US Politics Thread

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
lol! You've defended them before. I recall discussion with you regarding them and the HRC email issue. The fact that they're doing it again speaks volumes to me :D
This from the fella who posts random twitter items as "news." Come on, the NYTimes is a legitimate paper, and better than most out there. I did not count the words this weekend on Biden v. Trump, but they had quite a lot to say about Trump and NATO, for example.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
This from the fella who posts random twitter items as "news." Come on, the NYTimes is a legitimate paper, and better than most out there. I did not count the words this weekend on Biden v. Trump, but they had quite a lot to say about Trump and NATO, for example.
posts random twitter items as 'news'? Hmmm... nothing wrong with posting tweets. I'm not sure that's categorised as news. If that's what you think then the joke is on you!

Did I say the NYT isn't a legitimate newspaper? The Sun is a legitimate newspaper, it's still trash. The NYT might be better than The Sun, but not by as much as one would hope for a rag that is proclaimed as the paper of record. The fact that you're not even capable of admitting the flaw in their strategy is not surprising to me. It's sad though. It's exactly why so few people have any faith in the mainstream media. I believe the 4th estate performs a vital function in a vibrant democracy. It's failing!

I hated the fact that I had to concede this point to @britbox but it's a fact. I still can't get it out of my head how disgusting and mendacious both the NYT and WP were during and after the Heard/Depp trial. I simply couldn't deny the truth any longer. Not when I saw it with my own lying eyes
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
posts random twitter items as 'news'? Hmmm... nothing wrong with posting tweets. I'm not sure that's categorised as news. If that's what you think then the joke is on you!

Did I say the NYT isn't a legitimate newspaper? The Sun is a legitimate newspaper, it's still trash. The NYT might be better than The Sun, but not by as much as one would hope for a rag that is proclaimed as the paper of record. The fact that you're not even capable of admitting the flaw in their strategy is not surprising to me. It's sad though. It's exactly why so few people have any faith in the mainstream media. I believe the 4th estate performs a vital function in a vibrant democracy. It's failing!

I hated the fact that I had to concede this point to @britbox but it's a fact. I still can't get it out of my head how disgusting and mendacious both the NYT and WP were during and after the Heard/Depp trial. I simply couldn't deny the truth any longer. Not when I saw it with my own lying eyes
I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy." If you mean a strategy to get Biden re-elected, I thought that's what they're supposed to avoid. If you mean "editorial policy," as I said above, I DO think there's all too much normalizing of Trump's behavior. Chris Hayes of MSNBC says the media should cover Trump more, as in they've tipped over the other side. And I agree, if what you're suggesting is that the inclination to report something bad on Trump means you have to give equal time to something bad on Biden. False equivalencies.

I am curious as to what news outlets you don't find to be mere rags.
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
Well, it is only going to get worse as we head towards November. The report on Pres. Biden will cause some collateral damage, but it is manageable by the Pres.'s team. After all, they have the former Pres. point that he did in self know favors when he said that stupid, asinine thing about NATO and article 5. I have to believe that even his most ardent supporters thought that was outrageous and beyond the point he was trying to make, which is a legitimate point concerning large nations within the group that have not yet paid their full 2% as they have promised for years, including with respect to past administrations in the USA. Indicating that he would encourage this megalomaniac in Putin to ostensibly get a green light to invade a NATO member is so stupid that I really can't put it in words enough. He showed his true colors by invading Crimea back when Obama was in the White House and now during Biden's tenure he flat-out invades another country, Ukraine. He is old KGB and he does not suffer fools likely. He is not a pacifist. If you let him, he will gladly cross a border into Finland or at least do things to make them think they are coming in so as to start something. He will take whatever advantage he can and weakness in the face of a guy like him is the wrong way to go. Trump may have lost the election by what he said there if it is played correctly. But, he will talk around it and talk about how he is so frustrated with NATO and people not pulling their weight and how we always seem to pull more that we should have to in his mind. That is a legitimate question, but the things he says unnerves our allies in the countries that rely on us, more than anyone else, for protection from aggressors like Russia in the NATO area.
I have to agree that a lot of people should be discomfited by Trump's remarks. I know his base seems to love to buy into the "simplicity" (or "stupidity") of how he likes to break down foreign and domestic policy. It's worrying how much Republican leaders do. Again, I wonder what it is that captivates Trump so much about Putin...or holds him captive.

