Weekend Show Politics – Sat 30 Nov, 2019

Hour 2 – Politics and Social Comments

Full Second Hour
  • Segment 1 – We discuss the psychological impact that Holidays have on everyone With Dr Frieda Birnbaum.
  • Segment 2 – Dr. Frieda Birnbaum opines on the impeachment situation.
  • Segment 3 – Jim and Big Al wrap up the past week in politics stemming from both facts and opinions.
  • Where will Trump end up in November? Jim and Big Al think that they know.

Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
View related posts on:

  1. On November 30, 2019 at 3:30 am,
    CFS says:

    Peace be with you, Big Al. We can all get along. WWG1WGA, and Happy Birthday.

  2. On November 30, 2019 at 3:51 am,
    CFS says:

    I don’t know why things are polarized into Never Trumpers or Ever-Trumpers. I would drop support of Trump quite quickly if he started doing something against the better interests of the country. In all my life, I have never seen ANY person, aspiring to power, state his beliefs and policies prior to gaining power, and then ACTUALLY KEEPING as many promises as able; with those not kept being mostly because they were thwarted by political opponents.

  3. On November 30, 2019 at 3:54 am,
    CFS says:

    With regards to Bloomberg, I only hope people will look at how pathetic he was as a leader in New York, and how the quality of life failed to improve under his leadership.

  4. On November 30, 2019 at 4:16 am,
    CFS says:

    We just have to look at Europe to see the failures of Socialist (Democrat-like) policies over there pervasive through society.
    Take the London Bridge terrorist knife slasher, for example.
    A known Islamic agitator/terrorist, in jail, but released when he agreed to wear an ankle location bracelet. What a stupidly, ineffective policy was that ?

    Look at the number of crimes being committed by illegal immigrants.
    What sane person could seriously believe any un-vetted person, illiterate even in their own language, on average, could hold jobs substantial enough to benefit American society as a whole ?
    Sure, Republicans tend to want cheap labor, but is that not exploitative ?
    Democrats want easy votes, but is that not also exploitative of the rest of society ?

  5. On November 30, 2019 at 4:52 am,
    cfs says:

    For educational purposes:
    A discussion of European immigration policies and consequences.

  6. On November 30, 2019 at 5:18 am,
    Excelsior says:

    2020 Democratic Debate – Saturday Night Live #VIDEO

    Nov 24, 2019 (funnier and more accurate than the actual debate)

    Larry David kills it as Bernie, and Woody is great as Biden


    • On November 30, 2019 at 7:26 am,
      Silverdollar says:

      Thanks X; this site definitely needs all the comedy it can get!

      • On November 30, 2019 at 11:20 am,
        Excelsior says:

        Agreed. Laughter is the best medicine.

  7. On November 30, 2019 at 6:37 am,
    AJ says:

    It’s Not “Never Trump.” It’s “Country First.

    • On November 30, 2019 at 7:41 am,
      cfs says:

      It is precisely “country first” why many conservatives vote FOR Trump.
      It is the do-gooder, intellectually incompetent liberals who are never-Trumpers. Such morons have never fully thought through the true consequences of open borders, or freebies-for-all, or many other economy-ruining, or society-destroying actions that “compassionate”, “caring”, Democrats seem to advocate.
      Does it really help the American population, in general, if we open borders and as a consequence have schools, where much time has to be spent simply teaching english to new immigrants, while the existing students get bored and turned off from education ?
      Does it really help the population if “freebies” are given out, so that the economy is destroyed by the debt, or excessive taxation so that the incentive of capitalism is destroyed ?
      Does it really help Americans if the influx of immigrants is at a pace which foils assimilation and American culture is destroyed ?
      It is this lack of long-term consequence thinking why Douglas Connors is so wrong as to be an outright moron, in my book, no matter what his so-called qualifications might be as author of that piece.
      Trump may not be a perfect President, but he’s a darned sight better than any other choice on the horizon, for someone who really cares about preserving the quality of these United States of America.
      Or do you really think it is “unfair” to have the fortune to be born in a great country and that such benefit should be shared, even if it means the leveling down of the quality of life for all current Americans ?
      Will no one learn from the mistakes of history ?
      Our immigration policies were merit-based until about 1970. Comparing the rate of the quality of life growth before and after that watershed change should allow a rational evaluation to be made for future policies, rather than on emotion-based irrationality.

