I have found the Democratic debates really interesting to watch. For the first time in my lifetime, these debates actually have some substance and drama. There was a couple of interesting moments last night, including the suggestion by Hillary Clinton that it is out of bounds for Sanders to raise the money that she has taken from Wall Street as a “smear.” I thought that Clinton did a good job on various points with strong responses, including the progressive label issue. However, one of the most intriguing moments was Clinton saying that it was ridiculous to call her the “establishment” candidate because she is a woman. For many, the Clintons are the personification of the establishment with huge donors, PACs, control of the DNC, and a massive political machine. Even the Washington Post responded with “Come on” to the suggestion that she is not the ultimate establishment candidate. Yet, Clinton’s point is that she is also the trying to become the first woman president and thus must be considered an outsider candidate. It seemed to resonate with the crowd, though Sanders appears to have tied Clinton in a national poll despite an concerted campaign from Democratic leaders and politicians aligned with Clinton. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on the blog.
Here is the exchange:
Sanders: “I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more Governors, Senators, Mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That’s a fact. I don’t deny it. I’m pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece.”
Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”
While I certainly understand her point and that women remain underrepresented in politics, it is also true that many of the most powerful folks in Washington are women. Indeed around the world, women are the increasingly prominent like Angela Merkel, Melinda Gates, Janet Yellen, Mary Barra, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Park Geun-hye, Oprah Winfrey, Ginni Rometty, Meg Whitman, Indra Nooyi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Irene Rosenfeld, Ana Patricia Botín, Abigail Johnson, Marillyn Hewson and others. In Congress, there were ranked by CQ:
PARTY POWER
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
MEDIA SAVVY
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
DEBATE SHAPERS AND SWING VOTES
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
POLICY DEALMAKERS
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Was.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
POLICY WORKHORSES
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
BREAKING OUT
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
FRESHMEN ON THE RISE
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah)
Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Again, none of this means that women are adequately represented. Moreover, I think that there remains sexism in how some people view women in power, particularly in seeking the highest office in the land. However, is it still fair game to say that Clinton cannot be the symbol of the establishment because she is a woman? It may turn on the meaning of what the “establishment” is in politics.
What do you think?
stevegroen,
Taxation and government must be greatly reduced. Tax bills must be smaller and more affordable for everyone.
There is absolutely NO innate basis for anyone’s amusing personal anecdotes to mitigate.
You go to Disneyland, you pay Disneyland’s ticket price. You enjoy a visit inside the park, you derive the same benefit as every other ticket buyer.
Excuses are like elbows; everybody’s got two.
Let’s all just pay the price of admission. K? No excuses.
Charity is an entirely separate issue. Charity is flourishing, prosperous and vibrant in America. Charity is voluntary. Charity exists in the free markets of the private sector.
John, that’s easy for you to say, but what you’re driving at is unabashed human competition against one another, and we all know where that got us in 2008, and in a never-ending series of wars and runs on banks.
Capitalism is a rigged game, from the creation of life insurance to avoid death tax to the lifetime gift tax exemption. I’ll buy your no excuses angle when everyone drops from the womb on equal footing.
John writes, “Every citizen should pay the same amount in tax to obtain the same benefit of Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare. . . . Charity, as noble, honorable, vibrant private enterprise, may be petitioned for ‘assistance.’ . . . A ‘flat tax’ might work.”
You’ve raised an important point: Is a flat tax as opposed to a progressive tax the measure of fairness in a system that requires revenue to survive?
For me, it certainly is fair on its face, but between a single parent who works at minimum wage to feed two faces and Billary which earns a hundred and a half million dollars by opening their fat mouths while at the same time potentially paying the same amount of tax, I’d say any non-progressive tax (flat, sales, etc.) as applied is probably the most unconscionable and elitist manner possible of taxing a society unless one intends lords, vassals, and fiefdoms in the slave state.
Steve, In response to your articulate post of 10:55 of yesterday. We have some common ground in that we believe economics is the bain of reality. Interestingly enough, I asked a young girl I met yesterday, who is already a libertarian, how she came to be one. She stated studying economics in high school with her already libertarian brother playing the devils advocate when discussing the issues with him. I came to the philosophy through economics but also heavily influenced by ethics. I think I first looked at injustices and asked why. For instance, throwing young pot smokers in jail while their parents got snookered on alcohol almost every night. Many of my parents friends appeared to be alcoholics. Than I noticed that much of the print advertising in the various periodicals, was prominently alcohol and tobacco. Then I read about how Newspaper magnet
The “isms” are not easy to understand. After studying them for close to 40 years, it wasn’t until 2006 that I was confident enough with them that I could explain them to others. I believe that Karl Marx’s book was a pathway written in about 1850, to help the ruling class, by deceiving the Citizens, to gain back it’s domination of the means of production they had lost during the various revolutions (such as the America, French and British). There are many others who believe this but it is surely not the typical belief.