It is true, in some sense, that not all NATO countries pull their weight, though it's more complicated than Trump explains it, by a lot. It is also true, as I heard a recent European analyst put it, that it would take 10 years for Europe to be up to snuff to defend itself without US help. It's worth discussing the state of the NATO alliance, but is it worth disrupting the entire alliance? I do hope that a lot of Americans find that disconcerting. They should.
As for this national black anthem thing, it appears that this is much ado about nothing. As long as it is not substituted for the actual national anthem, singing it here and there should not be a big deal (although, in perfect candor, I did not hear anyone sing it as I was not tuned in and I do not know the words to it). The Star-Spangled Banner, though, is a great tune and one we should sing with pride in light of the time and the place it was written to commemorate. That war led to liberty for many and their descendants.
Totally agreed it's much ado about nothing. Plus, no one is even talking about replacing our national anthem...it's a Fox News generated panic, aided by opportunistic racists like Matt Goetz.
At any rate, we will see what happens going forward. We can sit back and watch how Biden it was do all sorts of political contortions to satisfy the far left of his party with respect to what is going on in the Gaza Strip. Talk about catering to terrorists and aggressors! It is amazing to me that after years of relatives or entity, comparatively speaking, Hamas does what it does in October of last year and the leftists and radicals of the world have such an in with the media that there are actually more marches in favor of creating a Palestinian statement along the lines of what this terrorist organization wants that in support of the country that was attacked by them out of nowhere. This did not have to happen in the rule really should be that if you do something like what these terrorists did, the punishment to your area and your people who have either put you empower or acquiesced to you being an power should be far worse than what you inflicted without cause initially. It should not be surprising at all that civilian lives are being lost notwithstanding efforts to minimize that because, as we all know, these very radical criminals don't give one damned care for "their people" and that is why they build and have built tunnels under hospitals and mollusks an apartment complex where people live and work and otherwise infiltrate those very areas to hide their munitions and to hide their warriors, as they call them. Where is the outrage by the Muslim world at what that particular group has done to its own people? It won't be forthcoming so I am not even going to wait.
I'm staying far clear of this particular third rail, because I find it rather unsolvable. Politically, I don't know what you do about it. What I don't get is the far-left going hard-in for the Palestinians, without recognizing the part that Hamas played/plays in it. I also don't understand equating being against the Israeli hard line and blanket attacks as being "anti-Semitic." The whole thing is much more complicated than that. Conversation for another day, but it does shake out across generational lines, here in the US.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy." If you mean a strategy to get Biden re-elected, I thought that's what they're supposed to avoid. If you mean "editorial policy," as I said above, I DO think there's all too much normalizing of Trump's behavior. Chris Hayes of MSNBC says the media should cover Trump more, as in they've tipped over the other side. And I agree, if what you're suggesting is that the inclination to report something bad on Trump means you have to give equal time to something bad on Biden. False equivalencies.

I am curious as to what news outlets you don't find to be mere rags.
yes editorial policy. They are no longer interested in reporting facts and truth. Rather the appearance of balance. This would be bad in any scenario, but given the nature of the two sides it's even worse.

On the one hand you can refuse to hammer the point that one candidate is a rapist, a fraudster, a bankrupt and a stealer of classified information even if it won't move the needle for those who support him. On the other hand you can keep saying that a candidate is old and senile (despite the fact the other candidate is showing similar evidence of cognitive decline without also having a history of basic competence or experience), and keep reinforcing that message. Despite the fact that said candidate has a record of achievement that's quite beyond initial expectations. It's clear that their only interest is to focus on what has an impact. That's NOT what a paper of record is supposed to do. They are supposed to report the truth, the facts as is actually happening.

Consider 2015/16... if a Martian landed on earth and read thru the NYT papers of that period, they would think the HRC emails were the most important thing. Not the disdain of another candidate for the military, the incendiary immigration policies... I could go on. You get the point. NYT is not a good paper, it is failing in the function it is so lauded for. Don't get me wrong, when the NYT does one of those long reports, like the one on the Alabama senatorial candidate (chasing young girls) I forget his name, or Trump's taxes... I'll be the first to say that they are almost without comparison... anywhere. But day to day stuff? They try stick their finger in events of the time rather than report what's happening. That's just a fact
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,574
Reactions
1,257
Points
113
* true about the generational lines, Moxie, and I see that plain as day.

That being said, I must first apologize to you and anyone who has read my post above for all of the misspellings contained in it. I dictated that is I was driving and I could not check it and did not have the reading glasses when I was stopped at traffic lights. Obviously, I should not be texting it on while I am in the car, and I am getting better at that. At any rate, to me there is a jarring lack of appreciation by our younger generations, particularly those in their 20s and younger, for history. Setting aside most of them don't care about history and find it "boring" or otherwise "useless for purposes of the job", it is precisely the reason why we have going on what we see in various parts of the world. Current events must be looked at through the prism of history and the fact that we in the USA are such young country, comparatively speaking, means we have a lot of catching up to do. At least, that is my opinion. That being said, it could be that our relative innocence, politically speaking, and viewing things in the world rather staunchly in terms of right and wrong (much easier during the Cold War paragraph where the old line Communist regimes were actively and loudly exporting Communist revolution around the world) made it easier for the United States of America to draw the lines in the sand and back that up with power to change large sections of the world for the better. For a country that really had no equal for many decades in the 20th century, the formation of the NATO alliance, the way Japan was treated after it was brought to peace by force and the Marshall Plan following the Second World War were things that most great powers were not celebrated for doing in the past, certainly not in the previous millennium. It was needed then and it worked.

