coal

>If you were the president of the US, what would your policy agenda be? For example would you prioritize the environment, energy policy, urban poverty, relations with the middle east etc? If you were a member of congress, what bill/resolution would you want to pass the most?

Consistent with my politics, as described in prior postings, i'd have many goals.  But, the primary goals I'd have would relate to health care, college education, and infrastructure spending.

These would be enough to make me the enemy of the establishment in both parties.

Health Care:  Single primary payer system, covering everyone and everything non-elective.  Secondary markets for elective surgery.  The way i'd do this is that I would have a baseline rate of reimbursement, which varied by region, and then allow hospitals to charge over and above that what they wanted.  Secondary insurers could step in and fill the void, similar to how medicare reinsurers do now.  To start, I would establish a national involuntary risk pool, and then overlapping the national pool, state level involuntary risk pools, and then overlapping the state level, local involuntary risk pools; the rate of reimbursement would be no less than 90% of what was a commercially reasonable charge for any given service, and the difference between whatever that paid and whatever the hospital or provider charged could be covered by secondary insurance similar to what you see with medicare now.  Payments would be deducted from income tax, identically to how payroll taxes are deducted, at progressive rates.  This gets us where we need to be without totally destroying the health insurance industry which, though bloated unreasonably, can't just be killed off in one foul swoop. 

College:  This one would make me the enemy of higher education.  I would require that university administration costs (including salaries for all admin workers, presidents, etc.) be capped at no more than 15% of the total amount of money generated from tuition alone for all schools who wish to utilize federal student aid.   I am still thinking about this idea, so it's not fully developed.  I may change it later.  I would also require post-graduate employment statistics to be considered and published publicly in evaluating a university's accreditation.  Finally, I would forgive all outstanding student debt for all borrowers after 10 years.  I have other ideas, but what's made the metaphorical university house on fire is the outlandish administrative costs and the equally outlandish tuition increases.  

Infrastructure spending:  This would be New Deal level infrastructure spending, to repair, replace, and restore American infrastructure on all levels.  This would exist in the form of federal grants to states and major urban localities, as well as other financial products, to revitalize America from the top down.  Think of it as a "five year plan".  

lol

you know the answer to that question 

I didn't have any particular reason... just went with what I went with.  There wasn't some grander meaning behind it. 

What I don't understand is why Timberland work boots have become so popular among kids in the city we live in.  I noticed among a lot of christmas shoppers, an unusual level of them.  On the one hand, it snows a lot here and they're useful for that reason.  Many of them are non-slip.  That's good, especially for ice.  But, at the same time, they're horribly uncomfortable and not especially good looking.  I wear loafers or chelsea boots.  Mostly loafers now, though.  Almost never wear tennis shoes, except at the gym.  That said, I'm a big fan of half zip fleece jackets.  Mostly I go North Face, but Patagonia is a good brand too.  

The problem is when beta, or lower status males grow resentful of their place in the hierarchy but nevertheless are given positions of relatively meaningless levels of power and significance, and who then try to assert themselves in passive aggressive ways that wind up hurting the system overall.  A prime example of this would be in bureaucratic or administrative positions.  Suppose you give someone a title or position that's fairly innocuous but it is "more" power than they've held before.  Now, the person who was previously relegated to the status of "accepting what he must" from his superiors has the ability to use his position to hurt others.

An excellent example of how this might manifest would be in selectively enforcing rules.  So, suppose further that a beta male got his chance to punish an alpha with a regulatory sanction, like a suspension from an activity or a fine.  Perhaps other alphas with whom the particular beta in charge do the same thing that one specific alpha with whom the beta-in-power has a problem.  The beta ignores these developments, but nevertheless when the particular alpha does the same thing the beta "enforces" the rules to punish the one alpha who he wishes to seek revenge upon.

Is this fair?  No.  Of course it is not, but this is what beta males do when given power.  

>Triangle has an account. To say that, you are saying I should be banned.

So, you're not triangle, then?

Ok.

Well, then... Mharmon would be my other guess, but I know he also has an account as it stands.

>Why is your username 'coal' now?

I can't have a three-letter username.

I think you're Triangle. 

>Do you really think loyal Republicans are going to flip on their party en masse over a long period of time? 

I didn't say that.

The 69 rapper is a manifestation of most of the reasons why racial and ethnic pejoratives exist.  

He is also absolutely lacking in anything even resembling talent of any kind.  His music is shit, he speaks like he's brain damaged from drug use, and the only thing sad about his recent legal problems is that all the rest of the mumble rap trash rappers are still producing music. 

