Is impeachment and removal from office possible? What would it take?

[Philip]

Are there not aspects of social cooperation within the U.S., Canada, Europe? Of course. That's not the question concerning the dangers of a pure socialist path. Ed, what do you think went wrong in Venezuela?

Is Capitalism EVIL? Course not! Every system has it's good points and bad ones. The best systems encourage the most people striving to make their lives economically successful and trying to be independent - as well as giving them freedoms in speech and all pursuits that do not harm others or society. And every system can be abused by evil people within it. And whatever hybrid of the best economic systems needs sensible regulations. It's not terribly useful to just throw out a term describing a systems, without dissecting its strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated over time. But people disingenuously dismiss capitalism because of whatever excesses that need taming. And yet there are certain aspects of pooling resources that benefit all - it's just that whatever system will require tweaks, and nuanced adjustments. And some systems might work more in some cultures better than in other ones.

[Byblos]

Social democracy is working just fine in Canada, Western Europe, and much of Asia ... So why are you so quick to compare us to Venezuela and so slow to compare us to Britain or Canada?

Only because Venezuela is on the verge of collapse. Are you Canadian Ed? Have you had the chance to experience the common-man Canadian health system? If not, perhaps Paul can enlighten us a bit.

As to the other points, I will address them as time permits but first I'd like to ask you a question Ed about your tag line : "If you're accustomed to privilege, equality may feel like oppression". I'm curious, what kind of equality are you referring to? Equality of opportunity? Or equality of outcome?

[PaulSacramento]

We have quite a few issues here.
Our Health system is in serious need of reform BUT, in general, works well.
Our political system has way too man parties BUT, in general works well.
Our senatorial system is a joke - they are nominated by the political party in power and not elected.
Our charter of rights is, well, more emotional than logical.
We have hate speech laws that are just plain stupid - we do NOT have free speech in Canada, we have limited free speech.
Our judicial system has the same problems as any other.

Canada is great, we have a balanced blend of social and personal identity and responsibility BUT we do cater FAR TOO Much to special interest groups and tend to fall in the same holes like other western democracies, namely too quick to fix the Symptom and NOT the problem.

[Byblos]

Our Health system is in serious need of reform BUT, in general, works well.

Can you tell us a bit more Paul? For example, what is the average wait time to see a specialist, to schedule a non-emergency operation such as hip or knee replacement, and what is the average out-of-pocket cost for both premiums and procedures. Thanks much.

[edwardmurphy]

people disingenuously dismiss capitalism because of whatever excesses that need taming.

I generally agree with what you're saying, Phil, but I have to pull this one out. There is literally nobody in mainstream American politics who opposes free market capitalism. Nobody, including Bernie and AOC. Here's a direct quote from the DNC platform:

PROMOTING COMPETITION BY STOPPING CORPORATE CONCENTRATION
Large corporations have concentrated their control over markets to a greater degree than Americans have seen in decades—further evidence that the deck is stacked for those at the top. Democrats will take steps to stop corporate concentration in any industry where it is unfairly limiting competition. We will make competition policy and antitrust stronger and more responsive to our economy today, enhance the antitrust enforcement arms of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and encourage other agencies to police anti-competitive practices in their areas of jurisdiction.

We support the historic purpose of the antitrust laws to protect competition and prevent excessively consolidated economic and political power, which can be corrosive to a healthy democracy. We support reinvigorating DOJ and FTC enforcement of antitrust laws to prevent abusive behavior by dominant companies, and protecting the public interest against abusive, discriminatory, and unfair methods of commerce. We support President Obama’s recent Executive Order, directing all agencies to identify specific actions they can take in their areas of jurisdiction to detect anticompetitive practices—such as tying arrangements, price fixing, and exclusionary conduct—and to refer practices that appear to violate federal antitrust law to the DOJ and FTC.

That's full throated support of capitalism, a commitment to protecting the free market from monopolies, and a complete absence of support for a centrally planned economy or the nationalion of the means of production.

Nobody in mainstream American politics is a socialist. Nobody wants centralized economic planning or the nationalization of private property. Nobody. If Bernie and AOC somehow managed to everything they've asked for the US would end up looking like Canada or maybe Norway, not like Soviet Russia or Venezuela.

