The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Grunth wrote:So, towards the actual subject of Hillary Clinton's qualification for being prosecuted.
The Clinton Foundation! Remember this 'charity' organization? Wealthy international donors no longer donate to this foundation. Why not? Are they not interested in 'charitable' work?
Of course these donors were never interested in 'charitable' operations. They were interested in having the Secretary of State's champion and open doors for their private business, of which the Clinton mafia family got handsomely paid for.
Notice that 87% of its money is spent on its programs and services, which is extremely high. They've given millions of people access to HIV treatment, among many other activities. In other words, from all available evidence, the foundation is actually one that's done a lot of good in the world. You may be relying on the claim by Reince Priebus and others that it is corrupt, but this is from a fact checker: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ndation-c/ It appears, to be charitable, that Priebus simply misread the information.
Now I don't doubt that the Clinton Foundation received donations from people hoping to curry favor with Hillary Clinton, but so what? If the charity was doing good work, that's great. I'm not saying that the Clintons are morally spotless - they accepted money for speaking fees from again people who wanted influence - but which politician wouldn't do that? Doesn't mean that she actually did the donors any favors.
But why am I explaining this to you? You are beyond the reach of logic. You are a true believer. You are not as clinically insane as someone else I will not name, but your ideas and conclusions are not fact-based. Sad.
"Was" doing good work? So why isn't it still? Where is the Clinton Foundation?
-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 4:16 pm to add the following --
The Clinton Foundation's existed to do favors.
Favors that can now not be fulfilled as a consequence of Hillary not having the political influence she once had to exploit American taxpayer's contributions to the State.
Wilson wrote:So if Trump is impeached, you advocate civil war, with high casualties?
Thanks for confirming our - well, you know.
If Trump is impeached it is through a coup, a soft coup, as has played out in Latin America with the impeachment of the left wing female President of Brazil. The only way to counter the bravado and villainy will be through civil war. Otherwise in their pride they will only increase in their tyranny and oppression. They will be sure to silence all speech that contradicts or challenges their narrative.
In the case civil war happens high casualties are needed, not suggested, because the enemy must feels a high cost for trying to turn the rest of us into 2nd, 3rd, 4th class citizens and continuing a campaign to disenfranchise us of both vote and financial freedom.
The nuclear option should not be taken off the table either. Particularly for costal financial centers of gravity such as New York City and San Fransico. Chicago being one of the financial capitals but located in the interior of the country, with an industrial infrastructure, may be allowed to stand but would need to be invaded (expecting high casualty count taking its urban terrain vertically and horizontally). If we can't have Chicago we might as well nuke it. This requires one or more major nuclear powers the US has declared its enemy that would be willing under mounting pressure to launch massive nuclear strikes on the European allies of the United States. And producing tactical nuclear strikes on limited number of cities in the US to buttress the violent strategic moderation of the freedom fighters, against the aggression of the fanatics of the regime that overthrew Trump. Argentine Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Denounces Coup in Brazil Noam Chomsky: Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff "Impeached by a Gang of Thieves
Wilson wrote:So if Trump is impeached, you advocate civil war, with high casualties?
Thanks for confirming our - well, you know.
If Trump is impeached it is through a coup, a soft coup, as has played out in Latin America with the impeachment of the left wing female President of Brazil. The only way to counter the bravado and villainy will be through civil war. Otherwise in their pride they will only increase in their tyranny and oppression. They will be sure to silence all speech that contradicts or challenges their narrative.
If Trump is impeached it is through a coup, a soft coup, as has played out in Latin America with the impeachment of the left wing female President of Brazil. The only way to counter the bravado and villainy will be through civil war. Otherwise in their pride they will only increase in their tyranny and oppression. They will be sure to silence all speech that contradicts or challenges their narrative.
Never heard of that dude or his site. All I saw from the link you provided is that he is an orthopedic surgeon and health care analyst. That and that he brings on guests with backgrounds in health care, economics, and geopolitics.
