Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Has the cordial worn off, or is everyone else also now almost certain that it was disinformation peddled by Murdoch to give it some semblance of legitimacy?

What has happened to make it seem more or less legitimate?

Nothing to my knowledge.

Then why should we be “almost certain” of anything today, that we werent yesterday?

It does feel like “her emails” all over again.

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Has the cordial worn off, or is everyone else also now almost certain that it was disinformation peddled by Murdoch to give it some semblance of legitimacy?

What has happened to make it seem more or less legitimate?

Nothing to my knowledge.

Then why should we be “almost certain” of anything today, that we werent yesterday?

It does feel like “her emails” all over again.

Possibly, and I’ve said all along that the whole story of the dumped laptop sounds ridiculous…but.

Biden and his camp havent denied that they met, in fact they later made a follow up statement saying “if they met it was cursory”, Guiliani claims they have proof that H Bidens lawyer asked for the laptop back, signed receipts etc, the photos etc, there does seem to be other corroborative evidence. Nobody in the Biden camp has said the emails arent real.

Something else will drop. My worry with this is that it wont be proven or disproven, it will be smothered. These accusations are bad enough that someone should be trying to get to the bottom of if they are true or not. Either Joe Biden or Rudy Guiliani should face consequences.

This situation is already very different to Hillarys emails though. Hillarys emails was the threat that there was something in the missing emails. With regards Hunter, there is already enough undisputed facts present that are as dodgy as…Hunter a drug addict with zero qualifications earning $50K a month on a board of a Ukrainian Energy Co that had ALREADY had all of their UK assets seized by the British Govt PRIOR to Hunter joining because they were committing fraud. Daddy bragging about having the prosecutor investigating his sons company sacked…

last edited by Tiger5150

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Has the cordial worn off, or is everyone else also now almost certain that it was disinformation peddled by Murdoch to give it some semblance of legitimacy?

What has happened to make it seem more or less legitimate?

Nothing to my knowledge.

Then why should we be “almost certain” of anything today, that we werent yesterday?

It does feel like “her emails” all over again.

Possibly, and I’ve said all along that the whole story of the dumped laptop sounds ridiculous…but.

Biden and his camp havent denied that they met, in fact they later made a follow up statement saying “if they met it was cursory”, Guiliani claims they have proof that H Bidens lawyer asked for the laptop back, signed receipts etc, the photos etc, there does seem to be other corroborative evidence. Nobody in the Biden camp has said the emails arent real.

Something else will drop. My worry with this is that it wont be proven or disproven, it will be smothered. These accusations are bad enough that someone should be trying to get to the bottom of if they are true or not. Either Joe Biden or Rudy Guiliani should face consequences.

This situation is already very different to Hillarys emails though. Hillarys emails was the threat that there was something in the missing emails. With regards Hunter, there is already enough undisputed facts present that are as dodgy as…Hunter a drug addict with zero qualifications earning $50K a month on a board of a Ukrainian Energy Co that had ALREADY had all of their UK assets seized by the British Govt PRIOR to Hunter joining because they were committing fraud. Daddy bragging about having the prosecutor investigating his sons company sacked…

A certain former member of the NSW Govt ran over his Ipad with a tractor…anything can happen with politicians …try telling that to your Year 5 teacher …" Billy …where is your homework " " Sorry miss …it got run over by a tractor "

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Anything that comes through Giuliani needs to be taken with an ocean’s worth of salt.

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

@Cultured_Bogan said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

He has been clearly the best president in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs, something that I heard that notoriously right wing (sarcasm) head of Foreign Affairs at the ABC, Stan Grant endorse yesterday. When he came to power, ISIS had grown under Obamas term to a large power with an actual country, Syria civil war, Russia had annexed Crimea under Obama’s term and were fighting with Ukraine, OBama war in Yemen etc etc etc. Trump killed Baghdadi, ended the Syrian War (with Allies), removed troops from Iraq & Afghanistan, ended the Iran Nuclear Deal which was funnelling billions from the US into the biggest state sponsor of Middle Eastern terror and war. Trump negotiated the deal between Israel & UAE which is a massive moment in middle east peace. Saudis start letting Israelis fly over their airspace. Trump is the first President since Carter not to start a war. Less Americans died overseas in conflict since Carter.
Second reason I would vote for Trump is that I genuinely see the Democrats as a significant risk to the US institutions and this has an obvious impact down the line on Australia. Biden not answering the question on Court stacking is not just a cute “campaign trick”, it means that he is either going to stack the court which would immediately end the principles that the US Constitution is set up on, or it means that he does not want to alienate the extreme left of his constituency that wants to tear down these institutions. Both options are bad for the US and us.
I genuinely see this moment of time in history as an “End of Empire” moment which in my opinion is not a good thing. The US has many flaws but nature abhors a vacuum and I dont think we would like what fills that void.