It might be better for me to give you an example...

This is what shoes looked like when I was in high school, and these were the shoes everyone wanted:

>Why did it take you so long to get here?

Lots of reasons... but most of them are fairly inconsequential.

More questions are encouraged.  I am enjoying this a fair bit. 

Questions need not be political, though I'm certainly well within my comfort zone to the extent that they are. 

>People will forget about Trump and fall to their knees over the next Republican to give a "Make America Great Again" esque speech, which libs don't know how to do.

I disagree.  Populism is going to die.  It's on life support now. 

>"There is not a single living person, in the history of humanity, who believed what they believed because it was 'rational'. People use reason to justify their opinions post hoc; what actually decides what people believe is rooted subconsciously, and is determined aesthetically. When a person converts from one religion to another, or becomes a capitalist instead of a communist, it is because that aesthetic anchor was picked up and moved, and all of their justifications and arguments then shift to reflect that. As to what can move that anchor, it can be anything from a group of friends or the surrounding culture to family and even God."

So that was one of Skepsekyma's posts on DDO.  I don't remember when or where he said it, but I know that he said it.  There are a lot of complicated ideas in that quote.  Those ideas are too complicated to really meaningfully explore within the character limits of a single post.  Nevertheless, there are some ideas there I agree with and that I disagree with. 

"Man is not rational."

So, that much is immediately obvious to any truly thinking person.  We have the capability to be and to use rationality, but the notion that man is "rational" is little more than hubris and delusion.  Further, even if to some extent man "is" rational insofar as he utilizes his capacity for reason, that doesn't imply that man is "only" rational. 

"Man holds no beliefs for rational reasons."

To the extent that man has the capacity for reason, and holds at least some beliefs on a rational basis, that is false.  Some of people's ideas are rational.  But, many beliefs are not rational.  

But, what Skep was saying there is that for a particular kind of beliefs (namely, metaphysical ones), reason doesn't really enter the domain of justification for them.  That's likely on point, for things like "trying to sort out what good and evil constitute".  

The only way we have beliefs about good and evil is because we have values, and we have some sort of intuitive sense of how they ought to be rank ordered in their application and in the abstract.  You don't get that because of "reason" -- no matter how much Sam Harris might contend otherwise. 

"that aesthetic anchor was picked up and moved"

I have a hard time figuring out what that means.  I think it's referential to the sense of how and why we rank order values in their abstraction and application shifting from a prior state of affairs to a new state of affairs.  But I don't know.  It's not clear.  Much of the rest of the quote, I'm not sure what it means.  

>You did seem awfully skeptical about the Dems.

I am skeptical about the Democrats.  But, that doesn't imply I think that the Republicans have anything approximating a viable political strategy in the long run... which they do not. 

>What's the best Christmas gift you will GIVE this year?

I have no idea.... probably one of the ones I gave the boyfriend. 

>What does your profile picture say?

Всегда Вместе, which means "Always Together" 

All the ones I don't have solid opinions on, I would be most likely to be wrong about because I haven't thought about them to a degree sufficient to have worked out what I think the right thing is or why.  So, the more likely I am to prevaricate about any issue (or at least not take a hard position) the more likely I am to think I'd be wrong if I did take a position on that issue.

So, now you want to know what those issues are...

Abortion is a big one, at least on a philosophical level.  I have a policy prescription for how to deal with abortion, but one that is based on the complexity of that issue.

Genetic editing is another.  While I don't think that issue has entered the level of mainstream discourse yet, with emerging technologies like CRISPR we approach the ability to design people who comport with idealized standards of exceptionalism (read: make designer babies).  There are seriously good things such technology could do (such as edit out debilitating genetic conditions), but there are catastrophically bad things that could be done too (human cloning, to say the very least).  

>I suppose I should have been more specific.

Well, yes... but if I said something like "I support immigration reform" it's like... yeah, well... who doesn't?  The question is "what do you mean by *immigration reform*?"  After all, when I use that term there's a fairly good chance that I mean something different than, say, Trump. 

It might be more useful to get at this at a lower level of resolution, before we talk about the particularities of the current American visa system.

So, in a general sense, I support strictly limiting immigration in most if not all forms.  But, that DOES NOT mean that I support limiting American engagement in the world, or that I disagree with the principle that the United States should do something about the fact that there are thousands of just absolutely horrible manifestations of human suffering all over the world. 

