OK, then I’m free to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice and members of his campaign of conspiring with the Russian government to violate election law because I have become aware of the things they’ve said and done. — Michael

Indeed you are.

Hardly deniable that you are, is it?

But that's politics.

Trump or his campaign are accused of anything it’s straight to “but he hasn’t been charged” — Michael

I think that maybe you are merely holding on to some hope as a consequence of a side you chose not winning that election.

No double standard. Each have different roles. For example, Trump doesn't do investigations.
Yes it is true that I am free to accuse Mueller of corruption because I have become aware of his history and his alliances.

They will play their games and that will be that. Time will tell whether either camp was worth defending.

Nothing has gone before any court. So yeah, it is all conjecture, media manipulation or otherwise, and politics.

Trump, as you know, has not even been charged with anything relating to Russia yet alone had to defend anything in court about it.

Suicide is a reasoned act usually brought about through a severity in circumstances — TheMadFool

Drug addiction, for example, is not generally considered to have been constructed by "reasoned" means and so often leads to the sickness of desperation and despair. Very high incidences of drug addiction related to pain control for terrible accidental injuries.

It maybe time to get real, MadFool. Maybe you are quite young and yet to feel great pressures of life either from responsibilities or aging.

Mueller is only Trump’s “opponent” if Trump is guilty of some crime under Mueller’s remit — Michael

Law officers do, from time to time, corrupt their offices whether they are cops on the street or the higher ups.

The higher ups are not angels just because they have ascended to those positions.

This should be hardly profound news.

(Just reorganizing my response to include what I was responding to, for communication clarity)

Suicide is a reasoned act usually brought about through a severity in circumstances — TheMadFool

Only sometimes. Is it "reasoned" to become unwell?

The lens we use to view an event or object is our choice but without viewing something from all angles we deprive ourselves. — TheMadFool

However, the "views" in this case do not necessarily come down to a choice between merely two options, such as "brave" to commit suicide or "coward" to have committed suicide.

Sickness happens. It is less inescapable than taxes. The brain is an organ and like other organs of the body is subject to fatigue and un-wellness.

That's just an opinion I don't share because of the corruption I perceive.

Law officers do, from time to time, corrupt their offices whether they are cops on the street or the higher ups.

The higher ups are not angels just because they have ascended to those positions.

This should be hardly profound news.

The President of a company has the authority to fire anyone but can still be guilty of wrongful termination. Trump has the authority to end the investigation but can still be guilty of obstruction of justice. — Michael

My point is his "opposition" won't want to test it because, in my opinion, it is politics.

Try reading some actual news sources and educating yourself on what’s happening — Wayfarer

An example of passive aggression (which is why I responded in kind previously but it appears I was censored).

Down since 2006?

Maybe, then, it could start to rise. Trump 2020, if he can drain that swamp.

If the 2006 thing is accurate then what does that say about the Obama years?

Just to put that point in some context, according to the Democracy Index the US is categorized as a "flawed democracy" well down the list of well-functioning democracies. — Baden

That graph appears to rate the US quite highly. Have I not read it correctly? The sky-blue range of 8-9? Isn't that 2nd from best?

There is simply enduring and coping. Again, troubling. — schopenhauer1

If in pain then this statement of your makes sense. If not in pain then this statement of yours is what is troubling.

I guess i am a "deplorable".

There’s your problem in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

My "problem" is I disagree with you. So effectively I appear to be your problem.

I don't think he understands what the report is about. I don't think he understands what the Mueller investigation is about. When he says it's a 'witch hunt', he really means it. He knows there is danger, there is trouble, and he's lunging at it to the best of his ability. Which is not much. — Wayfarer

I call your analysis very, very naive.

The extent of Trump's legal advisory team will be somewhat astronomical for his team not to understand.

(and yes, of course he has a team. It's what got him there)

Trump himself is not a dummy.

If he was a dummy he wouldn't be the threat his opponents are treating him as.



I think it suits him to let all this play out and die by it's own sword because although he has the authority to end it, that would not look good politically.

He will leave it up to lawyers and courts which will, I suspect, bring all sorts of matters up because, if anything goes to court, 'discovery' provisions come into play and his opponents know this.

That is why his opponents, such as Muller and co, are playing politics in the hope things stay buried until the next election in the hope that negative publicity, using the anti trump media, will convince voters that "Russia, Russia, Russia" was real.

Clinton and Obama on Illegal Immigration & Border

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhpK--yMRhg

would you like to provide your thoughts on the Trump administration's policy of separating immigrant families? — Maw

Although, to correct you, not "immigrant" families. Immigrants do not cross borders illegally.

Apparently this was an Obama policy that has yet to be altered which democrats have been invited to meet with the current administration in order to improve it.

Apparently celebrity democrat supporters also tweeted photos of cage-like areas holding undocumented border jumpers, but deleted their tweets once it was pointed out that the photos were taken in 2014.

It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.

It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.

It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. — Maw

So how would these, you have listed above, impinge upon, say, a so-defined left leaning speaker?

Is it not the same for any invited speaker from anywhere? Is that not an example equality? Same rules for everyone?

Well organizing stuff costs money. People won't do all this work for free.

Millions of dollars goes in all directions FROM all directions all the time.

So which "vague planks" specifically do you find objectionable and why?

It should be obvious that the above protects all invited speakers from the left or right or from the mars.