I know you guys don't like the Dems. That's fine. But claiming that they're socialists is just plain inaccurate. Socialism has a definition, and the Democratic Party has never embraced it.

Only because Venezuela is on the verge of collapse.

Fair enough.

And Phil, since you asked, here's an analysis of what went wrong there. Interesting read.

Are you Canadian Ed? Have you had the chance to experience the common-man Canadian health system? If not, perhaps Paul can enlighten us a bit.

I'm not Canadian, but I have discussed healthcare with Europeans and Canadians, including Paul. (You can get more of his take on the issue here.) I have never heard any of them say that they wished their system was more like ours.

The US healthcare system is fantastic for rich people, but the less money you have the less it does for you and the more you run the risk of losing everything. We all know that. Hell, it's a common plot device in our movies and TV shows. Remember John Q? Or As Good As It Gets? Or Last Holiday? Or Breaking Bad? Or The Rainmaker? All of them are about people doing desperate things because they or their loved ones have serious illnesses and either they don't have insurance or the insurance company won't cover the treatment they need. Europeans think that those movies are bizarre. In the Canadian version of Breaking Bad Walter White would have been treated for cancer without facing bankruptcy, and cooking meth would never have crossed his mind. Not as good a show, but a far better reality, no? So anyway, I agree with Paul. The best possible healthcare should be an inalienable right.

As to the other points, I will address them as time permits but first I'd like to ask you a question Ed about your tag line : "If you're accustomed to privilege, equality may feel like oppression". I'm curious, what kind of equality are you referring to? Equality of opportunity? Or equality of outcome?

It's actually a direct response to claims that things like marriage equality amount to persecution of American Christians. I think I put it up after one of B.W.'s diatribes. So I guess the answer to your question is neither, really.

To answer your question, I believe in equality of opportunity and I don't support artificially leveling outcomes. People who work hard deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor and to live safe, secure lives. That includes the guy working 50 hours a week at McDonalds and the single mother with 3 part-time jobs. We can have winners without having losers.

[Stu]

Ben Shapiro has quite a good take on healthcare. Ignore the title, just watch the video.

[PaulSacramento]

Our Health system is in serious need of reform BUT, in general, works well.

Can you tell us a bit more Paul? For example, what is the average wait time to see a specialist, to schedule a non-emergency operation such as hip or knee replacement, and what is the average out-of-pocket cost for both premiums and procedures. Thanks much.

Wait time is based on need so, Emergency is same or next and urgent is a couple of weeks and so forth.
This is base don the evaluation of your family doctor.
Example, my eldest daughter has clinic depressions, her brain absorbs more serotonin than it should, so that causes emotional issues ( which I on't go into detail here). The family doctor put her on meds ( low dosage to see if it works and it did) and then we got a call to schedule a specialist visit and because the meds were working they put her in group therapy and booked a specialist BUT not as an emergency or urgent so it took 1 year to get an appointment. If it would have been deemed urgent or emergency it would have been much sooner of course.

EX:
My best friends father-in-law was getting stomach pains, went to doctor, got an endoscopy and colonoscopy appointment, they found cancer.
He had surgery last Tuesday.
All this in less than a month.

So...

Out of pocket costs:
Emergency work is always free, except for prescriptions ( which can be free if you can't afford them- this is a provincial/state thing, as is all health care, it is funded by federal and provincial taxes But run by the provinces).
You pay extra for private rooms for example, if available.
Almost all companies have prescription, health an dental plans, so the Government only deals with emergencies for that stuff.

[Philip]

One thing I think Paul's Canadian experience shows is that some form of care for all has to be limited and arbitrated - and the public has to support it. And nations must control their costs and expenditures and all manner of things to afford such. There is no unlimited monies. But it also suggests that as high a percentage as possible of workers must be contributing and paying taxes - meaning you must also disincentive people sponging off government benefits who could be working.

[edwardmurphy]

True, but nobody has ever advocated for a system in which there were no limits on care and no arbitration, so there's no possibility of that happening. As I understand things, no country with a government run healthcare system (or health insurance company) has ever just said "just do whatever you want and we'll pay for it all" and that's definitely what progressives are looking for.