(While tangential to your question, for the purpose of clarity, I obviously support foreign aid for the purposes of at least improving human conditions in foreign countries to the degree necessary that their internal political climates are at least stable.)

I would functionally abolish the process of asylum requests in the United States for all but the most extreme cases.  As a general principal, fleeing general social or economic conditions conditions that have manifested to the point that there is not a functional state within the borders of any particular asylum seeker's own country -- even if those conditions have manifested to a degree that actual physical safety is on the line -- is NOT a legitimate reason to seek asylum. 

What does that mean?  Here's an example:  fleeing gang violence or tremendous poverty is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum, at the border or anywhere else.  So, no Syrian refugees, at all, enter the United States in my framework, if the ONLY reason they're fleeing is because of ISIS, or something like that. 

So, what IS a legitimate reason to seek asylum?  As a general principal, a person is deserving of asylum only when attributes or actions of that individual (or a member of that individual's immediate family) have placed his or her physical safety at risk to a degree that they are unable to seek redress by political or legal means within their own country.  

Well, what on earth does that mean?  Here's a few examples to illustrate the point: 

A Chinese national has spied on the Chinese government for the United States in ways that have meaningfully helped the United States, and Chinese Intelligence has caught on to that person's espionage.  That person will be executed if they are caught, and they are under investigation.  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.

A Saudi woman was raped by a member of her family, and became impregnated.  She obtained an abortion.  The Saudi Government as tried and convicted her of violating sharia law and she is scheduled to be publicly caned and then  then executed in accordance with Saudi "law".  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.  

A Chechen 14 year old was denounced as being gay by an older brother, and he has been reported to the Kadyrov "government" and has been detained and is being tortured and mutilated by the Islamic "religious police" in Chechnya.  He has never been convicted of any crime but is given the ultimatum that he will either leave Chechnya or he will be killed.  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.

Here are some further examples of individuals who should NOT candidates for asylum in the United States:

A Syrian migrant has spied on ISIS for Israel, and provided meaningful intelligence to the Israeli government but that intelligence did not lead to meaningful advancements of American interests with respect to ISIS.  Having applied for and been denied asylum in Israel, he has sought asylum from several European countries with whom Israeli intelligence is known to cooperate.  There is no pending threat to his life or safety, and he remains a member of ISIS.  That person should not receive asylum.

An Iranian woman has been raped by a member of her family.  No pregnancy resulted, but she will be publicly caned in accordance with "sharia law".  There is no threat to her life or physical safety beyond the imposition of that "punishment".  No asylum.

A Saudi teenager has been outed by his boyfriend as gay, though he has denounced his boyfriend and denied being gay.  He is found not to have violated the "law" of Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi Arabia has in accordance with the "law" of that country executed the boyfriend.  There is no pending threat to his life.  That person should not receive asylum. 

Now, returning to the visa issue...

I am seriously opposed to granting visas to foreign workers in all but the most extreme circumstances.  This would represent a "limitation" on the current system. 

For example, suppose Google wants "the world's best coder" from Mumbai to come work at its campus in the Bay Area as a software developer.  That is absolutely not an acceptable reason to grant someone a visa.  Hire an American.

On the other hand, suppose Johns Hopkins hospital has a patient who is not medically stable and requires the services of a a highly specialized brain surgeon, or the patient will die.  There are brain surgeons who would be "competent" to perform the surgery, but few surgeries of this kind have ever been performed.  Nonetheless, there exists a surgeon who has successfully performed this particular highly specialized brain surgery more than 20 times in his medical practice in Beijing.  Performing the surgery is an excellent reason to grant someone a visa to work in the United States. 

>Yup. You said that Democrats are having a difficult time figuring out how to win elections, and followed that up with a prediction indicating that Republicans will win more elections in the near future. 

No.  What I said was that Democrats are having a hard time figuring out that identity politics are not a successful political strategy, and to the extent that they continue to utilize that failed strategy they will be limited electoraly as a result. 

So, I can see how maybe what I said may not have resonated at the level of detail that I just explained.  But, I never made a general statement that democrats were having a hard time how to win elections.  I also never predicted that Republicans "will win more elections in the near future."  

We did discuss some hypothetical situations where *particular candidates* (e.g., Hillary Clinton) would cause the Democrats to lose elections if they were nominated.  We also discussed whether Beto O'Roruke had anything approximating a viable political future as a national political figure.  But, that was it.  The fact that I said O'Roruke was a failed candidate who made the identical mistakes Marco Rubio made in the 2016 primary -- which I did -- does not mean that I think, in a general sense, "Republicans will win more elections in the future". 