That being said, the scars left over from the Sykes-Piot Agreement a little over a century ago is one of the last great political moves of the former world order is what really drives what is going on now between the Palestinian people, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. I had to explain to my younger kids why people in the West Bank and other areas were hurling insults at Great Britain and France as well as Israel and its great ally, USA. Indeed, the influence of the German Empire and even Italy in parts of Africa is not known to many people. Then we have Russian and all of its influence going back a long time, particularly with respect to the former Ottoman Empire which we now know as Turkey. The fall of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War was such an important time in modern history, and it was not handled well as we can see. I honestly do not know how it will ever be handled properly unless all of the nations that are currently involved were to go to a negotiating table for probably a year and rework their national frontier lines along the various ethnic and religious pockets in those areas to allow certain people that share certain ideals to live together and be separated from the others because of the unique mixture of ethnicity and religious zeal in that part of the world. Clearly there are parts of Iraq that should be part of its next-door neighbor against whom it has fought with over the years. Anyway, this is getting too long and I could go on and on. I do not know what the solution is, but it has to start with the changing of hearts across many different nations and groups of people. It will be a slow process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
yes editorial policy. They are no longer interested in reporting facts and truth. Rather the appearance of balance. This would be bad in any scenario, but given the nature of the two sides it's even worse.

On the one hand you can refuse to hammer the point that one candidate is a rapist, a fraudster, a bankrupt and a stealer of classified information even if it won't move the needle for those who support him. On the other hand you can keep saying that a candidate is old and senile (despite the fact the other candidate is showing similar evidence of cognitive decline without also having a history of basic competence or experience), and keep reinforcing that message. Despite the fact that said candidate has a record of achievement that's quite beyond initial expectations. It's clear that their only interest is to focus on what has an impact. That's NOT what a paper of record is supposed to do. They are supposed to report the truth, the facts as is actually happening.

Consider 2015/16... if a Martian landed on earth and read thru the NYT papers of that period, they would think the HRC emails were the most important thing. Not the disdain of another candidate for the military, the incendiary immigration policies... I could go on. You get the point. NYT is not a good paper, it is failing in the function it is so lauded for. Don't get me wrong, when the NYT does one of those long reports, like the one on the Alabama senatorial candidate (chasing young girls) I forget his name, or Trump's taxes... I'll be the first to say that they are almost without comparison... anywhere. But day to day stuff? They try stick their finger in events of the time rather than report what's happening. That's just a fact
I don't disagree with you at all that the NYT, along with lots of MSM outlets have gotten a lot wrong about how "balance" (or any notion that they should) the outrages of Trump against other candidates. I think they could be somewhat forgiven in the 2016 cycle for being blindsided by just how outrageous it could be, though not totally forgiven for falling for the ratings circus that he was, especially when they thought he wouldn't win. Unwittingly, they helped him win. But they have had a long time to figure it out, and still they seem to be stumbling along.

I'm going to quote from a NYT editorial of the other day by Jamelle Bouie, called "Trump is Losing It." This is not to defend the NYT, but there's a lot in it that relates to this discussion:

"But this gets to one of the oddest things about this election cycle so far. There is no shortage of coverage of President Biden’s age, even if there’s no evidence that his age has been an obstacle to his ability to perform his duties. Indeed, it is plainly true that Biden has been an unusually successful president in areas, like legislative negotiations, that require skill and mental acuity.

Coverage of Biden’s age, in other words, has more to do with the vibes of an “elderly” president — he isn’t as outwardly vigorous and robust as we would like — than it does with any particular issue with his performance.

In contrast to the obsessive coverage of Biden’s age, there is comparatively little coverage of Trump’s obvious deficiencies in that department. If we are going to use public comments as the measure of mental fitness, then the former president is clearly at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately for Biden, Trump benefits from something akin to the soft bigotry of low expectations. Because no one expected Trump, in the 2016 election, to speak and behave like a normal candidate, he was held to a lower effective standard than his rivals in both parties. Because no one expected him, during his presidency, to be orderly and responsible, his endless scandals were framed as business as usual. And because no one now expects him to be a responsible political figure with a coherent vision for the country, it’s as if no one blinks an eye when he rants and raves on the campaign trail."