  8. On November 30, 2019 at 6:43 am,
    AJ says:

    Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Biden, and Ukrainegate

    Excellent resource

  9. On November 30, 2019 at 7:48 am,
    larry says:

    Thank you commentators…Nice broad discussion as always…..

  10. On November 30, 2019 at 8:36 am,
    cfs says:

    A true story:
    I was sitting down the other day having a free lunch.
    (As a guest at a Silicon Valley Company, who all seem to have a “Free Meals Policy” for their employees, and I was listening to older executives discussing their young adult children in university and student loans. (These execs were probably in their early forties and probably both millionaires through stock options)
    What surprised me, was the fact that they seemed to agree that their children should default in future on their student loans, because ” everyone was doing it and the Government would have to forgive the loans, because otherwise banks would go bankrupt.”
    Just an anecdote, I know, but it seems to me that if many in the country have that attitude, then this country is in deeper trouble than I imagine.
    Perhaps it is a total generational change in attitude and I no longer understand American capitalism; or perhaps capitalism died on the West Coast, because money seems to flow so easily.

  11. On November 30, 2019 at 10:43 am,
    russell hamilton says:

    Dont worry about the future , as our system has a smooth method of succession for presidents. Pence is a much quieter personality than Trump and will make a good transitional figure. Trump is too bombastic and unpridictable a personality. There is a thing in the constitution that allows the sitting president to nominate a fill in VICE PRESIDENT with apporval of the Senate. So REPUBS would still maintain control till the end of 2020 . Thats how we got NELSON ROCKAFELLER as vice pres under geral ford. my worry is that China willinvade Tiwan during this period , Sensing weakness on TRUMPS PART . Pray for peace . rsh

  12. On November 30, 2019 at 11:07 am,
    markedtofuture says:

    Queen & Trump Charles & Philip Meet Over Prince Andrew


  13. On November 30, 2019 at 11:17 am,
    b says:

    China invade Taiwan?
    I think thats the wrong word, Taiwan is part of China.

    Western news kept saying Russia invaded Crimea too.
    Crimea was taken from the Ottoman Turks in the 1700s and Russian troops were parked there ever since.
    Excluding the 40s but Russia retook it.

    There was no invasion of Crimea, the troops were always there.

    I gotta think the word invasion is used as an excuse for war.

    • On November 30, 2019 at 2:55 pm,
      cfs says:

      I guess I should look it up, but I was under the impression that the people of the Republic of China took over Taiwan from the Japanese, and the Island was never held by the Peoples Republic of China. The Mainland of China, however, was taken from the Republic of China by Mao Zedong’s Communist Party and declared the People’s Republic of China.

      So are there really two Chinas with the mainlanders claiming Taiwan as rightfully theirs, even though the mainlanders have never controlled Taiwan ?
      Or is there just one ?
      Further I believe the reason Taiwan is not represented in the U.N. as a distinct and separate country, was that China (PRC) was given a veto power, along with U.S., U.K. and France when the U.N. was formed, and thus the reason Taiwan is not a separate country is only the technicality of PRC’s veto power.
      Whether or not that power is just or not is a good question, since PRC’s claim over much of Philippine’s fishing waters has been ruled invalid by the U.N. and International Courts.
      (That has not stopped PRC boats from fishing in those waters, however, because apparently might makes Right.)

      • On December 1, 2019 at 3:15 am,
        Excelsior says:

        Is Taiwan a Country?
        On Which of the Eight Criteria for Being a Country Does It Fail?

        by Matt Rosenberg – July 11, 2019

        “There is much controversy around the question of whether Taiwan—an island in East Asia that is about the size of Maryland and Delaware combined—is an independent country.”

        “Taiwan developed into a modern power following the Communist victory on the mainland in 1949. Two million Chinese Nationalists fled to Taiwan and established a government for all of China on the island. From that point on, until 1971, Taiwan was recognized as “China” by the United Nations.”

        “Mainland China’s position on Taiwan is that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China; the People’s Republic of China is awaiting reunification of the island and mainland. However, Taiwan claims independence as a distinct state.”


        • On December 1, 2019 at 3:23 am,
          Excelsior says:

          Is Taiwan A Country?

          World Atlas

          “A few countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, while many others do not.”