>You admitted in a call that you think the conservatives will win more elections lol.

No, I didn't.

Sounds like a state of something approximating existential doubt.  Probably not good to linger there too long. 

That is an incredibly complicated question I can't even begin to answer fully or even partially to any reasonable degree of satisfaction in this kind of a context.  Nonetheless, the least unsatisfactory answer I can give you is this: yes and no.  Now, that's obviously an unsatisfactory answer.  So, here's some explanation...

The constitution was written to address the sort of structural deficits left gapingly open by the Articles of Confederation, but there was far from contemporaneous agreement "that" the absence of a central power was a problem; much less was there anything approximating agreement as to the much more difficult question of "If we are going to have a central government over all the states, what should that look like?"

Their answer was to create a federal system in which only those powers delegated to the federal government were within the federal government's province to do.  That was the theory at least.  The federal government has gotten a lot more powerful since 1789 than it was in 1789.  There are parts of that I agree with, and parts that I do not agree with.  Nonetheless, the idea was that the states retained general power; the federal government had limited power, and all those rights and powers not held by the state or delegated to the federal government would be retained by the people.   

I think the basic structure of government created by the constitution is a fairly good one.  I am largely in agreement with the Federalist Papers, to that effect.  So, to the extent that's agreement, and to the extent that I've said I agree here, I agree with it.  That's not to imply that beyond this I necessarily disagree, but I don't want people to go off making inferences about what I think based on what I didn't say.  People seem inclined to do that for some very strange reason.

For example, one thing I am very, very much in agreement with, though, is the constitution's difficulty to amend.  We can talk about that more at another time. 

Now, as for the Bill of Rights... 

Without enumerating the particularities of the rights seemingly codified by the Bill of Rights, the basic idea there was that it was really necessary to set out what rights *the people* had, after so much authority was just granted to the newly founded federal government and a very great deal of other authority was seemingly retained by the states. 

There were some out there who had some reservations about writing a bill of rights because they were afraid that fools (read: textualists) would later come along with the incredibly stupid idea that the ONLY rights recognized by the constitution were those written in the literal text.  That's a very stupid idea, because of the literal words of the latter amendments, as well as the general understanding of what the constitution was supposed to do at the time it was written.

Nonetheless, the language "The people retain without exception all rights granted to them by nature's God and natural law." or something like that should have appeared as the first amendment."  Then, free speech, association, press, petition, assembly, etc., and the rest should have followed. 

Obviously, the Amendments as written are fundamentally good ideas. 

>Immigration reform

What do you mean by "Immigration reform"?

Well right now I'm wearing cutoff sweatpants and a t shirt...

but I usually wear Brooks Brothers button down oxford shirts, and jeans from one specific American made brand.

It's amazing how much tennis shoes have changed over the years...

Why would you think for profit prisons need to be replaced?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  It would be a mistake to presume I favor things I have not said I favor.  For example, the fact that rehabilitation is stupid doesn't mean I support retribution.  I do not.  Retribution is at least as stupid, if not more so. 

To give you a taste, I'd abolish every for profit prison in the country.  Every last one.  

>I always start with what do you believe and why.

It's tempting to use ideological descriptors as a shorthand, but given the virtual certainty of people misapprehending what I mean when I say things like "libertarian" or "socialist" or "hawk", it's just easier in the long run to explain specific positions on individual issues rather than try to explain the grander notions of why I believe what I believe.

Domestic issues: 

Individuals are the fundamental social unit without regard to belonging or not belonging to any characteristic-based group.  Regard for the individual and his/her rights is what any society trying to figure out how it ought to work ought to begin.  Generally, (as Rawls wrote), all people should have the maximal amount of individual freedom consistent with all others being able to enjoy a similar level of freedom.  When I said "similar level" I did not say "equal level".  Society has no business ensuring equality of outcomes, but merely roughly equal equality of opportunity.  

The application of that theory to specific issues translates into something that tends to resemble what most call "libertarianism" on the social front.  Let all the gays marry, legalize all the drugs, that kind of thing.  On the economic front, it translates loosely into something resembling a mixed market social economy in which there exists a threshold of material security below which no member of a society will fall.  So, everyone gets health care paid for by tax dollars because that maximizes the aggregated social good.  No one is denied health care.  All children everywhere get fed and none go to bed hungry, ever.  People get basic housing.  None of this pathological Reagan trickle down sorcery or welfare queen bullshit. 

