Here I was about to concede that Universal Health Care might actually be a go

>thing for the US........

With how well the government has shown that it can protect its other large da

>ses against unauthorized access, and data harvesting. Having a single cleari
>house for electronic health records would not be a good thing!

The health records are only legally available to helthcare providers.

The small amount of mostly useless data attached to health records
that could be hacked and accessed should be weighed against all the
deaths from poor healthcare without having coverage.

It costs us in taxes and it's not perfect at what we are willing
to pay in taxes to suppport it but the thought of walking into
a doctor's office and being told a procedure is going to bankrupt
me scares me more.. I have 71 years of living with this in Canada
and it's never done me any harm and no one I know has ever wanted
to get rid of the coverage.

Only the super rich think that's a good idea..

---
* SLMR Rob * Does the National Ballet travel by Tu Tu Train?
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Here I was about to concede that Universal Health Care might actually be a goo
thing for the US........

With how well the government has shown that it can protect its other large databses against unauthorized access, and data harvesting. Having a single clearing house for electronic health records would not be a good thing!

That is one of my two concerns. The other would be that if we let them run health care, then certain things... think women's reproductive health...
would probably be covered based on the whims of whoever is in charge at
that particular time.

For instance, right now I am guessing that it would not be covered at all,
even in states where it is legal. Either that, or it would be used to
track who is going to states that allow it in order to receive care.

I know other governments in other countries do it apparently without those issues, but I question how that would work here.


* SLMR 2.1a * Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

With how well the government has shown that it can protect its other large

>> databses against unauthorized access, and data harvesting. Having a single
>> clearing house for electronic health records would not be a good thing!

That is one of my two concerns. The other would be that if we let them run

>health care, then certain things... think women's reproductive health...
>would probably be covered based on the whims of whoever is in charge at
>that particular time.

For instance, right now I am guessing that it would not be covered at all,

>even in states where it is legal. Either that, or it would be used to
>track who is going to states that allow it in order to receive care.

I know other governments in other countries do it apparently without those

>issues, but I question how that would work here.

Not all things are covered by our Health Care in Canada but all that
means is if something is not covered, you pay for it yourself.
Without our Universal Healhcare you would pay for Everything by yourelf
costing a lot more.

i.e.. A family member had a very premature baby, 28 or 29 weeks.
The child was in hospital for several months and the mother stayed
in a place where relatives of people in hospital can stay cheaply.

There were multiple expenses not fully covered but, in the end,
the family forked out about $35,000 and our Healthcare payed out
over $250,000. How many people could afford that?

(BTW.. That baby is now 9 years old, happy and healthy and
probably smarter than her 11 year old brother, and possibly
her parents..) B)

I understand that in the USA those who can afford it will get
good insurance (at a fairly high cost) that covers most things
but many people can't afford the better insurance coverage.

So, like a lot of things there, the USA is a great country if
you are pretty well off but it's not the best place to be poor.

Low income people and seniors pay nothing for healthcare here
and working people have payrole deductions from Zero dollars
at $20,000 a year to a maximum of about $75 a month for those
whos income gets up to over $200,000 a year here (in Ontario).

---
* SLMR Rob * ......... - Politically correct Group Photo
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

That is one of my two concerns. The other would be that if we let them run

>health care, then certain things... think women's reproductive health...
>would probably be covered based on the whims of whoever is in charge at
>that particular time.

For instance, right now I am guessing that it would not be covered at all,

>even in states where it is legal. Either that, or it would be used to
>track who is going to states that allow it in order to receive care.

I know other governments in other countries do it apparently without those

>issues, but I question how that would work here.

Not all things are covered by our Health Care in Canada but all that
means is if something is not covered, you pay for it yourself.
Without our Universal Healhcare you would pay for Everything by yourelf costing a lot more.

I am aware of this. I also suspect (?) that what is covered and what is
not doesn't change every two-to-four years based on the whims of whoever is
in charge. I strong suspect that would happen in the USA, which is the part I would be concerned about.

I am not saying that 100% makes it a bad idea, but I do believe those
who are advocating it in the US don't realize that this would likely happen.


* SLMR 2.1a * How come wrong numbers are never busy???
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Not all things are covered by our Health Care in Canada but all that

>> means is if something is not covered, you pay for it yourself.
>> Without our Universal Healhcare you would pay for Everything by yourelf
>> costing a lot more.

I am aware of this. I also suspect (?) that what is covered and what is

>not doesn't change every two-to-four years based on the whims of whoever is
>in charge. I strong suspect that would happen in the USA, which is the part
>would be concerned about.

