous.

I thought I answered your question. Apparently not. Perhaps you could restate it Legality aside, cannabis has been being used widely since the 60's. It has been medically legal in Cali since 96 and medically legal in many other states for a decade or more. So, before adult-use laws, we learned a good bit from the medical legalizations. While often stated that it hasn't been studied, it has actually been widely studied. We do really have quite a lot of experience with it and the impact on traffic accidents and youth abuse, for instance.

I have heard you claim this several times. Why do you think the investigators have discounted this point?

There are honest to God medical properties within cannabis and I think cannabis medicines will move to be the first option with several illnesses over time. It should be the first option primarily because generally speaking, it has fewer side effects when taken for chronic health issues. We see that with cannabis medicines to treat pain versus opiates for instance. Even with oft alleged medical properties, general acceptance was painfully slow. The money and business angle of promoting cannabis have moved the acceptance ball much farther and faster than compassion for sick people. With made money comes interest by the politicians too. So, while cannabis should have moved toward acceptance due to it's medical properties, it really didn't move much until business and governments started to realize the dollars available.

True. It is not an apple or an elephant either. It is a pretty good source of cannabis information though that will often provide a link to the underlying study, if that study exists. If you don't read anything other than journals, you are going to miss a lot given the restrictions on cannabis research. If your personal rules however prohibit you from reading it, please don't. I post cannabis info that I think some may find worthwhile. If you don't see the source that way, then don't read it. I will be fine with that.