          “Currently, the sovereignty of Taiwan is in question. The majority of countries around the world choose not to be involved in this debate, and instead deal with Taiwan as its own state while making no statements in favor of its formal declaration of independence. In this way, no other country interferes with the current status of Taiwan and allows various political groups to carry on with their own interpretation of the situation.”

          “The question of Taiwan’s independence remains. The government of the People’s Republic of China maintains that the Republic of China was eliminated in October of 1949, and that the right to control Taiwan was transferred to the new government by way of the succession of states theory. According to this theory, a territory that is under the rule of a sovereign state comes under the rule of a successor state when the original ruling government renounces its claim to the area. This succession is documented by several agreements, including the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Cairo Declaration, and the Potsdam Proclamation.”

          “Additionally, the PRC claims that the PRC and the ROC represent two sides of the Chinese Civil War, which has not yet officially ended. Therefore, since the conflict has not ended, Taiwan cannot claim its independence. In the PRC’s opinion, the majority of the population of China (both Taiwan and the mainland) should agree with the secession move in order for Taiwan to become an independent country. The PRC government further argues that Taiwan has been refused entrance as a member of the UN and that only 19 UN government representative recognize its sovereignty.”

          “In contrast, the ROC (Taiwan) argues that it acts as an independent nation. Additionally, the ROC government points out that it has not been replaced by the PRC government because it has never stopped functioning and carrying out its governmental responsibilities. The government of Taiwan goes on to cite the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which defines statehood as an area with defined borders, relations and agreements with other governments, a permanent population, and a working government. Taiwan believes that it meets these widely accepted criteria.”


      • On December 1, 2019 at 8:25 am,
        Rufust445 says:

        “Taiwan was returned to Nationalist Chinese control in 1945 following Japan’s defeat in World War II. However, in 1949 Chinese communist armies defeated Nationalist forces on the mainland and established the People’s Republic of China there. The Nationalist government and armies fled to Taiwan, again resulting in the separation of Taiwan from China.”


        • On December 1, 2019 at 12:13 pm,
          CFS says:

          It seems to me not as simple and clear as one might think.

          from WIKIPEDIA:

          The controversy regarding the political status of Taiwan, sometimes referred to as the Taiwan Issue or Taiwan Strait Issue, or from a Taiwanese perspective as the Mainland Issue, is a result of the Chinese Civil War and the subsequent split of China into the two present-day self-governing entities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC; commonly known as “China”) and the Republic of China (ROC; commonly known as “Taiwan”).

          The issue hinges on whether the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu should remain the territory of the ROC as an effectively separate self-governing entity; become unified with the PRC under the existing communist government; convert the ROC to a new “Republic of Taiwan”; or unite with the mainland under the ROC government (after the dissolution of the PRC government).

          This controversy also concerns whether the existence and legal status as a sovereign state (country) of both the ROC and the PRC is legitimate as a matter of international law.

          Currently, Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and some other minor islands effectively make up the jurisdiction of the state with the official name of the Republic of China (ROC) but commonly known as “Taiwan”. The ROC, which took control of Taiwan (including Penghu and other nearby islands) in 1945, ruled mainland China and claimed sovereignty over Outer Mongolia (now Mongolia) and Tannu Uriankhai (part of which is present day Tuva, Russia) before losing the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party of China (CPC) and relocating its government and capital city from Nanjing (formerly spelled as “Nanking”) to Taipei as temporary capital in December 1949. The CPC established new government on the mainland as People’s Republic of China (PRC) in October 1949.

          Since the ROC lost its United Nations seat as “China” in 1971 (replaced by the PRC), most sovereign states have switched their diplomatic recognition to the PRC, recognizing the PRC as the representative of all China, though the majority of countries avoid clarifying what territories are meant by “China” in order to associate with both the PRC and ROC. As of 20 September 2019, the ROC maintains official diplomatic relations with 14 UN member states and the Holy See,[1] although informal relations are maintained with nearly all others. Agencies of foreign governments such as the American Institute in Taiwan operate as de facto embassies of their home countries in Taiwan, and Taiwan operates similar de facto embassies and consulates in most countries under such names as “Taipei Representative Office” (TRO) or “Taipei Economic and Cultural (Representative) Office” (TECO). In certain contexts, Taiwan is also referred to as Chinese Taipei.

