General US Politics

[Nobody]

27 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Why should the gov't encourage something that is less environmentally efficient than Nuclear?  Why should they be promoting Natural Gas which is less environmentally efficient than some plants that specialize in clean coal which is cleaner than nat gas?  Again the gov't sucks at everything - they don't know what they're talking about so why should they be the ones we follow instead of private companies?

Because its impact on the evironment is very low? Because it could partially replace coal, which is a very dirty form of energy.

Also, about coal vs natural gas: Which percentage of coal plants use clean coal? The key word is some. Some could mean 1%, it could mean 20%, it could mean 40%. If natural gas is cleaner than regular coal and less expensive than clean coal, I don't see any reason to not use it over coal in general. I'm not against nuclear energy, but people are not perfectly rational beings. Nuclear disasters are very serious even if they are extremely rare. It's similar to why people are more scared of planes than cars. If people were 100% rational beings, nuclear energy would probably be more widespread, but that shouldn't stop renewable energy sources from being used either way.

Also, isn't one of the reasons coal is still so widespread in the US the fact that the government tries to not allienate coal workers in the rusty belt? Regardless of one's view about private companies and government, Trump campained on keeping coal energy. Solar energy isn't the only one being "pushed" by politicians.
EDIT: Reading more about "clean coal", it seems like the term is somewhat misleading, and those teconologies are still in their infancy, are still very expensive AND the current administration is cutting funding for research on it

 

This part was particularly interesting: " Even a coal power plant that emits fewer pollutants is still a far dirtier way to produce electricity than a natural gas, nuclear, wind or solar plant. "

Edited November 2, 2017 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-trash-20171101-story.html

@SullyMcGully you asked how the government (or democrats) can provide services without handing out money. This is an example.

Another example is an interview I'm recalling between Jon Stewart and Barack Obama which stated that public service programs could be used to pay for college in the future -- so people would sign up to volunteer for 3-4 years in community service projects in exchange for free college.

[Phoenix Wright]

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

It's called ninja, why make assumptions?  Our posts were within seconds of one another....

try again, homie. this one.

Quote

Using the wikipedia definition of zero sum game redistribution of wealth is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.  IE, money that goes out of the rich goes into the poor with no new wealth created.  Innovation, however, creates wealth.  

this doesn't make sense. firstly, no one here suggested a redistribution of wealth, so that's just irrelevant. secondly, the "game" isn't money; capital is not the only component of an economy. the game is the economy as a whole. it's an extremely complex game, and as the page notes, complex games tend to be non zero sum. that's because the more complex a system is, the less likely the possible outcomes of a game result in zero; there's too many terms to formulate accurately. 

Quote

The more capitalistic your society gets, the more innovative it gets.

source.

Quote

Which leads into the sources you were asking for.  If you google Innovation + Capitalism you will get numerous results. 

this is your job, not mine.

Quote

Innovation being Capitalism's biggest advantage is a fact I learned in middle school and goes with the definition of capitalsm.

you also learned columbus discovered america. (he didn't.) 

Quote

Here's one source http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/business/why-innovation-is-still-capitalisms-star.html

this isn't a source, it's an opinion piece.

Quote

 

If you'd like, you can look at the world's most innovative and the world's most capitalistic countries and see a correlation.  Hell, China has been growing increasing more capitalistic as they are growing more innovative and wealthier.  

 

if you'd like, you'll also see that many of the world's richest nations have socialist-heavy policies. china still has much of the means of production in the public sector mate. you're looking at this too simply.

Quote

 

This paper talks about how the modern version of socialism that is being proposed may use current resources more effectively but our technological advance would halt and we would eventually fail.  Back to my example, we'd be stuck with a ton of box TVs and never invent the flatscreen. http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Soc_and_Innovation_02.pdf

 

this is a white paper, which is essentially an opinion piece.

Quote

 

And... who won the space race?  

 

this is not relevant. 

Quote

 

Our resources....that come from capitalistic society...

 

no, our resources that come from the very land we live on. having a certain economic system doesn't instantaneously grant your nation more resources.