Certainly don’t see it as being anywhere near as rosy as you do, particularly as Obama took deployed troop numbers down by some 90% and cannot recall him starting a war, plus the betrayal of the Kurds and Russian influences in Syria are of great concern. The recent increasingly expanded use of gamer like operations of drones from sheds in Nevada must also be taken into account, particularly the role they have in curtailing further deployment of feet on the ground.

Ummm yeah nah. Obama took troops down by 90%? When he came to power there were 25k troops in Afghanistan. Within 2 years this had exploded to 100K troops in Afghanistan alone. 4 times the troop numbers!!! 4 x as many troops in Afghanistan as that warmonger Bush. He promised to reduce the numbers to zero by 2014 but this never happened. At the end of his second term he decreased the numbers significantly to around 50% of when he came in but significantly increased the numbers of Troops in Iraq and Syria.

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

https://www.britannica.com/event/Afghanistan-War/The-Obama-surge

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/09/obama-troops-iraq-coalition-isis

Cannot recall him starting a war? You need to research Yemen & Libya (Obamas worst mistake, his own words…while you are at it research Benghazi).

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/19/obama-officials-incomplete-reckoning-failure-yemen

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/yemen-saudi-arabia-obama-riyadh/501365/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

And I would not raise Drones as a feature of Obamas term with 10 times as many strikes as Bush, up to 807 civilians killed. It has continued on under Trump and reporting has ceased so there is no way of knowing of more or less than Obama but its not a strong point of Obamas term. Obama himself even in his own words admits that he tried to get it under control at the end of his term when he realised that they were happening uncontrolled. In fact Obama used drone strikes to murder a US citizen without trial or any judicial process. Two weeks later he murdered that guys 16yo son, again with a drone, also a US citizen again without trial or judicial process. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump did that…seriously!!!
16yo US citizen murdered by Obama without trial or judicial process
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

There is some merit with the middle east agreements and the fly zone, though they are certainly not peace deals. The almost complete siding with Israel, with the Embassy move in total disregard for the Palestinians as their land was being continually encroached, was for me, a terrible decision.

I am not pro Trump but occasionally he does something brilliant. This is bordering on genius. For mine, credit where credits due to him and apparently (according to Sheik Mo and Bebe) Jarrod Kutchner (who I had written off as nepotism). EVERY President has had a crack at Middle Eastern peace but every one of them have made the same mistake as you did, as I would and as the whole of the western media has. That mistake is thinking the key to Middle Eastern Peace is resolving Israel v Palestine. Whilst Palestine is in the thrall of Hamas & Hezbollah, this issue is intractable. The genius of Trump is realising (in a typical business sense) that whilst the arab world has an ideological objection to Israel, the Arab world (other than Palestine) are not physically or existentially threatened by Israel. The majority of Middle Eastern Countries (predominantly Sunni) are directly threatened by Iran and their proxies. Iran is the big threat in the middle east and not Israel to most ME nations. Trump has been able to leverage this to land this deal and the movement from Saudi Arabia indicates a greater acceptance of the Sunni Arab world of Israel’s existence. If the larger issues in the ME can be resolved, in the end Israel & Palestine will solve itself but it isnt the biggest problem in the middle east. Palestine has effectively been left out in the cold.

The court is already 5 to 3 balanced in conservative favour, so I put it that separate to the hypocrisy elements, appointing someone that has expressed very clear views on issues, some that have already been decided by SCOTUS, then taking the powerful body to a two thirds majority viewpoint on societal issues is dangerous, particularly so when out of step with the community as a whole.