          The ROC government has in the past actively pursued the claim as the sole legitimate government over mainland China and Taiwan. This position began to change in the early 1990s as democracy was introduced and new Taiwanese leaders were elected, changing to one that does not actively challenge the legitimacy of PRC rule over mainland China. However, with the election of the Kuomintang (KMT, “Chinese Nationalist Party”) back into executive power in 2008, the ROC government has reverted to the position that “mainland China is also part of the territory of the ROC.”[2] Both the PRC and the ROC carry out Cross-Strait relations through specialized agencies (such as the Mainland Affairs Council of the ROC), rather than through foreign ministries. Different groups have different concepts of what the current formal political situation of Taiwan is. (See also: Chinese reunification, Taiwan independence, and Cross-Strait relations)

          In addition, the situation can be confusing because of the different parties and the effort by many groups to deal with the controversy through a policy of deliberate ambiguity. The political solution that is accepted by many of the current groups is the perspective of the status quo: to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state and at a minimum, to officially declare no support for the government of this state making a formal declaration of independence. What a formal declaration of independence would consist of is not clear and can be confusing given the fact that the People’s Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan and the Republic of China still exists, albeit on a decreased scale.

          The status quo is accepted in large part because it does not define the legal or future status of Taiwan, leaving each group to interpret the situation in a way that is politically acceptable to its members.

          Main article: History of Taiwan

          Taiwan (excluding Penghu) was first populated by Austronesian people and was colonized by the Dutch, who had arrived in 1623. The Kingdom of Tungning, lasting from 1661 to 1683, was the first Han Chinese government to rule Taiwan. From 1683, the Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan as a prefecture and in 1875 divided the island into two prefectures. In 1885 the island was made into a separate Chinese province to speed up development in this region. In the aftermath of the First Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan and Penghu were ceded by the Qing Dynasty to Japan in 1895. Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to the Republic of China at end of World War II, putting Taiwan under a Chinese government again after 50 years of Japanese rule. The ROC would then claim sovereignty on the basis of the Qing dynasty’s administration, Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender, but this became contested by pro-independence groups in subsequent years due to different perceptions of the said documents’ legality. Upon losing the Chinese civil war in 1949, the ROC government retreated to Taipei, and kept control over a few islands along the coast of mainland China and in the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in mainland China on 1 October 1949, claiming to be the successor to the ROC.[4]
          Quemoy, Matsu and Wuchiu on the coast of Fukien, Taiping and Pratas in the South China Sea, are part of the ROC’s present territory, but were not ceded to Japan. Some arguments supporting the independence of Taiwan do not apply to these islands.

          Cession, retrocession, legal status, and self-determination of Taiwan

          According to the Treaty of Shimonoseki Taiwan was part of Japan at the establishment of the ROC in 1912. The PRC (founded 1 October 1949) argues that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was never valid, saying it was one of several unequal treaties forced upon the Qing.
          China, during the Qing Dynasty, ceded the island of Taiwan, including Penghu, to Japan “in perpetuity” at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War by signing the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In the Cairo Conference of 1943, the allied powers agreed to have Japan restore “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese”, specifically listing “Formosa” and Penghu, to the Republic of China after the defeat of Japan. According to both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China, this agreement was given legal force by the Instrument of Surrender of Japan in 1945. The PRC’s UN Ambassador, Wang Yingfan, has stated multiple times in the UN general committee: “Taiwan is an inseparable part of China’s territory since antiquity” and “both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration have reaffirmed in unequivocal terms China’s sovereignty over Taiwan as a matter of international law.” The PRC rejects arguments involving the lack of a specific treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) transferring Taiwan’s sovereignty to China by noting that neither PRC nor ROC was a signatory to any such treaty, making the treaties irrelevant with regard to Chinese claims. But the US and UK governments hold that the Cairo Declaration made in 1943 is just a war-time statement of intention and cannot itself transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan from Japan to China.
          The ROC argues that the Treaty of Taipei implicitly transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to it, however the US State Dept. disagreed with such an interpretation in its 1971 Starr Memorandum.[5]