Quote

Yep.  Like healthcare, other countries benefit from American innovation without actually contributing to it.  That's what I've been saying.  The reason America spends more and life expectancy isn't any higher is because when we have a breakthrough it is shared with other countries.  

i really am not sure what you're responding to here.

2 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Sorry, but I don't want radioactive Cesium in my groundwater supply. I know using it isn't a problem if done safely, but trying to store the waste in places where it won't hurt people or wildlife is stupidly difficult. Granted, I get my power hydroelectrically, which is harmful to wildlife, but at least I won't have to worry about Cesium giving me radiation poisoning.

it's not that difficult. france does extremely well. nuclear power is hands down the best alternative source of energy. next up depends on where you live, but it tends to be solar.

what are you talking about with cesium radiation poisoning?

[blah the Prussian]

14 hours ago, Lushen said:

None of what I was saying has anything to do with health care.  I was responding to your comments on Capitalism being "a zero sum game", which is untrue.  You didn't mentioned healthcare and so neither did I.

Either way, there is another huge misconception that US healthcare sucks.  It doesn't.  It may not be as available to the public as it is to other countries and it may not be as affordable, but it is certainty one of the most innovative.  It is known as health care's world leader when it comes to new medicine and innovations.  As this innovation continues, you can expect health care to be cheaper and cheaper much like the innovation of TVs brought 50' 1080p tvs down to only $300.00.  

 

Let's actually use TVs an example.  Not too long ago, you would be considered rich if you had more than one TV.  These TVs were crap by today's standards and most people could only afford to have one, if any.
- Socialist/Communists are able to mass produce these TVs like crazy which would bring the cost down considerably.  But, they would still use cathode ray tubes and use considerably more materials than TVs do today.  They would still look ugly in a living room and the screen would still look terrible.  And really, they would be reliant on sweat shops because their automation systems are not as good.  This is because Socialists/Communists are very good at mass production, but they don't innovate well.
- Capitalists made entirely new TVs.  These TVs looked better and were considerably cheaper.  Eventually this drove TV prices down a lot more than mass production ever would have.  They also invent new robots that are capable of manufacturing TVs quicker than ever before with less human labor.

You can expect the same with medicine.  You say Western Europe is economically dependent on the US and that's very true.  The entire world is very dependent on the US when it comes to health care which is why the US's system is so expensive - we're doing all the work when it comes to innovation.  Then other countries mass produce products and practices originally invented in the US which are used to treat and detect disease which brings down their cost because many of them aren't financing innovative medicine like the US is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

If you look at South Korea and Japan you're right that they are innovators and you're right that they have socialistic health care systems.  But you know what?  They are not innovative when it comes to health care, because their healthcare is socialistic.

Sorry for late response, had to sleep.

Anyway, none of what you said explains why Capitalism is a zero sum game; in Calitalism you can do nothing wrong but still lose out because your competitor did stuff more right, and you shouldn't be left in the cold because of it. The analogy between TVs and healthcare doesn't work; you don't need a TV to live(I should know, I don't have one) but you absolutely need healthcare to live. I don't think better quality healthcare is worth it if it puts a large percentage of the citizens of this country in debt. The US can and should encourage innovation, but you'd have to find another way than "fuck over the poor so the rich can get even better treatment". Innovation might be slower, sure, but I don't believe it would stop.

[Shoblongoo]

For some historical context: workplace health-and-safety standards, minimum wage laws, and bans on the use of child labor were all policies that had to overcome the initial stigma of being "socialist" ideas, before being generally accepted as good policy and vital legal components of a well-regulated capitalist system. Medicaid-for-all style government healthcare presents a similar conundrum. It's entirely consistent with a capitalist system within the classic capitalist economic framework, if one simply accepts the premise that healthcare is to be properly categorized as a public good (i.e. police, firefighting, schools...) rather than a market commodity (i.e. sporting events, movies and televisions, iPhones...) by nature of the service to-be-provided. And that Law and Public Policy should treat it accordingly. That's the real argument to be had, after the initial knee-jerk reaction of crying "SOCIALISM!!!!"