Was it dangerous when SCOTUS was predominantly liberal? Please point me to an article where ACB expresses her clear views on issues. Yes she is catholic and clearly pro life but every interview I have seen with her she has expressed a clear view that she is an originalist, a literalist and will uphold precedence. She has clearly expressed in a number of interviews that she puts her personal views behind the need to uphold the law and precedence. Your POV on SCOTUS IMO points out an fundamental philisophical difference between the left and right on SCOTUS. The left see SCOTUS as a super legislature to impose law (ACB has clearly spoken out against this in her hearing) whereas the conservatives see it as the constitutional check and balance against the other two arms of Government (Legislature & Executive). This is of course its constitutional role.

As for the end of empire, they have been interfering way too much internationally since Vietnam. Like there fellow oppressed before them, China were always going to rise from their occupied ashes at some point, as is their neighbour in India. I certainly don’t agree with things like the South China Sea bases, but things like their political influence through funding of poor nations is to expected after the well off western nations left a void, some of it post colonial (as of course the creation of Israel was).

Occupied Ashes? The Maoist revolution forced out which colonial empire? Let me get this straight, the same guy who hours ago was lionising anti Trumpers as having “core values” of honesty, racially equality, RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS and treatment of refugees, is now advocating that CHINA would be a good fit to fill the void of the US as a world superpower? Because China has a well know worldwide reputation for honesty, openness, transparency. Their views on free speech are lauded worldwide…uh huh. Racial equality and religious freedoms…mmmhmm. I recently saw footage of the CCP “encouraging” Uighurs onto trains, no doubt off somewhere to extol the virtues of the CCP’s human rights to the wider world.

I see your point now more clearly, The US empire must be torn down because of Trump and its systemic dishonesty, racism, religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech and who better to replace Trumpian US than China. We could have meetings to discuss this grand occassion in Tibet, Taiwan & Hong Kong, served by Uighurs no doubt.

Cultivating the beginnings of a cold war style atmosphere in the shadow of a pandemic with terms such as “China plague” and the like is good for no one, including and especially us if our leaders stand alongside Trump.

Uh huh…Trump is cultivating a “Cold War” atmosphere by using “bad words” such as China Virus. Meanwhile China builds islands within other nations territorial waters, brutal crushes democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan, packs millions of Uighurs into trains to send to labour camps, threatens to stop imports of coal from Australia…but Trump said China Virus.

Basically didn’t bother reading past that after you argued that he didn’t reduce deployed numbers by 90% odd and carried on as if I had stated increased drone use in place of troops on the ground was an Obama strong point. I don’t call the US entering existing conflicts as starting a war, as they have long been and little doubt on this very day are again interfering militarily in multiple countries.

I will leave at, isn’t it great that some leaders can realise and admit mistakes.

Thats cool FG. No one is forcing you to read or respond. What I was doing was engaging in a civil discussion with you about the issues that you raised in response to my post. I discussed the issues politely and civilly, backing everything that I said up with references to show good faith. For example, clearly showed your statement that Obama reduced troop numbers by 90% is objectively false and demonstrated the fact. Obama reduced troops in Afghanistan by a little over 50%, after increasing them by 400%. Most of the returned troops were then sent to Iraq & Syria. Simple fact, backed up by numbers and references.

Obama started wars in Yemen and Libya (by his own words). Take your point that the US frequently interfere in other nations, but remember this exchange was in response to my assertion that Trump hadnt started any wars. Can you nominate a war that Trump has started in his term?

You are more than entitled to “leave it that” but I’d remind you that my post that you choose not to read is in response to your post rebuking my assertions about Trumps record on Foreign Affairs in which you posted demonstrably false information. If you are not prepared to discuss these issues in good faith with facts that are verifyable, I’d prefer that you dont bother responding to my posts.

Good faith, hahahahaha and no, not cool is a consecutive post ending with another paragraph of falsity. First with an incorrect quote that I had begun my ultimate sentence with, one that to me perfectly illustrated you continuing in not paying due attention. Then asserting that my opinions were a rebuke and that I gave false information. I rebuked that other guy on the Biden words and will now rebuke some of your statements instead of just thoughts

Your reasonable middle paragraph is sandwiched between mostly rubbish and though I have never mentioned Trump being involved in entering a new war, I expect that there is a connection to events in Venezuela at least.