The philosophical war has been a long hard fought continuous battle and there has been a great deal of deception placed into the mix. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo calls them “Gatekeepers” calling those who continue to coverup the many truth, such as those of “honest” Abe Lincoln. He has written two books on Lincoln; The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. I’ve read the latter and a great read.
The questions that you asked me are very difficult to explain in a blog, due to format restraints. The same applies to understanding the “isms”. As an example. many believe that Marxist and communist philosophies are different. Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto; he clearly knows what he believes in. There is no difference between Marxist and communist philosophy even though there are those who will tell you there is. I believe my greatest discovery is that there really is no such thing as a dictatorship. All alleged dictators have inner circles of people they are relying on to help run the country and watch their backs. Often times these people hide their participation for obvious reasons, especially those helping to finance the activities. Hitlers Secret Bankers as an example were from the BIS. There is a book of the same name on the subject which I have not read yet. Another example is the Warburg brothers participation’s in America, England and German governments during WW I. I would like to see if they or their families ended being the ones who formed the BIS along with the Rothschilds and others. My guess would be yes.
Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and the Japanese guy, I think Hirohito was his name all had their inner circles. Any authoritarian societies must have a least a small ruling oligarchy. No one person can rule a entire society without substantial help. If they try they are generally assassinated quite quickly.
I’ve been working on a essay on the subject but it is still in the works; https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/harrietrobbins/anuASCIPc6E
This is where I post my essays and research.
The best book I’ve ever read on your last questions; How would we pay for defense and other desired activities is The Voluntary City by the Independence Institute. A must read for any economist or person who cares about their society and world.
There are certain basic assumptions that must be made; Capitalism is voluntary, government is force and/or coercion. All social policies have negative ramifications in addition to their benefits. Of course I am defining capitalism as anarchy; no government interventions and the only way to have that in it’s pureist form would be by having no government by force or coercion. I define capitalism, laissez-faire, free market and classical liberalism, all the same. To me, a liberal today is a socialist, communist, fascist or progressive although as you will see from my essay, there are distinctions between them so it depends which social policies they support.
Could you have a voluntary government? It may be possible.
stevegroen; “Lots of people do lots of things that would appear illegal, but that doesn’t mean they’re illegal until a proper challenge is brought and successful in the Judiciary branch, not the court of public opinion. Right?” What a simple question….Right? You have no idea how far down the rabbit hole you’d ‘have to go to answer that. Most here absolutely will not consider it, but instead just play around at the entrance and occasionally spew vitriol at people like me calling us “conspiracy theorists”.
Many many valid legal challenges have been. Monumental efforts have been made, and the main result is just the frightening realization that the game is rigged from so high up that it will take an act of God to undo it. Most just like to comment here and get on with their day.
This link I’m leaving is pretty damn far down the hole so it may not make sense. I await your negative response. 🙂 Sorry I’ve just become used to it…
Sheriff Arpaio Informant: Obama/Brennan Hired Hackers To Alter Birth Certificate; Got Bullet
hskiprob
You may find this relevant. Is there a law requiring us to pay income taxes?
Hildegard wrote; You may find this relevant. (showing Freedom to Fascism.) Is there a law requiring us to pay income taxes?
When your society has so much social policy enacted that requires redistributing more and more wealth, it become more and more difficult to continue to confiscate enough money from the Citizens to pay for the various redistributions. When the government starts taking money and property away from the Citizens without due process, many consider this the results of to much socialistic/communistic policies and call this Fascism. I believe we are a fascist oligarchy, as are most countries around the world today.
I’ve seen the late Aaron Russo’s firm and it is very good. You would have to define “us” more specifically for me to answer that question and give you my opinion about “Is there a law”. It’s really hard to know for sure because the government will not ever provide the law and instead tries to insinuate that Title 26, although it is not Positive Law, according to the Counsel of Law Revision of the US House of Representatives, is the authority which grants the IRS it administrative and enforcement abilities. In the We the People case the Courts ruled that the Government does not have to provide us such information. The Petition for Redress of Grievance, entailed 62 questions relating to the Federal Individual Income Tax. Apparently the Courts disagreed and that it is not a 1st Amendment right as our founding fathers intended.