Edited November 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[ping]

19 hours ago, Lushen said:

Either way, there is another huge misconception that US healthcare sucks.  It doesn't.  It may not be as available to the public as it is to other countries and it may not be as affordable, but it is certainty one of the most innovative.  It is known as health care's world leader when it comes to new medicine and innovations.  As this innovation continues, you can expect health care to be cheaper and cheaper much like the innovation of TVs brought 50' 1080p tvs down to only $300.00.  

Actually, no. The better health care becomes, the more expensive it will be. Existing treatments might become cheaper, but innovation also means that more and more ailments can and will be treated, so the overall expenses would go up. Even worse, if someone is cured of cancer (and the probability of that is constantly rising), it only means that they have more time to catch another disease that is expensive to treat. Similarly, (European) health insurance companies would save a buttload of money if everyone started smoking tomorrow - sure, lung cancer ratio would go up dramatically, but since people would die sooner, they would still need less treatment in total on average.

A German statistician compared this (or quoted someone himself; I can't recall right now) to a rather morbid game: Roll one (somehow modified) die for every potentially fatal disease. The number is the age at which you'll die of that particular disease. The point he was making is that eradicating cancer would not increase life expectancy as much as you'd think, but it also illustrates that if you can "buy away" one die, you'll just have more time to throw some more expensive and/or potentially lethal dice.

tl;dr: Curing diseases is a terrible thing from a capitalistic PoV. If you're a good capitalist, you should consider suicide the day the go to pension.

16 hours ago, Lushen said:

And... who won the space race?  

The Rus, actually.

[Lushen]

I'm not sure what kind of a source you people are expecting.   

1.  Capitalistic countries are almost always better at innovation than socialistic ones. You say "Correlation != Causation"
2.  China has become increasing more capitalistic and observed more and more innovation and economic success (although I think their innovation is greatly overestimated and a lot of it is just cheap knockoffs)
3.  Almost all 'opinion peaces' talk about Capitalism being more effective at innovation than other means.
4.  Common freaking sense.  People are guided by self interest and when you take that self-interest away people are going to be less interested in company growth (because it's not their company).  
5.  I cited an academic article talking about how Democratic Socialism might be good at managing resources in the short term but assumes static technology (no technical advance) and will fail in the long run.

 

In other news, inside the DNC and Hillary Clinton (not suprised).  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
So not only was the DNC under enormous debt before Clinton, but now they are under scrutiny for the Russian Dossier and likely in more debt because Clinton was extremely expensive and lost.  And a ton of democrats hate the DNC and Clinton now that that they know she robbed the nomination from Sanders.

Meanwhile the RNC has raised record-high $100million.  

I guess this is what happens when you alienate the wealthy.... I don't see how the Democrats could be successful in 2018, let alone 2020 with the current state of the DNC.  Unless Clinton runs again and continues to bribe the DNC.

 

From what I've been seeing, the new tax proposals by GOP will help most middle class earners and hurt most of the extreme wealthy.  So Bernie can calm down.  It will, however, hurt some blue states because they will lose some of the extra money they were getting from SALT.  Californians in particular are in a bit of trouble.  Additionally, the death tax will be roughly cut in half.  While I was originally opposed to this, I've kind of shifted my view because why the hell does the Gov't have the right to graverob you on money you've already paid taxes on because you're dead?  And most of the extremely wealthy were taking advantage of living wills anyways.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[ping]

Guess I live in a failed state. :( Too bad, but I suppose it's a good thing I finally noticed! That would explain why Europe is still in the dark ages and can only wonder at the sciencey magic that the US can work!

[Lord Raven]

I don't think you understand that we are arguing in favor of regulated markets, not socialism or democratic socialism. In fact, I am baffled you think we disagree about capitalism being most effective, though your stance is more about fellating capitalism and everyone else's stance is "well everything is shitty but if we introduce rational regulation into capitalism that ensures that business owners give their employees fair pay and do not abuse the public. Furthermore, Trump was one of the cheapest campaigns in recent memory because he got so much attention; what he did was an anomaly, which was say really stupid and awful shit and get free airtime.