I have now gone back and read the rest of your previous post and found that you have made up more of your own little version of my thinking, or what you envisage I stated, rather than that which I actually did. To start, Obama did reduce deployment by some 90% before the incumbents took office. I did not compare those numbers and use of drones during said reduction to Trump’s or any other administration, nor particular moment in time, you did. By all means question me if you don’t understand my meaning, but expansion of another’s thoughts that do not exist is another matter, with some more instances from that same post below.

“Middle Eastern peace but every one of them have made the same mistake as you did” for example. Maybe my “some merit” on that matter wasn’t adequate enough recognition for your liking. Moving the embassy two years ago was put as a separate issue, that again, you conflated, not I.

“Occupied Ashes? The Maoist revolution forced out which colonial empire?” Is another. I didn’t mention colonial occupation of China at all, let alone opium or Hong Kong that may have provided an opportunity to expand upon, as of course the country began that rise during and after Japan’s occupation.

Your mind also went on a further adventure with this; “I see your point now more clearly, The US empire must be torn down because of Trump and its systemic dishonesty, racism, religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech and who better to replace Trumpian US than China. We could have meetings to discuss this grand occassion in Tibet, Taiwan & Hong Kong, served by Uighurs no doubt.”

And you continued, so the only clear part of your “I see your point more clearly” is just another figment of your imagination.

ah…good old ad hominem. Not one single addressing any of the points I made with references. You were the one that said Obama never started a war, I post two references clearly showing wars he started, including an admission from his own mouth, but no addressing facts…just me. For you everything is cleary combatitive, to win and when struck with cognitive dissonance you go ad hominem. Has happened everytime, it wont again. You are done. We are done.

I would say every US administration since at least WW2 has started a conflict somewhere, whether it be covert, by proxy or otherwise.

Was going to reply to this the other day, but had a bit on dealing with another’s suicidal thoughts. One great concern on this front is the veto/s power that Trump has used to continue to fund the destruction of Yemen and creating a humanitarian crisis in concert with the Saudis, going against the wishes of both the senate and congressional houses.

This is no small matter and when seen in conjunction with other Saudi dealings and the Khashoggi dismemberment response, to me it forms a worrying pattern.

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Cultured_Bogan said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

He has been clearly the best president in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs, something that I heard that notoriously right wing (sarcasm) head of Foreign Affairs at the ABC, Stan Grant endorse yesterday. When he came to power, ISIS had grown under Obamas term to a large power with an actual country, Syria civil war, Russia had annexed Crimea under Obama’s term and were fighting with Ukraine, OBama war in Yemen etc etc etc. Trump killed Baghdadi, ended the Syrian War (with Allies), removed troops from Iraq & Afghanistan, ended the Iran Nuclear Deal which was funnelling billions from the US into the biggest state sponsor of Middle Eastern terror and war. Trump negotiated the deal between Israel & UAE which is a massive moment in middle east peace. Saudis start letting Israelis fly over their airspace. Trump is the first President since Carter not to start a war. Less Americans died overseas in conflict since Carter.
Second reason I would vote for Trump is that I genuinely see the Democrats as a significant risk to the US institutions and this has an obvious impact down the line on Australia. Biden not answering the question on Court stacking is not just a cute “campaign trick”, it means that he is either going to stack the court which would immediately end the principles that the US Constitution is set up on, or it means that he does not want to alienate the extreme left of his constituency that wants to tear down these institutions. Both options are bad for the US and us.
I genuinely see this moment of time in history as an “End of Empire” moment which in my opinion is not a good thing. The US has many flaws but nature abhors a vacuum and I dont think we would like what fills that void.

Certainly don’t see it as being anywhere near as rosy as you do, particularly as Obama took deployed troop numbers down by some 90% and cannot recall him starting a war, plus the betrayal of the Kurds and Russian influences in Syria are of great concern. The recent increasingly expanded use of gamer like operations of drones from sheds in Nevada must also be taken into account, particularly the role they have in curtailing further deployment of feet on the ground.

Ummm yeah nah. Obama took troops down by 90%? When he came to power there were 25k troops in Afghanistan. Within 2 years this had exploded to 100K troops in Afghanistan alone. 4 times the troop numbers!!! 4 x as many troops in Afghanistan as that warmonger Bush. He promised to reduce the numbers to zero by 2014 but this never happened. At the end of his second term he decreased the numbers significantly to around 50% of when he came in but significantly increased the numbers of Troops in Iraq and Syria.