(Note: I love the idea of a universal basic income, as a way to replace most "safety net" type programs like food stamps, or what have you.  I think Republicans who want to drug test food stamp recipients are generally short sighted, bad people.) 

Foreign Policy:

It is the case that the international system, regardless of the existence or non-existence of international agreements (e.g., NAFTA) or structures (e.g., NATO, EU, etc.) that may suggest otherwise, is fundamentally an anarchy.  It is also the case that the United States has more relative power of all relevant kinds than the combination of nearly its next five rivals down.  

Given that, we have two choices: engage with the world, or decline to engage with the world.  Obviously we are going to engage with the world, for all the obvious reasons (like relatively affordable consumer goods, increased material wealth and conditions, improved technological developments in the way of medical research, etc.).  But, if we're going to engage the question of "how" remains open.

The "how" we should engage is where things get controversial.  I believe the United States should ensure peace in the world.  I believe that in the absence of the US's affirmative engagement with the world, peace to the degree it has been enjoyed roughly since the end of WWII and certainly since 1991 is less likely.

There are obviously many problems.  Bush 43's invasion of Iraq certainly comes to mind, there.  But, the historical record shows that where the US is weak chaos results.  This is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for the United States.  Therefore, we've got to do what we can to pevent that. 

>I can somewhat connect with you on this. I concur that the war on drugs is immoral and retarded. I do however, believe that the death penalty should be legal across the board, and should be appertained to underage rapists. Those people deserve a special place in hell.

So as you may recall from my DDO days, I believe the death penalty should be abolished for all cases.  The salient question isn't "what does a person who has engaged in [ (x) type of criminal behavior ] deserve?"  Rather, the question is "what is appropriate for government to do in defense of the society?"  If we begin from the proposition that all men are created equally, and that groups of men can't have more rights than individuals... then what right does a government (i.e., group of men) have to take life, if no man individually ever had that right? 

The obvious answer is none, so the government shouldn't be killing people for crimes. 

It turns out as well that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime, may actually make crime rates worse, undermines confidence in the judicial system among groups of people most likely to commit crimes, and is applied in profoundly racially disproportionate ways.  Further, it also turns out that probably about 1/5 of all executions (conservative estimate) in the United States alone have been of innocent people for myriad reasons (faulty evidence, mistaken memories, outright lies, and the list goes on).  

Procedural failings alone should be independently sufficient for people to reach the conclusion that "killing people for crimes isn't something the government really ought to be doing".

But, the story gets even darker when you start to apply the death penalty to situations like drug trafficking (Trump's stupid idea) or rape.  We have to begin from the obvious position that not all crimes are equally bad; thus, some crimes are worse than others.  Ok.  So, now given that some crimes are worse than others, how do we rank order them from worst to least worst? 

Traffic and most drug violations probably fall into the category of "least worst".  The intentional killing of another person with malicious intent (or for those lawyers here, malice aforethoght) is probably the worst there is.  Now, we've got to make the additional decision of whether rape is as bad as murder, or less bad.  It's obviously less bad than murder.  A raped victim still is alive, despite whatever post-occurrence trauma they may experience.  But, a person who has been successfully murdered is, as the term implies, quite dead.  So, murder is worse than rape.

Ok.  Having decided that murder is worse than rape, now we've got to decide "given that murder is worse than rape, can we as a society treat those crimes the same?" 

Maybe.  Maybe someone who rapes someone else deserves to be executed.  Fair enough, but that's not the salient inquiry.  What a person "deserves" is not the same thing as "what society CAN DO TO THEM" in response to some particular crime or set of crimes.   Lets explore this further.  Suppose we have the same penalty for rape and murder.   Then what?  What's the incentive NOT to murder the person you raped? 

Maybe you're just the sort of fiend who would only rape someone but murder really isn't up your sleeve of particular evil you're inclined to visit on the world of your own independent volition.  But, now the state says that you're going to be executed for rape just as if you would if you're caught for murder.  What then?  Well, you might be so inclined to murder your victim to prevent that person from ever testifying against you... after all, you're in the same situation whether you murder them or not in terms of legal liability. 

This result we obviously wish to avoid, which is why we don't execute rapists... even if we're buying into the incredibly bad idea that the government should be in the business of killing people as punishment for crimes... which we obviously shouldn't be. 

So, that's what I think about that. 

>Are you actually YYW and how can you prove?

Sort of silly to think that I'd have to prove that I am who I say I am, but that said given the recent fake Airmax profile that's understandable to ask.