At any rate you're a fool if you think the Democrats alienate the rich lol, you're also acting like the wealthy should be the ones holding the power and not the people... meaning you do like corporate lobbies that work against the interest of the American people. Makes sense why you like to fellate your god emperor Trump.

The purpose of the death tax is to ensure that their money is circulating in the economy as opposed to just frozen and not being used anywhere. Your argument is purely based in emotion when in reality such taxes are overall better for the economy. It's not grave robbing unless you're really that mind-bogglingly conservative that you think all taxation is theft, which is objectively false.

The purpose of sources is to use facts to back up your claim. Opinion pieces are not sources because they're not facts. It's also about actually quantifying your claims instead of throwing an opinion piece that says "that's why I think it happens" as opposed to one that says "in these observed studies we noticed that this, this, and this was a trend given these variables."

I think you have no idea how to cite sources and what sources are good to cite because you haven't taken school seriously in your life (source: your rants about education earlier in the thread, and your inability to understand research) and you never learned to construct an argument. As it stands, the criticism of your sources has been identifying them as opinion pieces and the conclusion you draw from the source being flawed or incongruent with the source's facts and data. When we say "source," we ask you if there was a controlled study of some sort that found data to support your conclusion, which you have failed to do on a catastrophic level.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lord Raven

[blah the Prussian]

I might be giving the article too much credit but there is a difference between Social Democracy and Democratic a Socialism. Social Democracy is what much of Europe has. It still has private ownership of the means of production. Venezuela has Democratic Socialism(which is increasingly becoming less democratic).

[Lushen]

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The purpose of the death tax is to ensure that their money is circulating in the economy as opposed to just frozen and not being used anywhere. Your argument is purely based in emotion when in reality such taxes are overall better for the economy. It's not grave robbing unless you're really that mind-bogglingly conservative that you think all taxation is theft, which is objectively false.

Not all taxation is theft.  Taxation is an agreement you make with the gov't that some of your earnings go back to the country to protect you and provide public services you can benefit from.  The issue with the death tax is you've already been taxed on that income.  So in essence, you're getting taxed twice. 

As for money 'freezing', that's not how money actually works.  Unless it's sitting under your mattress, it's going to go into banks and then loaned back out to the middle class to start businesses and grow the economy.  Or if you give it to some spoiler brat, they're going to spend that money on random crap and you'll get your precious circulation anyways. 

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I don't think you understand that we are arguing in favor of regulated markets, not socialism or democratic socialism.

This is not true at all.  You yourself have said multiple times that you do not believe in capitalism, as have others.  Plenty of people on this thread love the idea of democratic socialism and I would not be surprised if some like the idea of socialism as well.

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

At any rate you're a fool if you think the Democrats alienate the rich lol, you're also acting like the wealthy should be the ones holding the power and not the people... meaning you do like corporate lobbies that work against the interest of the American people. Makes sense why you like to fellate your god emperor Trump.

I've said multiple times that I don't like Trump - I just think he's better than Clinton.  Again with the assumptions.

 

As for your attacks on my education, I'll just gently point out that my education has apparently got me farther in life than you.

[Tryhard]

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

This is not true at all.  You yourself have said multiple times that you do not believe in capitalism, as have others.  Plenty of people on this thread love the idea of democratic socialism and I would not be surprised if some like the idea of socialism as well.

we don't believe in completely unregulated free-market capitalism. corporatism and crony capitalism come under capitalism as well and you probably wouldn't agree with them because they are essentially rampant corruption.

I'm a social democrat. I still believe in living within the rules of a regulated capitalistic society.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

we don't believe in completely unregulated free-market capitalism. corporatism and crony capitalism come under capitalism as well and you probably wouldn't agree with them because they are essentially rampant corruption.

I'm a social democrat. I still believe in living within the rules of a regulated capitalistic society.

I think you're speaking for yourself though and not everyone.  Lord Raven has specifically said he doesn't believe in capitalism.  Period. And other people in this thread propose democratic socialism, not just social democracy.

[Time the Crestfallen]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

This is not true at all.  You yourself have said multiple times that you do not believe in capitalism, as have others.  Plenty of people on this thread love the idea of democratic socialism and I would not be surprised if some like the idea of socialism as well.