          Legal status dispute under international law
          On the other hand, a number of supporters of Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was only formally incorporated as a Chinese territory under the Qing Dynasty in 1683, and as a province in 1885. Subsequently, because of the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895, Taiwan had been de jure part of Japan when the ROC was established in 1912 and thus was not part of the Chinese republic. Also, because the Cairo Declaration was an unsigned press communiqué, the independence advocates argue that the legal effectiveness of the Declaration is highly questionable. Furthermore, they point out that the Instrument of Surrender of Japan was no more than an armistice, a “modus vivendi” in nature, which served as a temporary or provisional agreement that would be replaced with a peace treaty. Therefore, only a military occupation of Taiwan began on 25 October 1945, and both the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei hold legal supremacy over the surrender instrument. These treaties did not transfer the title of Taiwan from Japan to China. According to this argument, the sovereignty of Taiwan was returned to the people of Taiwan when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco (also known as San Francisco Peace Treaty, SFPT) in 1951, based on the policy of self-determination which has been applied to “territories which detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War” as defined by article 76b and 77b of the United Nations Charter and also by the protocol of the Yalta Conference. The United Nations General Assembly has not been particularly receptive to this argument, and the ROC’s applications for admission to the United Nations have been rejected 15 times.[6]

        • On December 1, 2019 at 12:18 pm,
          cfs says:

          PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING THING IS THE UNITED NATIONS has NEVER proposed asking the citizens of Taiwan, ON A DEMOCRATIC BASIS, whether they should be independent or part of the PRC.

  14. On November 30, 2019 at 11:25 am,
    markedtofuture says:

    UPS workers ran massive drug shipment operation for a decade, police say
    Employees moved ‘thousands of pounds of cannabis and narcotics each week’


  15. On November 30, 2019 at 6:25 pm,
    markedtofuture says:

    Ex CBS Investigative Journalist Explains How Mainstream Media Brainwashes The Masses

    Ever since Operation Mockingbird, a CIA program to infiltrate mainstream media and spread disinformation and propaganda for the purposes of controlling the perception of the masses on several different topics, people have been waking up. That was decades ago, and today, it’s easy to see how mainstream media has been completely compromised by governments, intelligence agencies and corporations.


  16. On November 30, 2019 at 6:41 pm,
    markedtofuture says:

    Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada


  17. On December 1, 2019 at 9:49 am,
    Dick Tracy says:

    What turned me away from The Democratic party was when they suggested that President Trump had colluded with The Russians to fix the 2016 election, and then went about trying to prove it in the court of public opinion by using their control of the media. In the case of Red hysteria, it is a movement conceived in fear and perpetuated in fear. The effect of this is very oppressive. The fear of America being controlled by Russian radicals could soon be accompanied by a fear of being thought radical. As with all of these attempts to control people it makes one think that where will these folks go next to get elected. Will they start to attack other elements in our society to keep power, where will they turn to next, will it be against certain religions or certain minorities. Isn’t that what happened in Germany in the 1930’s?

    • On December 1, 2019 at 12:51 pm,
      cfs says:

      Anyone with half a brain should have realized the Russian Collusion hoax was false on its face.
      Almost all interactions between Russia and the U.S. in the last few decades had been pro -Democratic Party or pro-Hillary.
      It is just plain stupid after hearing of the Russian contributions to the Steele Dossier to believe in collusion with Trump.

    • On December 1, 2019 at 1:07 pm,
      cfs says:

      On the other hand I have deep concerns about Communist (as opposed to Russian) influence in America.
      Socialism is always attractive to people who are poor or want “freebies”.
      Socialism has a great tendency to mutate into communism and communism usually mutates into totalitarianism and loss of freedoms.

      I often wonder why people wanting Socialism never seem to ask themselves about the efficient of Governments.
      I have never knwn of any Government, democratic or totalitarian, ever to be efficient,
      A logical conclusion, therefore, has to be that most efficiency comes from least government, and thus government should be authorized by the people to do only those things which are absolutely necessary…..
      Defend the borders, protect the rights of the citizens and maintain the legal system of the country.

  18. On December 1, 2019 at 11:45 am,
    markedtofuture says:
  19. On December 1, 2019 at 12:32 pm,
    CFS says:

    Meanwhile in Hong Kong yesterday:


  20. On December 1, 2019 at 1:16 pm,
    markedtofuture says:

    OPUS 195 Bloated State Dept full of CIA – Steve Pieczenik


  21. On December 1, 2019 at 6:55 pm,
    markedtofuture says:

    Wait two years for disclosure of repo cash recipients and amounts, New York Fed tells GATA If you want to know which investment houses have been getting the infamous “repo” loans from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in recent weeks, as GATA has wanted to know, you’ll have to wait two years, according to a letter received from the bank today in response GATA’s request for the information.

    The delay, the New York Fed’s letter says, is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.