In light of that, though, the tedium of posting "proof" sufficient on this website would be greater than the utility of you all having the assurance that I am not an imposter. 

So, you've got three options:

1. Get a hangout going, like in the evening and we talk.

2. Email me.

3. Facebook.

lol

>Do you feel deep down that you're a nasty, sadistic person?

I am probably one of the most merciful and forgiving people you'll encounter. 

>Why does your avatar and name have to be so dark and sinister?

I would disagree that my avatar or name on here are either dark or sinister. 

Nope, this is YYW.

Ask me anything.  No doxxing.  

It's been a while since I've done one of these.

Whoever "Mike" is, is not me.  

I assume Cassie wrote this post.  

Reads like Jeanine Shapiro wrote it.  

Is nonsense. 

Few things to note -

Lack of Experience.  Upon casually reviewing the site, it is immediately obvious that the moderation team lacks experience, both in mediating human conflict in general, and in maintaining decorum on this site in particular.  For example, this thread suggests that two unwarranted bans were issued over trivial occurrences.  No evidence is presented to the contrary.  Only argument to the contrary is weak, tending to blow trivialities out of proportion. 

Lack of perspective.  There are some mods.  Things seem to matter to them.  But, things that matter matter too much.  I think this is not so much because of any untoward sense of imperiousness -- though it's not obvious that that can be ruled out.  Looks more like mods care too much about doing mod-related things in response to frivolities.  Bans over trivialities prove this point.  

So?  It is what it is.  Certainly this isn't the worst modded place on the internet (e.g., /r/The_Donald), but it's not the best either.  There's a learning curve.  The site is new.  People haven't quite figured out that like 9999 out of 1000 times, all the stuff that moody teenagers and angsty 20 somethings (few of them out there) do is pretty inconsequential.  

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that there were some bans over some ideological differences.  That's... not good, but also to be expected in places where people do not agree on values such as "the degree to which free speech should be upheld."  No doubt mods in whatever form they presently exist place at least some value on free speech; but it is not likely that they do as much as say... I did, or Airmax (btw., I know your secret, lol) did. 

Btw., if you didn't know.... this is is YYW.  Hope you all are well.  Some of you I know.  Most of you, I have no idea who you are. 

If you want to talk to me, message me and we'll connect by email or facebook.  I never check this thing. 

The Department of Justice called Trump a felon today.  Cohen is going to jail.  Stone is going to jail.  Papadoupolis is in jail.  Flynn is likely going to jail.  Manafort is invariably going to jail.  The two Fredo sons of Trump, and the son in law are going to be indicted.  So far, the only person whose felonious proclivities are not solidly evident is Ivanka.  Though, her time in Central and Eastern Europe may suggest otherwise.

Cohen brokered a deal between a Russian Oligarch and Trump to build Trump Tower in Moscow, up until the point when Wikileaks released emails that Russia hacked from Hillary.  Then, and only then, Trump Tower Moscow was off.  Trump Tower Moscow was a dream of Trump's for decades, but was totally ignored by those who matter until Trump won the presidency.  Then, a Russian Oligarch offers to seal the deal in exchange for Trump changing US policy as it relates to Ukraine from one of opposing Russian actions there to one of non-interference. 

That is just a taste.  The full scale of Trump's use of residential property in Trump Tower projects to launder money stolen from the Russian state will come out; same with the golf courses built in times when not only would no bank build a golf course (i.e., 2008) but when no bank would lend to Trump.  Same with the towers. Why, then, would DeutscheBank?  How about Danske Bank?  Money laundering. 

Cohen... rofl... that was the beginning of the end.

Tweet away.  Won't change anything. 

tbh, lol... like come on... you knew this was what this site was going to be.

This is surprisingly accurate, though important facts and names were omitted.

Wrong.

1. South Korea's nuclearization was never at issue. North Korea's was, and they are not disarming in any respect.

2. The EU has expressed "talk" and nothing more, which in the end will not change the status quo.

3. China is not losing; they are expanding faster than ever in Africa and South Asia, to the exclusion of the US.

Every part of what you said is wrong. 

I'm a libertarian socialist hawk. Go.

Trump will never be re-elected. 

Why do you think he is "winning" on foreign policy?

DDO rose to power gradually, over many years, from Phil and beyond. 

DebateArt may well steal all of that, though, given that Debate.org seems to have been targeted by spam bots.  That said, it's Juggle's fault.  Their incompetence failed to prevent this predictable result. 

I'd be inclined to agree... 

I would also like to know...