Never heard of that dude or his site. All I saw from the link you provided is that he is an orthopedic surgeon and health care analyst. That and that he brings on guests with backgrounds in health care, economics, and geopolitics.
-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 8:14 pm to add the following --
As long as this part of the link, ... ry-12-2017, stays blue then it should bring up the audio.
-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 8:36 pm to add the following --
Any civil war launched as a coup to depose Trump will not be a coup 'for the people'. It would be a coup for power (and, again, not 'power for the people').
A coup/civil war will be launched by those who are scared to totally lose their power and influence and to prevent exposure of the frauds they had been operating. The coup organizers are trying to keep out of jail. Obama is such a organizer as this, but if or when a civil war begins I guarantee he will be trying to call the shots from somewhere like Bahrain. These psychopaths won't risk their own lives. Richard Branson could keep Obama company, maybe even provide some boys for him.
It seems that America has a need to watch home grown terrorists, rather than foreign ones.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else. Archibald Macleish.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else. Archibald Macleish.
Well, if all republicans are terrorists then I think you should immigrate very fast to somewhere else. The difficulty, however, is that every other nation has borders and so you will have to find legal means to enter other places, unless you are hoping to find a sanctuary country. Good luck.
-- Updated February 19th, 2017, 2:27 am to add the following --
-- Updated February 19th, 2017, 2:29 am to add the following --
I didn't say all Republicans. It's just that when I read these comments about armed insurrection against the US government it tends to be from extreme right wing republican sources, who seem to delight in the idea of armed rebellion & the resulting suffering & loss of life.
I was born & have lived in the UK all my life. I have absolutely no wish to emigrate to any other country.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else. Archibald Macleish.
Rederic wrote:I didn't say all Republicans. It's just that when I read these comments about armed insurrection against the US government it tends to be from extreme right wing republican sources, who seem to delight in the idea of armed rebellion & the resulting suffering & loss of life.
I was born & have lived in the UK all my life. I have absolutely no wish to emigrate to any other country.
You didn't say 'some people who happen to vote republican, you said "republicans".
Thanks, Grunth, for that link and radio podcast. Hey, I listen to the first 6:30 minutes of it and will return to it! Very interesting. Reminds me of this article I link below about CIA-back rebels in Syria violently clashing with Pentagon-backed rebels in Syria.
Rederic wrote:I didn't say all Republicans. It's just that when I read these comments about armed insurrection against the US government it tends to be from extreme right wing republican sources, who seem to delight in the idea of armed rebellion & the resulting suffering & loss of life.
I was born & have lived in the UK all my life. I have absolutely no wish to emigrate to any other country.
I voted for Democrats my entire life, including Obama the first time, and even in local elections (not national) this time around, thank ya very much. In fact, I voted for Bernie Sanders originally but Hillary Democrats disenfranchised me of that vote. I only voted for a Republican once in the past for the Presidency, and regretted that as much as I later regretted voting for Obama. After Obama's first 4 years as President I dropped out of voting and politics completely. I only got back into to voting in Presidential elections when the Bernie Democrats and Trump Republicans became a voice of rebellion against the status quo alliance of the two-party establishment.
Frankly, I'm waaaay too fiscally liberal to be a Democrat. And I'm also pro-family and pro-working man. The modern day Democrats are neither and attack both. They focus mainly on "identity politics." LA city is run in tight fist reign by Democrats, yet they have the unholy Third World sight of Skid Row, and the elitist, snobbish, Democrats from NYC to Chicago to LA toss their noses up in the air in both disdain and dismissal of those people. Metro LA has GDP equivalent to the entire rich nation-state of the Netherlands. Furthermore, metro LA has fewer people. And in economics National Income is basically the same amount as a countries GDP. So, metro LA has the money to be as fiscally liberal as Amsterdam alone, one city in the Netherlands, and house (appropriately) all of those homeless people. They simply refuse too. And I know the City Government of LA has bank accounts, vaults, full of money stashed away for rainy days because I've already read about it (albeit, metro LA is a larger territory than the City of LA proper).