I am not saying that 100% makes it a bad idea, but I do believe those

>who are advocating it in the US don't realize that this would likely happen.

Yes, you do seem more prone to changes in major things every time
your people elect a new government, even if it's just a change in
the president, and not the party in power. A party change I'm sure
can be lots of fun.

I think we are a little more stable here although, like there,
you may find differences in health coverage from one Province
or Territory to another.

i.e.. to get into a more controversial area, sex change
prcedures are covered in most districts but not all. Some
only cover hormone replacement but not the actual gender
change surgery.

But, again, money comes into any decision. We get people from
the USA coming up here frequently to have medical procedures
even though they have to pay for them because our full price
(our hospitals being non-profit) are often half of the cost
or less of what they'd pay in the USA for some things.

I've heard people in an emergency room coming out after a
family member was treated for some vacation accident and
talking to the person while making the payment. When they
were told the cost, they couldn't believe it was so cheap.

So that's another issue that would have to be dealt with
to provide healthcare coverage in the USA, and even at our
lower costs, taxes have to be increased to cover things since
we spend almost $10,000 per person in health care costs.

Obviously a large percentage of people don't cost the system
much at all but the average outlay is up there due to those who
needed very expensive procedures.

---
* SLMR Rob * Finish your mail packet; millions in India are offline!
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, you do seem more prone to changes in major things every time
your people elect a new government, even if it's just a change in
the president, and not the party in power. A party change I'm sure
can be lots of fun.

In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The last
four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven
they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by congress or the courts. :/


* SLMR 2.1a * Desk: A very large wastebasket with drawers.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Hello Mike!

** On Saturday 30.05.26 - 09:25, you wrote to ROB:

In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The
last four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by congress or the courts. :/

Aren't some of the orders challenged via the courts? The problem with executive orders is that there seems to be no limit and there is the long delay before the courts can effectively analyse the legal angle on them, menwhile the original executive order in effect.


--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

August Abolins wrote to Mike Powell <=-

Hello Mike!

** On Saturday 30.05.26 - 09:25, you wrote to ROB:

In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The
last four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by congress or the courts. :/

Aren't some of the orders challenged via the courts? The problem with executive orders is that there seems to be no limit and there is the
long delay before the courts can effectively analyse the legal angle on them, menwhile the original executive order in effect.

Some of them are eventually challenged. I think you have touched on the problems here quite well... lot's of orders and long delays before any challenge can be effective.


... Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?
--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: Capitol City Hub (1:2320/105)

Yes, you do seem more prone to changes in major things every time

>> your people elect a new government, even if it's just a change in
>> the president, and not the party in power. A party change I'm sure
>> can be lots of fun.

In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The last

>four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven
>they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by
>congress or the courts. :/

Yes, it seems amazing some of the things that Trump has put through
on his word alone. You assume there are safeguards against doing
major things without approval from the Cabinet or Congress or the
Senate - not sure which body would be the first check-valve.

Trump is definitely pushing his powers to the limit, and past it
it sounds like after recent court case results..

It will be interesting to see what happens post-Trump and how
history views his presidency. It seems like he wants to do things
so he will be remembered, and I'm sure he will be, but maybe bot
in the way he's hoping.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Save changes before exit? (Y)es (N)o (W)hat changes?
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The
last four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by congress or the courts. :/

Aren't some of the orders challenged via the courts? The problem with

>executive orders is that there seems to be no limit and there is the long
>delay before the courts can effectively analyse the legal angle on them,
>meanwhile the original executive order in effect.

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into
force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

But it looks like the American public are starting to see through
what his antics are causing.. costing them..

It took long enough but it sounds like they are starting to realize
that tariffs don't cost the foreign suppliers, it is just added
onto the price they pay for things.. and since the US was importing
things from another country, it suggests that they couldn't or
wouldn't make it there and sell it at that price so even if the
tariff does what Trump says it will and brings manufacturing back
to the USA, it's pretty much guaranteed those items will then
permanently be sold at a higher price than ever before.

---
* SLMR Rob * Deja boo-boo - The feeling you've screwed this up before.
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems amazing some of the things that Trump has put through
on his word alone. You assume there are safeguards against doing
major things without approval from the Cabinet or Congress or the
Senate - not sure which body would be the first check-valve.

Trump is definitely pushing his powers to the limit, and past it
it sounds like after recent court case results..

We've had other recent administrations that pushed the limits some. They didn't set good examples but I am not certain Trump II needed any examples.