Stu, here's a point by point rebuttal to Shapiro's healthcare talking points.

[abelcainsbrother]

It wasn't a criminal investigation, it was an investigation of Russian interference in our electoral process. Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has already been established. That's old news. Obstruction is also a gimme - he fired Comey over the Russia investigation and said as much on national television. Boom. Obstruction. There are many, many more examples of obstruction, and you could make a good case for witness tampering, too, but I don't want to spend all day on this. In any halfway normal point in our history he'd have been impeached, convicted, and shown the door a year ago. Alas, these are not normal times. There's no possible way the Senate would convict Trump on obstruction, despite him being guilty as sin (of obstruction of justice and probably witness) and everyone knowing it.

As far as Trump being in the clear, that's pretty funny. In reality he's just barely taken his first steps into the deep, dark woods. The Dems are going to do everything in their power to get their hands on Trump's tax info, and a close inspection will likely reveal some shady business. The Dems are also going to redo the Mueller investigation - at least the damaging parts - as publicly as possibly. Trump is about to get Benghazi'd, and it's gonna sting. New York prosecutors are also looking into his businesses, potentially with a RICO case in mind. One of his campaign workers is suing him for sexual harassment - that's about 20 women making that claim at this point. His charity is under investigation. Laundering Russian money through Deutsche Bank seems like a possibility, as well. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm 100% certain I'm forgetting some stuff.

Anyway, the Sunday talk circuit has to fill their airtime. I doubt they know much more than we do. Regardless, I think we can be reasonably confident that there's a lot more drama to come.

And Abe, since you're sure to weigh in, and since like to close with videos, this is for you - Trump's Future

Stop pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory as all you have is accusations without evidence.And you are so misinformed that you are still trying to hang onto it.Trump will allow the Democrats to make a big deal about his taxes and then release them at the right time,which will prove him right again,just like the Mueller report did,like I said and like Q said months ago.

I was right,you were wrong again concerning Russia collusion and what the Mueller Report would show. You keep on being wrong,yet won't admit it.I told you the Mueller Report would come out soon,which happened,I told you it would show no collusion,I was correct.I got it from Q who is apart of military intelligence and often knows what Democrats are going to do months before they do. He picks up chatter.He sets up the Deep state and Democrats and the media and they react too.They wasted ammunition last friday with the attack in New Zealand,as they were trying to distract,but it did not work,it worked in New Zealand though to take guns away from its citezens though.Where is Nessa?The Deep state tries it here in America too everytime we have a school shooting,Democrats go on a rampage against law abiding gun owners trying to make it hard to have and get guns.Remember FISA goes both ways. It really adds to the feeling I have that Mueller is cooperating with investigators although that part has not been proven yet.You see Mueller is saving himself because he was involved with Uranium one which you continue to act like is no big deal,eventhough it is colluding with Russia,exactly what has been accused of Trump.

You see,if Mueller is cooperating with investigators concerning Uranium one he will rat out Obama and Hillary,he was the delivery man and he delivered the Uranium to Russia.You claimed before the Uranium was not good uranium, lol.It is colluding with Russia as Russia paid for it,but more importantly it is treason,which is a REAL CRIME.The Obama administration you think is so clean and scandal free is going to be proven false with REAL EVIDENCE,unlike with the Democrats accusing President Trump of colluding with Russia,without any evidence.We are actually going to have REAL EVIDENCE of REAL CRIMES to prosecute them.You better buckle up because the real criminals in our government are going down.

[abelcainsbrother]

Patriots On The Offensive.For all interested from a Q news perspective.
https://youtu.be/V8Ps08vRUw0

[Stu]

Not a single Democrat voted for the “Green New Deal,” proving they don’t actually believe what they say

[edwardmurphy]

Stop pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory as all you have is accusations without evidence.And you are so misinformed that you are still trying to hang onto it.

The report hasn't been released. William Barr is on record as saying that he doesn't believe that a President can commit obstruction. He wrote an op ed and 2 DOJ memos about Mueller's overreach, he argued (prior to his confirmation) that the President cannot commit obstruction, and then he gave us a 4 page memo stating the following:

1) Mueller found no evidence of collusion with the Russian government. Private Russian citizens, Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks were not mentioned.

2) Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction. He left it to the guy that publicly opposed the investigation and said that the President is above the law to weigh the evidence and make the decision. Not surprisingly, Barr (apparently in consultation with Rosenstein) decided that Trump didn't obstruct justice.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Rosenstein works for Barr, so his consultation could have been to disagree and then get overruled - we have no idea. We also haven't seen the evidence that Mueller thought was too compelling to prevent him from exonerating Trump of obstruction. In fact, all we've seen is Barr's memo and Trump's spin. The actual report isn't out there. Moreover, the Senate GOP is now trying to block it from being released. Again, that's suspicious, being that Trump claims it totally exonerates him. And finally, for most of his presidency Trump insisted that Russia didn't interfere. The Mueller report shows without a doubt that they did interfere and that they did so specifically to help Trump. So there's that.

So yeah, many unanswered questions and no exoneration.

You see,if Mueller is cooperating with investigators concerning Uranium one he will rat out Obama and Hillary,he was the delivery man and he delivered the Uranium to Russia.You claimed before the Uranium was not good uranium, lol.It is colluding with Russia as Russia paid for it,but more importantly it is treason,which is a REAL CRIME.The Obama administration you think is so clean and scandal free is going to be proven false with REAL EVIDENCE,unlike with the Democrats accusing President Trump of colluding with Russia,without any evidence.We are actually going to have REAL EVIDENCE of REAL CRIMES to prosecute them.You better buckle up because the real criminals in our government are going down.

It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

[edwardmurphy]

Not a single Democrat voted for the “Green New Deal,” proving they don’t actually believe what they say

Climate change is challenging.

The Democrats universally (and logically) accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is a gigantic problem that we desperately need to address, but they haven't come together to make a plan. The progressives - AOC, Bernie, etc - want an immediate moonshot, but the corporate wing, being aligned with corporate interests, want to move more slowly and cautiously. And Joe Manchin just wants to stay good with the coal lobby.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are split between denying that climate change exists, denying that human activity is a factor, admitting that it exists while denying that it's a problem, claiming that more study is needed, and admitting that it's a potential problem but adding that there's no need to worry about it yet. Regardless of the nuances of their positions, they're united in preemptive opposition to anything that the Democrats propose, no matter what.

McConnell advancing the GND bill (which was actually just a non binding resolution that Congress needs to make a sweeping plan to address climate change) without opening the floor for debate was political maneuvering. He wanted to get the Democrats on record supporting the GND so that he could use their votes against them in the 2020 attack ads, and he wanted to do it while denying them a forum to speak their minds on the issue. The Dems responded by choosing not to play. All of this will be forgotten in a week, overshadowed by Trump's next crazy tweet or whatever Robert Mueller says when the House Judiciary Commission calls him in to testify.

All it really means is that the Democrats haven't coalesced around a single, comprehensive climate change policy. They will in time.

So what's the climate change debate like in South Africa?

[Philip]

All it really means is that the Democrats haven't coalesced around a single, comprehensive climate change policy. They will in time.

Well, before we shovel vast trillions that will mostly just disappear down some useless, feel-good rabbit hole, and before we do anything that would drastically kill off jobs or industries, we need to A) make sure we truly understand what would be beneficial, B) find bridges of incentives that aren't job killers, and C) recognize that cautions and verification - while they shouldn't mean do nothing - they are often prudent. So, to immediately knuckle under to the often drastic recommendations of the "sky is falling" crowd - all it's gonna do is put political power in the hands of remote globalists who are like to follow whatever is the latest emotional solutions to the issue.

Now, it is true that, even if climate change is natural and we're just in a cycle that will eventually swing back cooler, maybe even much colder, it still doesn't mean that it won't impact countries and economies, or that we shouldn't plan for it. And we surely should ramp up efforts to clean up our industrial output and emissions. But hysteria-driven approaches - are guaranteed disaster! And some correlations are just that - are not necessarily connections of causative agents, not when you're talking about fluctuations of a 4.5 billion-year-old planet! This is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican issue - and it will be tragic for us to approach is like that - because wherever and whatever might should be done, it's gonna take cooperation from everyone. Demonizing various positions is only going to make things a whole lot worse.