No, people have been advocating for social democracy and yes, there is a difference. Including myself, there's probably only two or three people who'd argue for democratic socialism, and even then I only support it under several caveats.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As for your attacks on my education, I'll just gently point out that my education has apparently got me farther in life than you.

Do you not remember your arguments with him on wealth inequality? I think that has a lot more to do with your position in life relative to his than your respective educations.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Archer of Red said:

Do you not remember your arguments with him on wealth inequality? I think that has a lot more to do with your position in life relative to his than your respective educations.

Not true.  We both had our education paid for by outside sources so we were both in the exact same situation after college.  No potential employers knew my position in life.  If anything, he has received more privileged than me because his masters program was paid for as well.

 

And a couple people is enough.  This has happened twice now where someone has advocated socialism or democratic socialism and we started talking about it.  Then people started saying "No one is saying we want democratic socialism" when people in fact have which is why the discussion started in the first place.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

That's cause I worked my ass off to get into a PhD program, so I wouldn't be drowning in loans. I still only get paid -- as a grad student -- for 20 hours of work a week even though I clock in 60. And I'm the most privileged in my department because I only have to deal with rent and paying off my car, others have this and student loans to deal with.

The point isn't to measure our cocks; the point is your three step plan is bullshit. I didn't work coming out of college, but working a 20k/year job (which is what grad school is) after busting your ass through college does not convince me that your three step plan is anything resembling the truth. Because as I said, I'm one scholarship rejection away from a totally different life, and when you're poor and your family is poor you often lack secondary options.

At any rate, I said I was a democratic socialist who voted centrist (so I end up voting for social democracy, which is centrist) over my own views. My personal view is that we should work towards DemSoc but SocDem is the compromise we have to help reduce wealth inequality, giving people opportunities all while ensuring we live in a free society. These are things I have said repeatedly and keep saying, and yet you wonder why I treat you like a child. My arguments have always been in favor of regulated free markets.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

At any rate, I said I was a democratic socialist who voted centrist (so I end up voting for social democracy, which is centrist) over my own views. My personal view is that we should work towards DemSoc but SocDem is the compromise we have to help reduce wealth inequality, giving people opportunities all while ensuring we live in a free society. These are things I have said repeatedly and keep saying, and yet you wonder why I treat you like a child.

Well.  In this case you claimed that no one was arguing for democratic socialism.  Then on the very next page you talk about how you want democratic socialism.

[Time the Crestfallen]

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

And a couple people is enough.  This has happened twice now where someone has advocated socialism or democratic socialism and we started talking about it.  Then people started saying "No one is saying we want democratic socialism" when people in fact have which is why the discussion started in the first place.

Yeah, it happens with two or three people in the entire thread, none of whom have brought it up in relation to you or your views and then you start projecting it onto everyone else. You haven't come into this thread willing to have your views challenged, you've come into this thread having already decided that America and Capitalism are the greatest things to exist since water and arguing backwards from their using analogies, metaphors, and opinion pieces. Need I remind you I still haven't gotten a response from you on how a single-payer healthcare would stunt the innovation of healthcare in the US other than shoddy correlation=causation arguments and a Bill Gates analogy that, even assuming I take it at face value, doesn't challenge the point I was making.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Archer of Red

[Lord Raven]

Yes I do want it. Doesn't mean that it's a great idea.

I'm pragmatic. The system I want has not ensured freedom and equality of opportunity when placed in practice. I believe in the concepts which spawned my personal, political viewpoint.

However, in the end, I vote for any philosophy that ensures those two things so long as there is concrete plan, policy, argument, and evidence behind it. Your solutions lack all of the above; I naturally question it and poke holes in it.

Regardless of how you compare yourself to me, it is extremely clear that you have not learned how to form an argument and I have the evidence -- straight from you -- to show it. The proof and sources you have shown are substandard, the arguments you use against our sources do not contradict the methodology and go into causation/correlation fallacies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong or having faulty logic so long as you correct it! In fact, I recommend you continue to read Shoblongoo's posts and view how he constructs an argument compared to how others in here do it. He's the gold standard here IMO

Edited November 3, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

you still didn't reply to my post. at this point i don't think you even want to be taken seriously. with a wealth gap like ours, capitalism as you want it simply cannot work.