If nothing is done, during or after this administration, to check it up I
think we've set a few too many precedents that will become perpetual no
matter who is in charge. :(

It will be interesting to see what happens post-Trump and how
history views his presidency. It seems like he wants to do things
so he will be remembered, and I'm sure he will be, but maybe bot
in the way he's hoping.. B)

Aside from his handling of COVID, if he had only served that one term I
don't believe history would have been too harsh on him. As it is, it is
almost like he got a do-over so as to ruin any chance of history being kind
to him.


* SLMR 2.1a * Op'ti-mism n. 1. A Yugo with a trailer hitch
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into
force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through
that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
and abusing the orders for a while now.

While Congress goes along with some of them because they are of the same
party, I also suspect they went along with some of Biden's because it meant they didn't have to act on something and could blame the President for
whatever the outcome was.


* SLMR 2.1a * Press any key to continue. No, not THAT one!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Trump is definitely pushing his powers to the limit, and past it

>> it sounds like after recent court case results..

We've had other recent administrations that pushed the limits some. They

>didn't set good examples but I am not certain Trump II needed any examples.

No, and the others may have pushed through some things without doing
things right but I don't recall hearing about a lot of damage done,
no wars started and such. B)

It will be interesting to see what happens post-Trump and how

>> history views his presidency. It seems like he wants to do things
>> so he will be remembered, and I'm sure he will be, but maybe bot
>> in the way he's hoping.. B)

Aside from his handling of COVID, if he had only served that one term I

>don't believe history would have been too harsh on him. As it is, it is
>almost like he got a do-over so as to ruin any chance of history being kind
>to him.

Yes, I suppose this time around he doesn't have to worry about
being elected again, unless he finds a way to have himself made
Dictator of the USA (maybe all North America) as he'd prefer.. B)

Some of his decisions you almost have to wonder if they are just
bad or if he is not thinking too clearly in his old age..

---
* SLMR Rob * I have to write Sex... I failed the oral...
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into

>> force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
>> likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through

>that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to
>recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
>and abusing the orders for a while now.

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent
things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
to do a lot of good..

---
* SLMR Rob * Age is a hell of a price to pay for maturity
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

We've had other recent administrations that pushed the limits some. They

>didn't set good examples but I am not certain Trump II needed any examples.

No, and the others may have pushed through some things without doing
things right but I don't recall hearing about a lot of damage done,
no wars started and such. B)

Don't know that it involved an EO but several recent past presidents have
sent troops here and there and caused problems. Most, but not all, of
them did it before they had the scrutiny of social media to deal with.
Very few of them, like Trump, actually had any clear military objective.

At least one of them, like Trump (but not a Republican), may have done so in order to distract us from other things he was involved in.

That said, this is the first time I can think of where we seem to have gone
in with only one ally... an ally who seems to be using their money to buy
us into it... and where it had such a negative affect on an already
suffering economy.

Aside from his handling of COVID, if he had only served that one term I

don't believe history would have been too harsh on him. As it is, it is
almost like he got a do-over so as to ruin any chance of history being kind
to him.

Yes, I suppose this time around he doesn't have to worry about
being elected again, unless he finds a way to have himself made
Dictator of the USA (maybe all North America) as he'd prefer.. B)

Some of his decisions you almost have to wonder if they are just
bad or if he is not thinking too clearly in his old age..

If he had been re-elected in 2020, I suspect things might have been
different. As is, I am pretty sure he is on a revenge tour for us not re-electing him the first time round. I suspect some of the decisions are intentionally bad... either as part of said "revenge," because "they"
(usually the US left) won't like whatever it is, or as part of intentional manipulation of the stock market.

I strongly suspect the war with Iran is an intentionally bad decision
caused by foreign influence.

IMHO, Trump might be going senile or experiencing dementia, but a lot of
what he is doing has too many beneficial consequences for him and his
friends to not be part of some intentional plan... a plan that I don't
think someone with serious senility or dementia could stick to.

While I do believe he may very well have some age related issues, I also
firmly believe those making the most noise about the possibility are trying to distract us from the fact that the last President was very definately
losing their mental acuity, they knew it before he got elected, and they still don't want to admit that it didn't just "suddenly onset" in 2024.

Ultimately, those who don't like Trump and who keep harping on his potential mental decline are just giving him a "get out of jail free" card for
if/when he is ever prosecuted for anything.


* SLMR 2.1a * I am Popeye of Borg. Prepare to be askimilgrated.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into

>> force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
>> likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through

>that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to
>recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
>and abusing the orders for a while now.

