AMA (YYW)

What are your thoughts on the recent fake news incident with buzzfeed over the Cohen felony allegations?

Will the Patriots win today? 

Are they in a better position to win the Superbowl than last year, given the weaknesses of potential opponents?

> You claimed that the Trump towers are themselves laundered assets of Russian oligarchs.

That is not what I said. 

>Most of these are located in the United States, correct? And though they might be sold, the buildings themselves, along with the land they're sitting on, cannot simply be withdrawn from the United States and put in Russia. Since the US government could in theory just confiscate ownership over all of these buildings, wouldn't Trump's cooperation with the oligarchs in this respect have the long-term benefit of giving the US government significant leverage over them (say, to keep Putin in check and keep him from doing anything really stupid or else forfeit all of these assets)? Would this not serve to advance the cause of peace in Eastern Europe and the world, since Putin has to answer to the oligarchs? If this is the case, isn't it even possible that all this time Trump might've been a double agent for the FBI or the CIA?

No.

>What are your thoughts on the recent fake news incident with buzzfeed over the Cohen felony allegations?

I assume you are referring to Buzzfeed's story that Trump directed Cohen to lie to congress. 

This is the story: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?__twitter_impression=true

There is a lot going on in that story.  First, the story reports that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.  Second, the story attributes the source to "two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter".

That's a very vague source attribution.  Vague enough that it could plausibly be construed as referring to people in the Muller probe.  That is a problem for the Muller Probe, given that this *could* constitute the first "leak" from the Muller probe to the media; and not just to any media, but to Buzzfeed.  That's a problem for the Muller probe, because they do not leak.  

The second paragraph discusses Trump's support for a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential election, in order to personally meet with Vladimir Putin to jump-start the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations.  These same sources reportedly told Buzzfeed that Trump told Cohen to "Make it Happen." 

Then, this is what the Special Counsel's office said:

"BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate."

The "special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office." 

Further, the "special counsel wrote that Cohen had provided details about his contacts with “persons connected to the White House” in 2017 and 2018 and about how he had prepared his statements to Congress." 

And "the law enforcement sources familiar with his testimony to the special counsel said he had confirmed that Trump directed him to lie to Congress, and also that he had provided details of his conversations about the project with the president and Ivanka and Donald Jr."  

Finally, "Ivanka Trump was slated to manage a spa at the tower and personally recommended an architect. She also instructed Cohen to speak with a Russian athlete who offered “synergy on a government level” to get the Moscow project off the ground, in another aspect of the deal first revealed by BuzzFeed News that later was affirmed by the special counsel’s sentencing memo. " 

The point here is that it is not obvious or even clear what aspect of the Buzzfeed story the Special Counsel's office disputes.  But, it is clear that they did not dispute the whole article, or any factual conclusions.  

I hope so, but I have no idea. 

In the idiom "To throw out the baby with the bathwater", does the thrower realise the baby's value or does the thrower ignore any value the baby might hold?

Throw the baby out with the bath water basically means that just because something caused a complication, you just need to deal with the complication, not the thing that caused the complication.

The literal reference, if you have ever bathed an infant or toddler (that is not toilet trained), refers to what happens when you're bathing a baby or toddler and they go to the bathroom in the tub.  You get rid of the water; keep the baby... unless you're a progressive feminist, then the baby is patriarchal oppression of women, in which case you must go on a monologue about your plight. lol

What are you thoughts on Pelosi? Who would you like to see as Speaker of the House?

I like Pelosi.  I am happy with her being Speaker.  

How about Chuck Schumer?

Chuck Schumer is a waste of space.

How should Pelosi handle the growing extreme members of her party like AOC?

Do you think AOC would be a good speaker of the House?

Who are the more extreme members of the party you are talking about? AOC?  She is not extreme.  

I think AOC is great.  She is growing on me in all the right ways.  But, she is not in a position to be the speaker. 

What are your thoughts on Venezuela? 

Why is Putin supporting Maduro?

It is widely understood that Maduro's election was procured by fraud. To that end, there is little question that fraud is what got him elected. Maduro is an incompetent dictator, to say the very least.  But, he is a dictator who faces a coup as a result of the fact that his so called election was procured by fraud.

Vladimir Putin is supporting Maduro because, as another incompetent dictator whose election was procured by fraud, if Maduro goes, Russians might get wild ideas in their heads in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  What is happening in Venezuela is Putin's worst fear in Russia. 

How do you justify being a disgusting sodomite?

You say sodomite like it's a bad thing...

I think you are certainly capable of understanding why that comment was out of line.  

Will the rise of automation in the next ~20 years or so necessitate UBI?

I only read the first two pages and this last page to make sure you are still answer, so i don't know if anyone has asked you this yet... but what are your spiritual / religious beliefs and why? 

I am a protestant Christian.  Specifically, I belong to the Presbyterian denomination. 

What is a protestant Christian and/or, more accurately, what makes it different than other Christians? 

That is a really complicated question.  But, the tldr version is that protestants believe that only by faith can salvation be given.  Orthodox Christians and Catholics believe that there's more to the picture. 

Only by faith in what? Can you be a person that's just spiritual but agnostic in the sense of being sure of any platform? I am also talking to Mopac about Orthodoxy, he says they are right bc they have preserved the originality of the Bible and traditions. Why wouldn't that be more logical than a version that is any different than keeping to the original? 

Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father to bear the cost of human transgression; that he was crucified, died, was buried, descended into Hell, overcame death, returned from the grave, and then ascended into heaven; that now, the Holy Spirit lives on, to guide humanity in the path of righteousness.  

That's not something you can "rationally" believe, though.  All faith is irrational, because it is by definition belief in the absence of verifiable evidence.  That's a large part of why faith matters. 

As far as orthodox Christianity is concerned; there are at least 10 recognized denominations I know of, and there may be more.  Both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism place a heavy emphasis on tradition. For the Orthodox denominations, the tradition is as much theological as it is liturgical ritual.  For Catholics, it's maintaining the rites, the structure of the church; as well as the means and methods of worship, among other things. 

That is not to say that tradition is "lost" among the protestant denominations or that it holds no significance; quite the opposite.  The difference is in the focus of the tradition, which varies widely among protestant denominations just as the focus of tradition varies widely in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox church, for example. 

I have my disagreements with other protestant denominations as surely as I have disagreements with Catholics; though I probably have fewer broader disagreements with many (though not all) Orthodox churches as I would with the Catholics or, say, Southern Baptists.

The big problem, though, across the whole of Christendom, is the degree to which politics and religion have become incestuous. The Founding Fathers believed, salutarily, that the state and church must be distinct for their mutual benefit.  That means that the state must be protected from the church as much as the church must be protected from the state. 

Nevertheless, the joint institutions both ought to exist and ought to check one another even if indirectly.  Now, that doesn't happen.  Since the 1950s and 60s, especially evangelical protestantism has become weaponized by the right for achieving their political objectives.  That is a problem more complex than this space allows for even minimally adequate discussion of.  

The implications of not having faith are a long and complicated subject, that, even if I was to answer, I am reasonably sure you wouldn't find the answer satisfactory.  It is enough now to say that we do not know the limits of God's mercy.  

As to your question of whether a person has "evidence" of their belief, that's fine... but it's not provable or verifiable.