11 hours ago, Lushen said:

I'm not sure what kind of a source you people are expecting.   

a source is something that provides facts to back up an argument. a source is not:

Quote

1.  Capitalistic countries are almost always better at innovation than socialistic ones. You say "Correlation != Causation"

a statement assuming knowledge,

Quote

2.  China has become increasing more capitalistic and observed more and more innovation and economic success (although I think their innovation is greatly overestimated and a lot of it is just cheap knockoffs)

a statement making a claim with no evidence,

Quote

3.  Almost all 'opinion peaces' talk about Capitalism being more effective at innovation than other means.

an opinion piece (though, opinion pieces can contain sources. the white paper you linked contained a few),

Quote

4.  Common freaking sense.  People are guided by self interest and when you take that self-interest away people are going to be less interested in company growth (because it's not their company).  

"common freaking sense,"

Quote

5.  I cited an academic article talking about how Democratic Socialism might be good at managing resources in the short term but assumes static technology (no technical advance) and will fail in the long run.

or white papers. not all academic articles are inherently scientific. white papers, like i mentioned, are essentially opinion pieces. they're reviews of knowledge up to a point, and the results of that knowledge are interpreted by the writer.

so you simply don't have a very good idea of what a source is. and for the future, if you require a source from me (and the burden of proof is on me), then i'm happy to provide them. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Shoblongoo]

Have you read Adam Smith, Lushen? Book V; Chapter 1, Part 3: Of the Expense of Public Works and Public Institutions. I just posted a link to the full body of work in the learning materials thread. Please review. (And please stop claiming that your anti-government tirades are a defense of "capitalism" until such time as you have educated yourself on this subject)

Edited November 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Slumber]

5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Have you read Adam Smith, Lushen? Book V; Chapter 1, Part 3: Of the Expense of Public Works and Public Institutions. I just posted a link to the full body of work in the learning materials thread. Please review. (And please stop claiming that your anti-government tirades are a defense of "capitalism" until such time as you have educated yourself on this subject)

Certainly somebody who places capitalism above all else has read the works of the father of modern capitalism.

[Shoblongoo]

59 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Certainly somebody who places capitalism above all else has read the works of the father of modern capitalism.

You would think, right?

Yet he seems to be of the opinion that spending taxpayer money on institutions of learning and public health...funding scientific research and development...using tax and regulatory power to correct negative externalities and market failures...

...These are things that government is not supposed to do in a capitalist country....

I don't think he's read it. 

I mean I'm sure he knows the part about the "Invisible Hand,"  but...

Edited November 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Res]

On 11/2/2017 at 12:09 PM, Lushen said:

From what I've been seeing, the new tax proposals by GOP will help most middle class earners and hurt most of the extreme wealthy.  

How so? I've seen nothing to support this and a google search brings up nothing but how the wealthiest will benefit.

Meanwhile the tax proposals are going to hurt a lot of marginalized people:

- disabled people are screwed in two major ways; one is that low income households with high healthcare costs will see their ability to deduct healthcare costs above 10% of their income go away. Many disabled people have a low income as a result of either not being able to work, or finding their working capacity to be limited.

The other way they're screwed is that currently small businesses can claim a 50% credit towards accessibility costs for providing disabled access; that is going away under the new tax proposals.

- people who want to adopt are going to find it a lot more expensive, and it will discourage many people altogether. 

[Slumber]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/358837-mueller-has-obtained-evidence-to-bring-charges-in-flynn-probe

Looks like old Flynn is in trouble today. Man, how could the Trump administration lose any more credibili-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/leaked-documents-show-commerce-secretary-concealed-ties-putin-cronies-n817711?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma

Oh. Somebody still in his cabinet was caught laundering money, dealing with Putin's family business, and lying to the senate.

WHOOPS

It's a good thing the Trump administration is around after the whole Spacey ordeal and House of Cards getting canned. Unbelievable White House drama is getting delivered to me on a weekly basis at this point.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Slumber