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent
things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
to do a lot of good..

Yeah the rules in place now should be keeping most of this from being an
issue. I think it would not be a bad idea, afterwards, for some
congresspeople to sit down and craft something serious that re-iterates
what is in the Constitution. That should, by default, make it
Constitutional while putting another (should not be necessary but is)
barrier up against any future abuse.

One thing that is not covered is government officials doing things -- like insider-like trading and other manipulation -- but I suspect most of
Congress wouldn't want to codify that as it would take a lot of income from most of them.


* SLMR 2.1a * Overdrawn? No way! I still have checks left!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent

>> things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
>> if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
>> to do a lot of good..

Yeah the rules in place now should be keeping most of this from being an

>issue. I think it would not be a bad idea, afterwards, for some
>congresspeople to sit down and craft something serious that re-iterates
>what is in the Constitution. That should, by default, make it
>Constitutional while putting another (should not be necessary but is)
>barrier up against any future abuse.

Part of the problem is that the President has a lot more powers when
he can say there is a crisis, and the idea of this was to allow for
a fast response if US interests were suddenly attacked..
But Trump took the poor economy to be a crisis allowing him to do
virtually whatever he wanted without worrying about Congress until later.

One thing that is not covered is government officials doing things -- like

>insider-like trading and other manipulation -- but I suspect most of
>Congress wouldn't want to codify that as it would take a lot of income from
>most of them.

No, as they say, Honour dies where interest lies..

---
* SLMR Rob * You get more with a smile AND a gun than a smile alone
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

No, and the others may have pushed through some things without doing

>> things right but I don't recall hearing about a lot of damage done,
>> no wars started and such. B)

Don't know that it involved an EO but several recent past presidents have

>sent troops here and there and caused problems. Most, but not all, of
>them did it before they had the scrutiny of social media to deal with.
>Very few of them, like Trump, actually had any clear military objective.

I suspect things often happen at that level that the public never hears anything about.

That said, this is the first time I can think of where we seem to have gone

>in with only one ally... an ally who seems to be using their money to buy
>us into it... and where it had such a negative affect on an already
>suffering economy.

I'm wondering which thing you refer to there. His 2 major actions outside
of the USA I believe were with other countries that needed USA support,
money and weapons to survive.

Some of his decisions you almost have to wonder if they are just

>> bad or if he is not thinking too clearly in his old age..

If he had been re-elected in 2020, I suspect things might have been

>different. As is, I am pretty sure he is on a revenge tour for us not
>re-electing him the first time round. I suspect some of the decisions are
>intentionally bad... either as part of said "revenge," because "they"
>(usually the US left) won't like whatever it is, or as part of intentional
>manipulation of the stock market.

I guess what I was thinking about were all the things he said he was
done with and then came back trying to do them again later, one being
Canada - the 51st State.. Others were tariffs being on, then off, and
then on again and certain things like agreements with Iran being almost
at an end, and then he stops things again for months. I'm sure dealing
with the Iranians is near impossible but the way things are going it
doesn't sound like the USA will ever get out of that 'conflict'..

And one must keep in mind that the main reason for that conflict
was to stop Iran from making the nuclear weapons they were only
weeks away from producing, except no one in US Intelligence knew
anything about that. Only Trump 'knew'..

Probably not caused by any mental issue, just an excuse to do it..

I strongly suspect the war with Iran is an intentionally bad decision

>caused by foreign influence.

I can definitely see the request being a likely thing. Him taking them
up on it is another issue/conversation.

But I also suspect that the war with Iran was supposed to be a
quick 3 day war and a feather in Trump's hat.. just like Russia's
invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be over with in 3 weeks..

IMHO, Trump might be going senile or experiencing dementia, but a lot of

>what he is doing has too many beneficial consequences for him and his
>friends to not be part of some intentional plan... a plan that I don't
>think someone with serious senility or dementia could stick to.

No, if there's anything there it is mild but makes him change his
mind on things he's already thought through or forget things he
said or has been told at times.

---
* SLMR Rob * I can fly! I can fly! I can...oh #$%&!
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

That said, this is the first time I can think of where we seem to have gone

>in with only one ally... an ally who seems to be using their money to buy
>us into it... and where it had such a negative affect on an already
>suffering economy.

I'm wondering which thing you refer to there. His 2 major actions outside
of the USA I believe were with other countries that needed USA support,
money and weapons to survive.