The Republicans have gone back to their old line, now over the NATO comments of, "That's just Trump being Trump," as in, he doesn't mean it. The constant soft-pedal. I was going to post of the above only that line "...the soft bigotry of low expectations," but decided to flesh it out. But that phrase means two things: one is that "we've" never expected him to know much about politics, or behave like a politician, even if we had a right to expect both from a President. I won't say he's stupid, because he probably isn't, but he certainly is under-educated, unread (by his own admission,) with an incurious mind, and therefore no one expects more from him than the pronouncements of a reality TV star. But the second part is that, by that same line of thinking, we ignore his obvious cognitive impairment, and attribute it to the aforementioned mental failings. In truth, he says much crazier and more incoherent things, but he says them loudly and forcefully. He's gotten an awfully long way on bluster, belligerence and bullshit, and it still seems to be serving him. Say it loud, repeat it, and ignore the blow-back.

Joe Biden comes off as more doddery because he's more soft-spoken, then? "Covfefe" anyone?

I'm still curious to know what media outlets you do admire.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
* true about the generational lines, Moxie, and I see that plain as day.

That being said, I must first apologize to you and anyone who has read my post above for all of the misspellings contained in it. I dictated that is I was driving and I could not check it and did not have the reading glasses when I was stopped at traffic lights. Obviously, I should not be texting it on while I am in the car, and I am getting better at that.
Shawn, I think we all deal with enough "Siri-speak" to understand what you were saying, and why the typo's. Quick anecdote: one of my colleagues loves to dictate texts. We work freelance on a per-project basis, so we "hold" the crew until the job is confirmed, budgets, days, crew size, etc., then we "book" them. Sending a voice text to our Key Grip, just to let him know all was still good, she meant to text "I'll book you tomorrow." Siri wrote: "I'll fuck you tomorrow." They Key Grip texted back, "Um, I'm married, but I think I know what you meant." We don't have so much in the way of HR Depts in the film business, so we all had a very good laugh over that one.

As to the rest of your post, it's dense and interesting, and I promise to come back to it, but super-informative, and digs into why this is so complicated. The history is long, and so many fingers in the pie.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
Much talk of NATO and Article 5, (an attack against one is an attack against all): it has only been invoked once...on behalf of the US after the 9/11 attacks. I hope someone reminds Trump of that, and the constant flag-waving GOP and MAGA nation.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,654
Reactions
14,822
Points
113
It will be interesting to see if Putin's assassination of Alexei Navalny (and no one is even questioning if it was a political assassination,) gives Republicans any pause, at all, in their recent embracing of Russia, and rejection of aid to Ukraine. Biden spoke out, but Trump has had nothing to say on the subject.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
It will be interesting to see if Putin's assassination of Alexei Navalny (and no one is even questioning if it was a political assassination,) gives Republicans any pause, at all, in their recent embracing of Russia, and rejection of aid to Ukraine. Biden spoke out, but Trump has had nothing to say on the subject.
at this point I've given up any hope for change. It's not the Republican Party. It's the Trump party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
Could only read a few lines, then it fell behind the pay wall. What's the upshot?
basically about the fact that Americans have grown complacent about the risks they face as they tend to prosecute wars on other peoples lands. They don't feel the pain of war. I think it's in response to the cavalier attitude the legislature (House GOP) is taking towards the risks in Ukraine, Gaza and Taiwan. I agree with him. Ukraine has degraded Russia's military capacity, but the U.S failing it's allies it's likely to encourage the very wars the anti-neocons claim to want no part of
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
Because he might be deported, or because he looks like he's aged 30 years?
I didn't realise that Assange published information about Afghan collaborators. A lot of people like Jill Stein and Edward Snowden are agitating for Assange's release. I wish they had had the same energy for all those Afghan's who have been killed as a consequence of his work. I find it hard to feel sorry for him. Don't get me wrong... if he was also releasing information about Putin and Xi then I could respect his work as being true freedom of information. But it seems to only go one way. I don't get that... I believe he's currently in court trying to fight extradition
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,574
Reactions
1,257
Points
113
Assange is one-way drop of information. Then again, the Pentagon Papers were likely of that ilk, although candidly it has been so long I can't recall all of that from forty years ago when I read about all of that from over fifty years ago!.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,554
Reactions
5,628
Points
113
Assange is one-way drop of information. Then again, the Pentagon Papers were likely of that ilk, although candidly it has been so long I can't recall all of that from forty years ago when I read about all of that from over fifty years ago!.
wasn't that about the unfiltered thoughts of top military brass about how badly the Vietnam War was going? I wouldn't say it was similar in the sense that it was released by someone inside the Pentagon. Fair disclosure in my view as the elites were lying about the prosecution of the war. I find it extremely hard to believe that there aren't dirty secrets to be found for some of these dictatorships
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2450
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 82
britbox World Affairs 1004
britbox World Affairs 46