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

https://www.britannica.com/event/Afghanistan-War/The-Obama-surge

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/09/obama-troops-iraq-coalition-isis

Cannot recall him starting a war? You need to research Yemen & Libya (Obamas worst mistake, his own words…while you are at it research Benghazi).

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/19/obama-officials-incomplete-reckoning-failure-yemen

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/yemen-saudi-arabia-obama-riyadh/501365/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

And I would not raise Drones as a feature of Obamas term with 10 times as many strikes as Bush, up to 807 civilians killed. It has continued on under Trump and reporting has ceased so there is no way of knowing of more or less than Obama but its not a strong point of Obamas term. Obama himself even in his own words admits that he tried to get it under control at the end of his term when he realised that they were happening uncontrolled. In fact Obama used drone strikes to murder a US citizen without trial or any judicial process. Two weeks later he murdered that guys 16yo son, again with a drone, also a US citizen again without trial or judicial process. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump did that…seriously!!!
16yo US citizen murdered by Obama without trial or judicial process
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

There is some merit with the middle east agreements and the fly zone, though they are certainly not peace deals. The almost complete siding with Israel, with the Embassy move in total disregard for the Palestinians as their land was being continually encroached, was for me, a terrible decision.

I am not pro Trump but occasionally he does something brilliant. This is bordering on genius. For mine, credit where credits due to him and apparently (according to Sheik Mo and Bebe) Jarrod Kutchner (who I had written off as nepotism). EVERY President has had a crack at Middle Eastern peace but every one of them have made the same mistake as you did, as I would and as the whole of the western media has. That mistake is thinking the key to Middle Eastern Peace is resolving Israel v Palestine. Whilst Palestine is in the thrall of Hamas & Hezbollah, this issue is intractable. The genius of Trump is realising (in a typical business sense) that whilst the arab world has an ideological objection to Israel, the Arab world (other than Palestine) are not physically or existentially threatened by Israel. The majority of Middle Eastern Countries (predominantly Sunni) are directly threatened by Iran and their proxies. Iran is the big threat in the middle east and not Israel to most ME nations. Trump has been able to leverage this to land this deal and the movement from Saudi Arabia indicates a greater acceptance of the Sunni Arab world of Israel’s existence. If the larger issues in the ME can be resolved, in the end Israel & Palestine will solve itself but it isnt the biggest problem in the middle east. Palestine has effectively been left out in the cold.

The court is already 5 to 3 balanced in conservative favour, so I put it that separate to the hypocrisy elements, appointing someone that has expressed very clear views on issues, some that have already been decided by SCOTUS, then taking the powerful body to a two thirds majority viewpoint on societal issues is dangerous, particularly so when out of step with the community as a whole.

Was it dangerous when SCOTUS was predominantly liberal? Please point me to an article where ACB expresses her clear views on issues. Yes she is catholic and clearly pro life but every interview I have seen with her she has expressed a clear view that she is an originalist, a literalist and will uphold precedence. She has clearly expressed in a number of interviews that she puts her personal views behind the need to uphold the law and precedence. Your POV on SCOTUS IMO points out an fundamental philisophical difference between the left and right on SCOTUS. The left see SCOTUS as a super legislature to impose law (ACB has clearly spoken out against this in her hearing) whereas the conservatives see it as the constitutional check and balance against the other two arms of Government (Legislature & Executive). This is of course its constitutional role.

As for the end of empire, they have been interfering way too much internationally since Vietnam. Like there fellow oppressed before them, China were always going to rise from their occupied ashes at some point, as is their neighbour in India. I certainly don’t agree with things like the South China Sea bases, but things like their political influence through funding of poor nations is to expected after the well off western nations left a void, some of it post colonial (as of course the creation of Israel was).

Occupied Ashes? The Maoist revolution forced out which colonial empire? Let me get this straight, the same guy who hours ago was lionising anti Trumpers as having “core values” of honesty, racially equality, RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS and treatment of refugees, is now advocating that CHINA would be a good fit to fill the void of the US as a world superpower? Because China has a well know worldwide reputation for honesty, openness, transparency. Their views on free speech are lauded worldwide…uh huh. Racial equality and religious freedoms…mmmhmm. I recently saw footage of the CCP “encouraging” Uighurs onto trains, no doubt off somewhere to extol the virtues of the CCP’s human rights to the wider world.