This is what you found objectionable in more detail;

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE

The model legislation presented and explained in this brief does several things:

* It creates an official university policy that strongly affirms the importance of free expression,
nullifying any existing restrictive speech codes in the process.

* It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members
of the campus community wish to hear from.

* It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes
with the free-speech rights of others.

* It allows persons whose free-speech rights have been improperly infringed by the university
to recover court costs and attorney’s fees.

* It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain
neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion
and dialogue within the university itself.

* It ensures that students will be informed of the official policy on free expression.

* It authorizes a special subcommittee of the university board of trustees to issue a yearly
report to the public, the trustees, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative
handling of free-speech issues.

Taken together, these provisions create a system of interlocking incentives designed to encourage
students and administrators to respect and protect the free expression of others.

Those events are for invited speakers to be heard. Plain and simple, although not for the emotionally retarded...........students on those campuses (was who I was referring to there, by the way).

Sounds very reasonable to enact in order to straighten out all the nonsense that has been allowed to go on for too long.

These are kids that do not know anything trying to stop other kids from learning from visiting speakers of counter views to the things they don't really know much about in the first instance.

Those events are for invited speakers to be heard. Plain and simple, although not for the emotionally retarded.

Universities make rules, or not, for control of conduct within their auditoriums during such events. It is not against the 1st amendment for those institutions to control student behavior.

No different to a teacher or lecturer expecting not to be screamed at incessantly while doing their job

All schools have always had their rules.

Shouting down invited speakers out of turn, rather than addressing invited speakers during question time, and pulling fire alarms, is not ALLOWING free speech within the venue.

Civility vs incivility was the issue there.

Feel free to quote examples.

You know that Paul Manafort, who was Chairman of the Trump Campaign, is in jail facing criminal charges? — Wayfarer

By the way, Manafort is not charged with anything related to Trump campaign.

Also, he has not been tried.

It's all part of the war that is going on.

We will see who wins.

I suspect it will become a "big deal" along with everything else the FBI leadership were up to.

Keep watching.

The American people want you to rejoin S. Korea, become a dedicated ally of world peace, and make lots of Korean barbecue sauce for the world market. — frank

With regard to this.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

He can’t even read and interpret a report, instead lashing out at the FBI as ‘a den of thieves’ and ‘scum’ — Wayfarer

So what do you make of this txt exchange prior to election between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page?

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

What do you want?

Ok. So you are parroting a narrative without really looking into what this "all" may mean?

"Status" isn't providing any detail. Certainly not to qualify as "all they want".

And who is "they" in this context? I presume you mean NK's leader?

I would have thought every leader requires a recognition of status AS the leader from other leaders.

Kim is the current leader of NK, is he not?

What would be the point, with regard to negotiations, to make a show of not recognizing he is NK's leader?

I would have thought that recognizing him as leader would have to be the first step to talking with him.

What's the alternative to not talking? Just blowing them all up?

So giving them "all they want" effectively only really equates to setting up talks and then talking.

it is a consequence of known physics — tom

Where is one when conducting a physics experiment?

One cannot be other than whatever the experience happens to be, in this case the physics experiment experience.

It's not an assumption, it is a consequence of known physics. Stones are not and cannot be self aware, or even aware. — tom

You make a distinction between aware and self-aware.

At what point is one "aware" without some sense of self?

What I am getting at is there not just general moment to moment experience which may as well be called "awareness"?

After all we cannot be aware of anything other than what is our immediate experience - the very same experience within which our self is assumed to arise with.

So the so-called "self" cannot really be other than every other apparent object which arises as the experience. Sometimes this experience may consist of what is defined as a stone.

During your experience of a stone the stone must also be you. You can never be outside of your experience.

So if you are "aware" then you as the experience is "aware", and the "experience" is every thing within that.

You cannot exist outside of experience and you do not exist within experience.

There is just Experience.

Try having an experience where you are not. It is just not possible. So we should just be dealing with reality rather than what we think maybe real.

Thinking there is a you that exists that then goes about having an experience (awareness) is merely some idea.

To consider such an idea as real is essentially absurd.

Awareness must be whatever arises. Sometimes this will be a stone. Consequently a stone is equally awareness.

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body. And hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies — Sam26

Our perceptions are limited, in the first instance, in determining what is the body one supposedly leaves in order to view it from another point in space, as with an 'outer body experience'.

Perception informs us that our body's outer surface is the skin. However, this is a perception limited the extent to which perception is programmed over countless generations. A program which constructs and pictures - memories which inform the present experience.

It could be that one's body takes up far greater space than the visible one which appears enclosed in the skin.
This is because density is relative to perception. If one mechanically changes one's perceptions of what appears to be dense skin by looking at this layer through a microscope then one will notice there seems to be more space than any dense form of matter.

So effectively this could mean the thing which gives us the picture of bodies and rooms, etc - the viewpoint from which things are perceived, may be able to occasionally act more fluidly by changing it's position within a body of which most of it is invisible to regular perception (without something like the mechanical aid of a microscope.

So if one "leaves their body" they may have merely experienced a different location within a much larger invisible aspect of body from which to view the denser perceivable example of it.

So, for example, one's body, although mostly invisible to our limited perception, could be as large as a block of 3 houses.

So some event may occur which could jolt the habitual viewpoint location out and away into another location in space only then to view objects, one object of which being the usual perceived and apparent skin encapsulated form we had merely become habitually accustomed to being the entire form of the individual body.