The recent violence in Berkley was carried out by liberals and not Republicans. But liberals today are often neither tolerant nor coherent. I'm more of a Tulsi Gabbard liberal. Like me she served in the military and like me she was awarded the combat action ribbon. She broke ranks with the Democratic Party when she supported Bernie Sanders. Unlike Maxine Waters she traveled--just recently--to Syria to see things with her own eyes. Met with maimed and injured children. She is Hindu and a surfer. And she would make a fine President. She also has chosen to work with the elected President Donald Trump rather than conspire to overthrow him. Apparently, Hindu-Americans are backing her in supporting President Assad and the Russians combating hundreds of mobs of rebel groups trying to topple the legitimate government.
In terms of civil war in the USA there is such a philosophical moral principle called The Golden Rule. Which apparently you and other Western liberals do not adhere too. If it is okay for you all to spread murder and mayhem across the world by arming and financing rebel groups then it ought be per justice for that same violence to be returned to the USA (Or UK) through civil war.
Oh, and look at the bearded faces in the photo. Mujihedeen means "holy warrior." As in the title of those we supported against communist Russian invasion in Afghanistan that after the war turned into the Taliban. But I guess Assad and his well educated wife, both looking and dressing like any man or woman in London or New York City, are not "moderate Muslims" like these bearded men calling themselves the Mujihedeen?
Several hundred factions:
At the grassroots level, there are still several hundred factions battling the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, but it is now possible to identify a handful of large coalitions spanning all or part of Syria, in addition to perhaps ten or fifteen second-tier alliances that seem to stand head and shoulders above the rest.
Russia, Turkey and Iran — sponsors of the gathering — urged Syria's rebels to dissociate themselves from al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria, now known as the Fatah al-Sham Front.
Oh, there goes that word "Mujahideen" again. Another US backed "moderate." I bet Obama and Hillary Democrats would have a fit if a bunch of Christian fighters from the West started shooting up people while calling themselves "Crusaders" or "Warriors of the Cross."
On Jan. 23, Fatah al-Sham fighters surrounded the offices in Idlib province belonging to one of the rebel groups that had sent representatives to Astana, the U.S.-backed Jaish al-Mujadeen, and hours later, forced its fighters to surrender.
Like Tusli Gabbard I'm a brown skinned fiscal liberal. But unlike her I am Christian and not Hindu. But like her I am probably more tolerant than 99% of atheists as I'm not trying to convert Assad's Syria or the extra conservative Saudi Arabia (far more oppressive than Assad--Christian religious symbols are illegal in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims can't be citizens but can get work visas, and in their City of Mecca non-Mulsims are forbidden entrance entirely) to my Christian ways. I have fond memories of the UAE run under Islamic law and I would rather live in the theocracy and absolute monarchy of Qatar than in my own Midwestern city. But, given I prefer more liberal laws that don't make all sins illegal, I mostly would rather live in Amsterdam. But tolerance means liberals ought not demand I clap and morally support every sin they deem the greatest thing on earth. Fly your rainbow flags, as they do in Amsterdam, live your life freely as you wish. I don't want you in jail. But you cross the line when you demand I believe and cheer your every belief and thing you do. I'm all for legalized prostitution but I doubt Hillary Clinton and Obama are. But Amsterdam has a Red Light District.
The point is... I'm not a white, Kentucky hillbilly, that's Republican like the dumb stereotype of all Trump supporters. But I am opposed to legalized fetal homicide.
-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 12:47 pm to add the following --
Tulsi Gabbard if those in the UK are not familiar with her. She is a Democrat too but supported Bernie Sanders. She's from Hawaii and was raised by a Catholic father and a Hindu mother. She took the Hindu religion of her mother. She surfs on the ocean waves her own time and she's a US military combat veteran.
She traveled to Syria to meet with and see the Syrians with her own eyes.
Notice she says, no matter what anyone thinks of Assad that it is up to the Syrian people to decide if they want him or not. And notice she says, again in video below, that the Syrian people asked her repeatedly, "Why is the United States helping Al Qaida to attack Syria?" And that, "Syria did not attack the United States, Al Qaida did."
Hillary Clinton and Obama are lucky they are not brought up on war crimes, crimes against humanity, assisting terror outfits destroy true moderate Muslims not bothering anyone. And I hate to use the term "moderate" because those young ladies in the video above are simply Muslims. How most Muslims are. Which is essentially as "moderate" as any Christian or atheist. It's is these Al Qaida-like outfits that are not moderate or that is to say radical.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else. Archibald Macleish.
Rederic wrote:You think Trump stands for the working man?
If he doesn't that does not negate the Hillary Democrats do not.
I think Trump does so more than the Hillary Democrats. And given half of US Steel Workers broke with historical ties of voting for Democrats evidence a good number of them thought so too.
This is a philosophy forum, so the political scientist approach to appealing only to emotions and being given secular religious blessing to contradict themselves, to hold no logically coherent thought, means nothing to me.
I don't share Trumps views on Mexicans or undocumented Mexicans. And I've personally worked beside both. All my experiences with non-English speaking undocumeted Mexicans has been good. Even those that speak some English. They are generally hard working people that keep their heads down and try to avoid trouble.
But that said... the Hillary Democrats make no mathematical sense. They are all emotional appeal. But receiving wages through taxable income from reported employment, paying rent, buying groceries, etc. are based on math, not emotions.
So, the Hillary Democrats claim, for example, they don't have the money to fix Skid Row or the number of jobs to employ the massive number of unemployed working age black men in LA, but nonethless they can successfully absorb thousands and thousands of undocumented immigrants into the USA. In their view the environmental science term "carrying capacity" is a real thing and the USA and LA itself has already overloaded its carrying capacity (the world and country are overpopulated argument). But they apparently unlimited immigration into LA and the USA will mathematically defy "carrying capacity" laws.
Trump makes sense. He simply says what I think amounts to this: if you only have 100 available job openings, and 150 available working age citizens to apply for and work those jobs, then it only benefits employers (not workers competing for jobs) to encourage 700 workers from abroad to enter the country, apply, and compete for those 100 jobs. A basic law of economics is that the more job openings and fewer available workers, the higher the wages go up by employers to attract candidates to work at their company. And the fewer job opening but the larger the pool of applicants competing those jobs, with the unemployed applicants exceeding the number of available jobs, the lower the wages drop by employers because they can lay back in ease choosing whoever they want and someone will always be willing to work for a dollar less per hour.
So, if LA City can't fix this because they supposedly don't have the money, then fix this first before exceeding what i would term "your economic and infrastructural capacity." Published on Mar 3, 2015
Kyung Lah looks at what is happening in Los Angeles' skid row and the conditions that created it.
Basically, by taking care--by math--the current citizen population of the USA first, mathematically punishing US companies that move jobs abroad in a "race to the bottom," Trump is supporting the "working man" and working class families. More so than Hillary Democrats. Okay, the emotion of holding hands and we all singing love songs with each other does not put food on the tale or pay a mortgage or rent. Nor does it apparently fix Skid Row.
Trump makes sense. He simply says what I think amounts to this: if you only have 100 available job openings, and 150 available working age citizens to apply for and work those jobs, then it only benefits employers
Out of interest where do you get your information on the net effect of migration? What books have you read? What is the consensus of expert opinion and who are the experts? What are their qualifications, what peer reviewed papers do they have etc.
I'm not asking as an underhanded way of criticism, I would genuinely like to know, as I have only really read short newspaper articles on the subject. In my experience news papers don't necessarily do a great job reporting. For example I wouldn't read a newspaper to get news on my subject of expertise (I make computer games by the way).