I see your point now more clearly, The US empire must be torn down because of Trump and its systemic dishonesty, racism, religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech and who better to replace Trumpian US than China. We could have meetings to discuss this grand occassion in Tibet, Taiwan & Hong Kong, served by Uighurs no doubt.

Cultivating the beginnings of a cold war style atmosphere in the shadow of a pandemic with terms such as “China plague” and the like is good for no one, including and especially us if our leaders stand alongside Trump.

Uh huh…Trump is cultivating a “Cold War” atmosphere by using “bad words” such as China Virus. Meanwhile China builds islands within other nations territorial waters, brutal crushes democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan, packs millions of Uighurs into trains to send to labour camps, threatens to stop imports of coal from Australia…but Trump said China Virus.

Basically didn’t bother reading past that after you argued that he didn’t reduce deployed numbers by 90% odd and carried on as if I had stated increased drone use in place of troops on the ground was an Obama strong point. I don’t call the US entering existing conflicts as starting a war, as they have long been and little doubt on this very day are again interfering militarily in multiple countries.

I will leave at, isn’t it great that some leaders can realise and admit mistakes.

Thats cool FG. No one is forcing you to read or respond. What I was doing was engaging in a civil discussion with you about the issues that you raised in response to my post. I discussed the issues politely and civilly, backing everything that I said up with references to show good faith. For example, clearly showed your statement that Obama reduced troop numbers by 90% is objectively false and demonstrated the fact. Obama reduced troops in Afghanistan by a little over 50%, after increasing them by 400%. Most of the returned troops were then sent to Iraq & Syria. Simple fact, backed up by numbers and references.

Obama started wars in Yemen and Libya (by his own words). Take your point that the US frequently interfere in other nations, but remember this exchange was in response to my assertion that Trump hadnt started any wars. Can you nominate a war that Trump has started in his term?

You are more than entitled to “leave it that” but I’d remind you that my post that you choose not to read is in response to your post rebuking my assertions about Trumps record on Foreign Affairs in which you posted demonstrably false information. If you are not prepared to discuss these issues in good faith with facts that are verifyable, I’d prefer that you dont bother responding to my posts.

Good faith, hahahahaha and no, not cool is a consecutive post ending with another paragraph of falsity. First with an incorrect quote that I had begun my ultimate sentence with, one that to me perfectly illustrated you continuing in not paying due attention. Then asserting that my opinions were a rebuke and that I gave false information. I rebuked that other guy on the Biden words and will now rebuke some of your statements instead of just thoughts

Your reasonable middle paragraph is sandwiched between mostly rubbish and though I have never mentioned Trump being involved in entering a new war, I expect that there is a connection to events in Venezuela at least.

I have now gone back and read the rest of your previous post and found that you have made up more of your own little version of my thinking, or what you envisage I stated, rather than that which I actually did. To start, Obama did reduce deployment by some 90% before the incumbents took office. I did not compare those numbers and use of drones during said reduction to Trump’s or any other administration, nor particular moment in time, you did. By all means question me if you don’t understand my meaning, but expansion of another’s thoughts that do not exist is another matter, with some more instances from that same post below.

“Middle Eastern peace but every one of them have made the same mistake as you did” for example. Maybe my “some merit” on that matter wasn’t adequate enough recognition for your liking. Moving the embassy two years ago was put as a separate issue, that again, you conflated, not I.

“Occupied Ashes? The Maoist revolution forced out which colonial empire?” Is another. I didn’t mention colonial occupation of China at all, let alone opium or Hong Kong that may have provided an opportunity to expand upon, as of course the country began that rise during and after Japan’s occupation.

Your mind also went on a further adventure with this; “I see your point now more clearly, The US empire must be torn down because of Trump and its systemic dishonesty, racism, religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech and who better to replace Trumpian US than China. We could have meetings to discuss this grand occassion in Tibet, Taiwan & Hong Kong, served by Uighurs no doubt.”