Israel sucking us into a conflict with Iran, i.e. the current conflict that
we are discussing below. I don't think they needed those US things to
survive, but do very much need them to keep the conflict with Iran and
Lebanon going.

If he had been re-elected in 2020, I suspect things might have been

>different. As is, I am pretty sure he is on a revenge tour for us not
>re-electing him the first time round. I suspect some of the decisions are
>intentionally bad... either as part of said "revenge," because "they"
>(usually the US left) won't like whatever it is, or as part of intentional
>manipulation of the stock market.

I guess what I was thinking about were all the things he said he was
done with and then came back trying to do them again later, one being
Canada - the 51st State.. Others were tariffs being on, then off, and
then on again and certain things like agreements with Iran being almost
at an end, and then he stops things again for months. I'm sure dealing
with the Iranians is near impossible but the way things are going it
doesn't sound like the USA will ever get out of that 'conflict'..

IMHO, he might be showing a cognitive issue here but I very much suspect
that we are witnessing intentional market manipulation in two cases you mention. The only exception being the Canada thing as I am not sure that really manipulated the US markets much.

Supposedly, his fascination with Canada and Greenland is caused by
unexploited mineral and other natural resources that he wants go get a hold
of. His ardent followers like all the "51st State" speculation, so that
could be why he brings it up every time something else isn't going well.

And one must keep in mind that the main reason for that conflict
was to stop Iran from making the nuclear weapons they were only
weeks away from producing, except no one in US Intelligence knew
anything about that. Only Trump 'knew'..

Not just Trump, but Israel, who has been claiming "weeks away" since, IIRC,
the 1990s and certainly for the past 15-20 years. Must be "biblical weeks"!

Probably not caused by any mental issue, just an excuse to do it..

The getting stuck on some things, like Canada/51 states, could be some sort
of cognitive thing but I think most of it is either market manipulation or Trump being manipulated by Israel.

I strongly suspect the war with Iran is an intentionally bad decision

>caused by foreign influence.

I can definitely see the request being a likely thing. Him taking them
up on it is another issue/conversation.

But I also suspect that the war with Iran was supposed to be a
quick 3 day war and a feather in Trump's hat.. just like Russia's
invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be over with in 3 weeks..

Like Russia vs. Ukraine, I think the only way out of this one is for the US
to admit they goofed and get out of it.

IMHO, Trump might be going senile or experiencing dementia, but a lot of

>what he is doing has too many beneficial consequences for him and his
>friends to not be part of some intentional plan... a plan that I don't
>think someone with serious senility or dementia could stick to.

No, if there's anything there it is mild but makes him change his
mind on things he's already thought through or forget things he
said or has been told at times.

He certainly does that!

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Who do you have to sleep with to get service around here?
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

That said, this is the first time I can think of where we seem to have gone

>in with only one ally... an ally who seems to be using their money to buy
>us into it... and where it had such a negative affect on an already
>suffering economy.

I'm wondering which thing you refer to there. His 2 major actions outside

>> of the USA I believe were with other countries that needed USA support,
>> money and weapons to survive.

Israel sucking us into a conflict with Iran, i.e. the current conflict that

>we are discussing below. I don't think they needed those US things to
>survive, but do very much need them to keep the conflict with Iran and
>Lebanon going.

Okay.. your wording about "an ally.. using their money to buy us into it"
made me think you meant someone was paying the USA to get involved in
a conflict. I'd imagine that if anything the USA is backing Israel for
a good part of their part in the conflicts.

Supposedly, his fascination with Canada and Greenland is caused by

>unexploited mineral and other natural resources that he wants go get a hold
>of. His ardent followers like all the "51st State" speculation, so that
>could be why he brings it up every time something else isn't going well.

The mineral thing, not to mention other resources, makes sense of
course. I also think that part of Trump's original plan was to
make the USA territory significantly bigger and richer to make him
look better in the history books.

And one must keep in mind that the main reason for that conflict

>> was to stop Iran from making the nuclear weapons they were only
>> weeks away from producing, except no one in US Intelligence knew
>> anything about that. Only Trump 'knew'..

Not just Trump, but Israel, who has been claiming "weeks away" since, IIRC,

>the 1990s and certainly for the past 15-20 years. Must be "biblical weeks"!

Probably since the 1940's, but with complaints other than nukes.. B)

But I also suspect that the war with Iran was supposed to be a

>> quick 3 day war and a feather in Trump's hat.. just like Russia's
>> invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be over with in 3 weeks..

Like Russia vs. Ukraine, I think the only way out of this one is for

>the US to admit they goofed and get out of it.