My Opinion: Yes some people are required to file and pay a tax, under current tax laws. I don’t think the laws are constitutional but the courts have said otherwise. Federal citizens, those under the the Jurisdiction of the government of the District of Columbia. According to my research, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over nine (9) separate and distinct jurisdictions. Each is in my book and can be reviews to show the distinctions.
My opinions on who is supposed to file and pay a Federal Individual Income tax:
Citizens living and/or working in the District of Columbia
All foreigners working in the US, unless they have duel Citizenship. Many Israeli’s and others get away without paying income taxes because of this. Ted Arison of Carnival Cruise Lines never paid US Income Taxes. It is my understanding that most Jews living in the United State have duel Citizenships. Carnival Cruise Lines is a foreign corporation operation out of the Port of Miami with it’s Holding company domiciled in Panama.
American’s who are employed in the functions of a public office at the Federal Level.
Those participating in the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of certain objects which are under Federal jurisdiction. Certain fuels, uranium, etc.
The Federal Government has gone from a $314 billion a year budget to over $3.4 trillion. It has bankrupted much of our lower and middle classes and is causing the fascism and tyrannical/oppressive rule we are now experiencing.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a fact. 9/11 is just an unsolved conspiracy. There is no doubt the NIST report is riddles with coverup. Box cutters really?
stevegroen,
Babies born in America, on American bases, stations and other sites in foreign countries of parents (plural) who are citizens are “natural born citizens.” Babies born in those locations of one parent who is a citizen are “citizens.”
The Founders, as demonstrated in the Jay/Washington letter, raised the presidential requirement in the Constitution from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” which they learned of in and quoted from the Law of Nations. The definition, understood throughout Europe and the Colonies, is “…born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Having only one or no “parents who are citizens,” Obama, Cruz and Rubio are not eligible for the office of President. As simply “citizens,” they are eligible for the lesser office of senator or congressman.
_____
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Erroneous, illegal, corrupt and unconstitutional decisions by courts, congress or states are just that. Article 2, Section 4 provides the tool for enforcement against erroneous, illegal, corrupt and unconstitutional decisions, acts and legislation.
Article 2, Section 4
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
“Legislation from the bench” and unconstitutional legislation (i.e. ACA) are egregious, treasonous acts.
The metaphorical “guillotines” should have been rolled out long ago.
John, well said. This has been my understanding of the differences between a small “c” 14th Amendment citizen (U.S. citizen) and a State capital “C” Citizen (Citizen of one of the 50 States and thus a Citizen of the United States of America).
Note: Trying to decipher poor judicial decision and their often vague and contradictory opinions makes it quite difficult.
stevegroen – there is direct and indirect taxation. A fixed direct tax, like a “ticket price,” of every citizen is pure “equality” and “fairness.” Movie theaters, Ski Resorts, Disneyland et al. charge a fixed price for people to enjoy their products. Once you vary from that direct tax policy there is no return to rationality.
Every citizen should pay the same amount in tax to obtain the same benefit of Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare.
Charity, as noble, honorable, vibrant private enterprise, may be petitioned for “assistance.”
A “flat tax” might work.
Suggested question for Ted Cruz: When were you aware you were born a Cuban citizen via your father being a native born Cuban citizen and when did you renounce your Cuban citizenship?
Ted Cruz, if you were born an American citizen via your American born mother than you were also born a Cuban citizen via your Cuban born father.
Lifted from http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/02/memo-elections-and-citizenship.html
All this crazy talk about a person needing TWO U.S. citizen parents simply will not fly in our current mad state of affairs. Don’t you know that if that is undeniably concluded then our current president is ineligible and therefore was never “elected” making all his actions during his faux presidency null and void?
Why Obama cannot be impeached
http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321969/#xuPG22FluJEWWzmY.99
“If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
If Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President,” he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.” Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D
Hildegard: Your point about Obama’s possible lack of Article II citizenship is a good one. However, unless there is a successful legal challenge, his actions as the President of the United States are valid.
Lots of people do lots of things that would appear illegal, but that doesn’t mean they’re illegal until a proper challenge is brought and successful in the Judiciary branch, not the court of public opinion. Right?
And at this late date, it might be very difficult to find a federal court to lend an ear on what could be rejected easily for delay, prejudice not only to the President but to the American public whom he serves, and under the political-question doctrine (although I’ve never been quite able to grasp this latter method of circular-filing a case or controversy as conceptually justifiable).
Darren Smith,
When Ben Franklin states that the “..circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations,” it becomes irrefutable that all of the references by various Founders to the phrase “natural born citizen” have the Law of Nations as their source. The various Founders understood and were referring to the same phrase which constitutes the highest form of citizenship, TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF THE CANDIDATE, for the highest office, while the lower form of citizenship, ONE PARENT WHO IS A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF THE CANDIDATE, is the lesser requirement for senator or congressman.
BEN FRANKLIN thanked CHARLES DUMAS for copies of the Law of Nations which he said was “…continually in the hands of the members of our Congress,…”
Franklin said, “It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations.”
and that the Law of Nations “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress,…”
In his letter to GEORGE WASHINGTON, JOHN JAY used precisely the same phrase as Vattel in the Law of Nations. The Jay/Washington letter raised the presidential requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
Jay said, “…the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
stevegroen,
No enemy is allowed on a military, intelligence or diplomatic base on foreign soil because it is not enemy or foreign territory, it is American territory.
All American military, intelligence or diplomatic bases in foreign countries are American soil.
John, you’re no doubt right in terms of legislation and/or executive order supplementing the meaning of Article II citizenship, but where do you see that in Article II’s natural born citizen or in the Law of Nations’ definition of natural born citizen, assuming the Law of Nations is the conclusive authority on the matter?
The point is that the President having to be born in country may or may not be subject to statutory or executive interpretation but rather to what was meant at the time the Constitution was signed. And only the Judiciary has the code to crack that safe.
I agree, it’s going to hinge on whatever the vernacular definition of Natural Born Citizen was at the time of framing that is going to influence what the justices could rule. I believe also the Court would reference not only the etymology of the noun but will consider strongly the reasons for which the framers envisioned when they enacted this into the articles. Furthermore, I suspect the court will weigh more heavily on the side of the intentions rather than the definition.
We have to put into context issues such as the United States attempting to divorce itself from the reign of kings. There was considerable emphasis at the time of the framing to remove the United States from foreign influence and a corruption of the system of government by outside intrigues.
Under the definition that a person who is born outside the US but has a parent who is a citizen, a royal could marry a US Citizen under a morganatic, political marriage and produce an heir capable of assuming a US Presidency. Since the topic of inherited assumption of reigns of kings was very much on the minds of the framers, and was very common in the northern hemisphere at the time, it is conceivable this could happen. In fact, the emphasis was so strong against rule by a nobility that the Constitution prohibits Congress from declaring a person to be a noble in the US.
While the lower courts in state courts might have held otherwise, the issue has not been specifically addressed by the SC. The only case I can immediately think of that closely addressed this was the Won Kim Ark case but that did not define natural born citizen.
Perhaps the issue of Standing with regard to the constitutional issue of Mr. Cruz being born outside the United States can be established by having one of the other candidates in the election challenging him in federal court.
Since the election is competitive in nature and the plaintiff candidate will gain an economic benefit, in the form of Salary, Benefits, and Retirement as a result of election that the plaintiff’s was marginalized by a candidate who could be held to be ineligible for office.
Paul C. What does that make Libertarians and Independents? Untouchables? Or what about those free thinking individuals who have no category?
PhillyT has been drinking the main stream kool aid that pits ‘us against them’ for far too long apparently. I have (former) friends who have fallen for that bull shite and their conversation is so predictable it’s nauseating.
phillyT. The sinking of the Lusitania. FDR and Churchill, then Undersecretary and Secretary of the their respective Navies sent the Lusitania into known German Uboat waters, unescorted, even after having been warned by Germany that they would sink it. Did this give them their merit badges to become President and Prime Minister? The Germans had found out the Lusitania was carrying military supplies even though it was against the Geneva Convention. The Germans even warned all the U.S. newspapers, yet only two newspapers published the warning. Seems like the lame stream media was bought off long ago.
This sinking of the American ship in Cuba (war of 1812) I think. To much profit in warfare. $600,400,000,000 annual U.S. budget. Greater than the next 11 countries combined.
How the frig did George Bush become President? I was told by a Saudi 1.5 years prior to the election the baby Bush was going to be President. Did he really know or was he guessing. He told me it was already decided.
War has always been a Racket. Until the Citizens of the world stop funding them with their tax dollars nothing will ever change. Just one of hundreds of reasons I became a libertarian.
hskiprob – so, the Mongol Wars were a racket?
That would depend on how just the war was. In my opinion, our revolutionary war was probably the only just war in this Country. Only when you fight for greater inalienable rights is war justified. It’s really self defense. Of course you will be treated as a terrorist today. Even today the civil war is still debated as to it’s justness.
As an example, the IRS is erroneously enforcing the Federal Individual Income tax against Citizens of the 50 States. Is this tyranny and do we have the right to physically use force to try to stop them?
You tell me Paul was the Mongol War a just war? I wasn’t there and I have read little about it. Most wars are not just and are usually monetarily motivated.
hskiprob –
You made a blanket statement that all wars were rackets. The above does not answer if the Mongol Wars were a racket.
I think Smedley Butler was directing his similar comment to capitalist wars, and I also think Paul – the black knight at the toll bridge waiting for Monty Python’s King Arthur – is trying to find some way to argue even if it relates to disputes occurring 900 years before Industrialization.
stevegroen – wars did not begin with the Industrial Revolution. When someone makes a blanket statement it opens a huge field. For instance, was the Trojan War a racket?
Republican…
Hildegard – “truthers” tend to be liberal hence they are sane. “birthers” are Republicans hence they are crazy. Help?
phillyT Is there some kind of litmus test regarding which conspiracies are fact and which are simply ‘theory”? Failing that, can you provide me with a list of factual conspiracies and a list of which are wingnut Republic mental fabrications? I await your response…
phillyT; In case you missed it…
Top 3 definitions of CONSPIRACY THEORIST from the Urban Dictionary:
1.) “A contemptuous term used primarily by the main stream media to slander anyone who questions their monopoly on truth.”
“Even though he has done his own research and has concluded that the official account of events is either lacking or inaccurate, he is still a conspiracy theorist because he does not believe what the main stream media proclaims to be the truth.”
2.) “A term in which its true meaning has been completely obscured. It is used to attack the credibility of people who seek the truth within crimes committed by the government. It used by those committing the crimes to make those who seek to expose them seem crazy and wrong.”
“The witnesses who heard a gunshot and saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll during the Kennedy assassination are conspiracy theorists. The witnesses who felt, heard, saw, and were harmed by explosions during the attacks on the World Trade Center towers basement levels on September 11, 2001 are conspiracy theorists. Anyone who believes the government doesn’t love you is a conspiracy theorist.”
3.) “A PERSON WHO QUESTIONS KNOWN LIARS.”
“Well, those activists were some crazy conspiracy theorists.”
TINFOIL HAT:
Derisive attempt on behalf of blind conformists to discredit and stigmatize those who dare to question authority.
“You honestly believe the war is all about oil? Where’s your tinfoil hat?”
Paul
You have a fatal flaw you expose time after time in this forum, and that is you don’t read and comprehend what others say. You just assume you know something and go about making points that have nothing whatsoever to do with much of anything except apparently that which is in your own mind.
I never said anything about assuming people are crazy. I wait for evidence. The evidence I have here is a long string of posted videos all of which assume some level of conspiracy on the part of some powerful government or other agency designed to manipulate and trick the public in a variety of ways. False flag after false flag after hidden agenda after secret organization. Put it all together. No assumptions needed. As the banner says, “the thing speaks for itself”.
I’ve seen conspiracies and I’ve seen schizophrenic paranoia. There IS a difference and it’s good to know how to sort them. You might try it yourself instead of reflexively defending those you consider to be your allies.
phillyT – I was commenting on your time in the psychiatric facility. It is not PC to call them crazy. Although liberals don’t have to follow PC rules, they are exempt. Hillary is showing how that is done.
Hildegard I love these videos you post!
I got my start working in an inpatient psych hospital in DC. These videos you post are so reminiscent of the stuff I used to hear from the patients. Everything is a conspiracy. Things are linked together in ways you cannot imagine. This is all straight out of the schizophrenic playbook.
The difference I see is that back then, with a few exceptions, we knew that these people were crazy, and that with some good treatment they could learn to manage their illness. Nowadays, they are on youtube and people think they are telling some secret truths. Yet another wing of the ever more desperate Republican party. Let’s call it the wingnut wing.
When I asked the head shrink at our hospital how we sorted out the crazy from the not really crazy, he said we should always focus on people’s suffering, the pain caused by the torment and anguish of mental illness. I think he got that one right.
phillyT – if you assume people are crazy you are working in the wrong place. Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you. In my lifetime I have seen a lot of conspiracies.