And you continued, so the only clear part of your “I see your point more clearly” is just another figment of your imagination.

ah…good old ad hominem. Not one single addressing any of the points I made with references. You were the one that said Obama never started a war, I post two references clearly showing wars he started, including an admission from his own mouth, but no addressing facts…just me. For you everything is cleary combatitive, to win and when struck with cognitive dissonance you go ad hominem. Has happened everytime, it wont again. You are done. We are done.

I would say every US administration since at least WW2 has started a conflict somewhere, whether it be covert, by proxy or otherwise.

Was going to reply to this the other day, but had a bit on dealing with another’s suicidal thoughts. One great concern on this front is the veto/s power that Trump has used to continue to fund the destruction of Yemen and creating a humanitarian crisis in concert with the Saudis, going against the wishes of both the senate and congressional houses.

This is no small matter and when seen in conjunction with other Saudi dealings and the Khashoggi dismemberment response, to me it forms a worrying pattern.

Yemen deserves far more attention than it gets. Arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis on earth, and yet the media largely ignores it.

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

US intelligence confirmed it. Idk what’s left to argue.

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

US intelligence confirmed it. Idk what’s left to argue.

All of the ten Russia stories I linked to were debunked.

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

US intelligence confirmed it. Idk what’s left to argue.

All of the ten Russia stories I linked to were debunked.

By US intelligence?

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

US intelligence confirmed it. Idk what’s left to argue.

All of the ten Russia stories I linked to were debunked.

By US intelligence?

Maybe have a read of it (I mean that respectfully, I know people who post links and demand people read them are annoying)

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@GNR4LIFE said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

PS Glenn Greenwald, the author of the article I linked to above, is not a Trumpist or a Fox news type. He is a rigorous, award-winning investigative journalist, and the journalist who published the Edward Snowden leaks.

US intelligence confirmed it. Idk what’s left to argue.

All of the ten Russia stories I linked to were debunked.

By US intelligence?

Maybe have a read of it (I mean that respectfully, I know people who post links and demand people read them are annoying)

Which, and I did quickly peruse, to me illustrate exactly why this latest one is not being given air. Two wrongs don’t make a right and I would contend that the censorship from the justice department is already meddling in the public interest.

@TillLindemann said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

This article from Factcheck.org might explain why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to carry commentary about Giulani’s “amazing” email discovery. (Once bitten twice shy).

It appears that the FBI are now investigating whether the discovery is another attempt by Russia to interfere with a US election for the purpose of promoting its preferred candidate.

I’m not familiar with Factcheck.Org and it always pays to be wary of US media organisations who can be extremely biased. The same organisation also calls out Kamala Harris for a misleading comment, but on a fairly innocuous subject.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You can’t support the suppression of a story for being potentially baseless, while at the same time spouting baseless Russia stories. If you have any evidence at all that this Biden story is Russian meddling, please provide it.

So many later debunked Russia stories that had little actual evidence supporting them were given front page treatment by all media outlets and widely shared on twitter and facebook. And they are still continuing. This is why the suppression of the Biden story is so hypocritical.

Here’s ten of the worst stories about Russia. Please read it then compare to the treatment of this story.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

I’ve posted a media article with the comment that I am unsure as to whether or not the publication is balanced or biased.

I’ve made no comments about Russia. I’ve made no comment about the story. I’m in no position to prove or disprove anything and I have no intention of attempting to do so.

The article I posted has made some comments about Giulani’s relationship with a certain individual in the Ukraine and it claims that the FBI are investigating his latest discovery. That’s the article. Not me.

Twitter and Facebook were severely criticised after 2016 for allowing themselves to become conduits for Russian disinformation during the election campaign. So I think their reluctance to allow themselves to be used as platforms for this story, given its dubious provenance, is quite understandable. Whether it’s the right thing for them to do is another issue. Perhaps they are being overly-cautious but I don’t think it’s likely to be part of some sort of 'deep state" conspiracy.

Interference by Russia in the 2016 campaign has, I believe, been proven beyond doubt

To be honest I wasn’t even aware of all of those debunked stories about Russia, but it just goes to show how much misinformation is peddled around on the internet. Many people have called on the major platforms to clean up their act and to discourage or prevent the proliferation of misinformation. I guess that means that they would have to make a decision as to whether or not to carry certain articles or commentaries.

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme