His case is reasoned, but the result of what he wants really would be a few “grandmas off the cliff”. It’s hard not to be outraged by that. Plenty of Republicans don’t want what Paul Ryan wants either.

Paul Ryan has been making a reasoned case for years, and now is willing to be judged on the results. The contrast with Pelosi could not be more stark.

I have yet to see a Republican give a reasoned argument. I will admit all the ones I’ve seen have remained calm, but their arguments mostly don’t make sense.

I have seen some Dems engage in hyperbole too (Nancy Pelosi for example) and that doesn’t help their case. However, there are plenty explaining the situation property.

And the Dems are clearly winning the argument with the general public as 66% of USians oppose the Bill. The majority aren’t stupid and are able to work out for themselves the problems with the Bill.

It doesn’t help with the credibility of the Republicans either when Trump keeps saying he will lose money, “Believe me.” The Bill was virtually written for wealthy real estate developers.

The difference between the parties has been quite striking during the tax reform debate. When Republican lawmakers are interviewed, they usually give lucid, reasoned, and detailed replies, whereas the Democrats respond with bombastic slogans, hysteria, and hyperbole.

I agree. It is important to democracy for there to be at least two strong, credible alternatives and for the one in opposition to properly hold the one in government to account, and to be a valid alternative. The GOP didn’t do that in opposition (they were nothing more than spoilers) and are now not providing effective governance.

One of the reasons Trump was seen as a good potential president was the thought of running government more like a business. If a business was run the way the US government is currently being run, it would be bankrupt in no time.

There should be a constant investigation, but there isn’t. The US would be well advised to invest more in that and less in hardware.

As for Podesta being as dangerous as Putin, that’s ridiculous. Podesta was incompetent when it came to internet security despite repeated warnings. Putin’s attacks are active, deliberate, widespread, planned, and strategic. He’s not the only one of course. China and North Korea in particular are also very dangerous adversaries when it comes to cyber-security. There are many others.

And though Trump is horrid, a gross symptom of the US’s brokenness, the problem is so much bigger. Getting rid of Trump would be a good thing, but by itself it won’t help much. The Republican Party is what needs to die, or be transformed. It is literally killing the US. Sane conservatism should have a place in our politics but the RP, as it is today and has been for nearly 30 years, needs to be destroyed.

First of all, regarding cybersecurity, my point is that it should be happening anyway on a continuous basis — it’s a broader and more immediate concern than just elections. (That’s what’s so absurd about blaming the Russians because John Podesta — a guy who’s worked steps from the Oval Office in two administrations, and was hoping for a third — couldn’t be trusted to hold on to his own password. You have to conclude that Podesta was at least as much a risk as Putin.)

By genie out of the bottle, I mean the ability for anyone anywhere to disseminate disinformation instantly and globally. When governments do it, then maybe other governments can punish them, but that still leaves millions of potential malefactors out there across the world. That’s the nature of the Internet, for good or ill, and that’s the world we live in. If that’s a threat to democracy, then (again) it’s a bigger problem than Putin.

There’s nothing in the few charges lodged to date about conspiracy or collusion, and indeed the most serious charges have nothing to do with the Trump campaign or the election.
The lamestream anti-Trump papers and channels seem to be running on fumes. But perhaps a shoe will fall yet. We shall see.

Well yes, those things have shown up in our news. As I said, NZers knare aware of the issues, though obviously not to the depth of the professor.

You think Russian involvement is obvious, but Trump continues to deny it. Despite the threat to your democracy, he hasn’t held one cabinet level meeting regarding stopping it for the next election.

And the genie can he put back in the bottle. Look what France did when Russia interfered in their election!

There’s not little to show. There have been several arrests and guilty pleas. There’s clearly more to come. The partisan leanings are a fantasy. There was even a fu€kwit on Fox News saying the whole FBI should be disbanded! FFS!

Jeanine Pirro, Laura Ingram, and Sean Hannity are not people whose theories you should listen to. They’re blind incapable of seeing fault when it comes to Trump. They’re barely a step up from Alex Jones.

The policy paper cited above (dated November 14, 2017, authored by Professor Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, under the auspices of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program) calls for three investigations. Quote:

– The new Minister of SIS must instruct the SIS to engage in an in-depth investigation of China’s subversion and espionage activities in New Zealand.
– The Prime Minister should instruct the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to follow Australia’s example and engage in an in-depth inquiry into China’s political influence activities in New Zealand.
– The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should instruct the Commerce Commission to investigate the CCP’s interference in our Chinese language media sector—which breaches our monopoly laws and our democratic requirement for a free and independent media.

Wouldn’t one think this would have shown up in the news?

As for Russian “involvement” in the USA, “involvement” is a very broad term.

You don’t need an investigation to know that the Russians, the Chinese, and all kinds of adversaries and evildoers are constantly trying to mess with us, and that protecting critical infrastructure requires constant vigilance.

You don’t need an investigation to know that the Internet enables anyone anywhere to disseminate disinformation instantly and globally. Alas, there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle.

The investigations into purported “collusion” have been going on for a year with little to show besides intriguing revelations about the investigators’ partisan leanings and about the bungled Clinton e-mail investigation. At this rate these investigations seem likely to turn out a crashing bore.