Yes, that's probably likely, and it doesn't help that Iran can see
this coming and their demands to 'settle' are now getting more and
more difficult to agree to.. Reading between the lines I'm sure
their insistance that their rights are respected would include
their right to build nuclear weapons if they want to..
..Further complicated by no one knowing who the heck is running
the country. A deal one day is refused by someone else the next.

---
* SLMR Rob * Every time I stamp E-Mail my monitor falls over
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Israel sucking us into a conflict with Iran, i.e. the current conflict that

>we are discussing below. I don't think they needed those US things to
>survive, but do very much need them to keep the conflict with Iran and
>Lebanon going.

Okay.. your wording about "an ally.. using their money to buy us into it" made me think you meant someone was paying the USA to get involved in
a conflict. I'd imagine that if anything the USA is backing Israel for
a good part of their part in the conflicts.

There is at least one political action committee (PAC) that donates heavily to US political campaigns that is made up of transplanted and foreign donors from Israel. They are been actively buying US politicians that are for their
war, by donating heavily to their campaigns, and waging successful campaigns
to remove any from office that oppose the conflict.

One Kentucky representative has gone on record claiming that every congressperson who has accepted money from this PAC has at least one
handler, provided by the PAC, that advises them on any issues that involve Israel.

So, yes, they are indeed using their money to buy us into their conflict.

Supposedly, his fascination with Canada and Greenland is caused by

>unexploited mineral and other natural resources that he wants go get a hold
>of. His ardent followers like all the "51st State" speculation, so that
>could be why he brings it up every time something else isn't going well.

The mineral thing, not to mention other resources, makes sense of
course. I also think that part of Trump's original plan was to
make the USA territory significantly bigger and richer to make him
look better in the history books.

Yeah, I suspect seeing that once upon a time other Presidents got to add
states to the union, and no one has done it in roughly 80 years, is another motivating "look what I did" factor.

Like Russia vs. Ukraine, I think the only way out of this one is for

>the US to admit they goofed and get out of it.

Yes, that's probably likely, and it doesn't help that Iran can see
this coming and their demands to 'settle' are now getting more and
more difficult to agree to.. Reading between the lines I'm sure
their insistance that their rights are respected would include
their right to build nuclear weapons if they want to..
..Further complicated by no one knowing who the heck is running
the country. A deal one day is refused by someone else the next.

Also, Iran wants the right to treat their neighbors however they want. It
is very difficult to believe that a US administration could actually make
Iran look like the good guys in a conflict, but this one has been quite sucessful at doing so with a good portion of the electorate.

I am of the opinion that this is likely a conflict between *two* bad guys, neither of whom know how to properly treat their neighbors (or their own people) and no good guys.


* SLMR 2.1a * Don't worry, I'm go?ng ty b,ckup t?d...ai!&#~
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Okay.. your wording about "an ally.. using their money to buy us into it"

>> made me think you meant someone was paying the USA to get involved in
>> a conflict.

There is at least one political action committee (PAC) that donates heavily t

>US political campaigns that is made up of transplanted and foreign donors fro
>Israel. They are been actively buying US politicians that are for their
>war, by donating heavily to their campaigns, and waging successful campaigns
>to remove any from office that oppose the conflict.

Okay, I see what you mean now. 'Buying' individual's support rather than buying/bribing the support of the whole government..

I also think that part of Trump's original plan was to make

>> the USA territory significantly bigger and richer to make him
>> look better in the history books.

Yeah, I suspect seeing that once upon a time other Presidents got to add

>states to the union, and no one has done it in roughly 80 years, is another
>motivating "look what I did" factor.

Definitely.. He's quite miffed I think that a lot of his plans that
were going to make him look brilliant have not worked out so well.

Also, Iran wants the right to treat their neighbors however they want. It

>is very difficult to believe that a US administration could actually make
>Iran look like the good guys in a conflict, but this one has been quite
>sucessful at doing so with a good portion of the electorate.

I am of the opinion that this is likely a conflict between *two* bad guys,

>neither of whom know how to properly treat their neighbors (or their own
>people) and no good guys.

A big part of the problem in Iran is there seem to be 3 groups who
all think they are in charge so coming to some sort of agreement
with one of them is likely to just have it refused by the others.
And not just because it's a bad deal, it's grandstanding to say that
whatever the others agreed to do doesn't count since they are not
the ones in charge.

---
* SLMR Rob * Zen Master to Hotdog Vendor "Make me one with everything"
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)