US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

Just the clips online

 

[britbox]

I'm not sure where you're going with this massive generalized complaint, but Harris has absolutely nothing to do with "nepotism" or meritless elevation to the candidacy for President. Just because she's a woman of color, doesn't make her a charity hire, as has been suggested around here. She's intelligent, accomplished, and with years of public service on her resume. On the other hand, both Trump and Vance are mainly qualified because they are white men. But that never seems to bother anyone.

As to solving mass migration, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen in an afternoon, no matter how much will and power you apply. I can't speak to the problem in every country, but in the US, the problem was decades in the making, if not more, complicated by such things as lack of reciprocal deportation agreements between us and certain other countries.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - tribalism. if you read my post properly, the penny might drop that you've just done exactly what I expected.

Your stock reply is "What about..." (the other side) before embarking on one of your typical racist rants. Biden and Carter were old white men too, no?

Now, if you read carefully - I specifically said I'm not singling Harris out, but that there are generational dynasties and nepotism, and the system is rotten.

There is no solution to problems because the problem is specifically created. It does not happen randomly in every Western nation. The real problem is people who keep propping this system up - worshippers of these ghouls who suck the life out of nations.

 

[Moxie]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - tribalism. if you read my post properly, the penny might drop that you've just done exactly what I expected.

Your stock reply is "What about..." (the other side) before embarking on one of your typical racist rants. Biden and Carter were old white men too, no?

Now, if you read carefully - I specifically said I'm not singling Harris out, but that there are generational dynasties and nepotism, and the system is rotten.

There is no solution to problems because the problem is specifically created. It does not happen randomly in every Western nation. The real problem is people who keep propping this system up - worshippers of these ghouls who suck the life out of nations.

Oh, no, I read it. I saw the bit about "what about-ism." I just don't care, in this case. Because I also saw your post earlier implying that Harris isn't that smart. That's basically what I'm reacting to. You're perfectly happy to buy that she got in on DEI, without looking at how unqualified Trump and Vance are, by any standard, and especially in comparison to Harris. But they're white guys. The racism (and sexism) isn't mine, dude. Biden and Carter were qualified for the job. See the difference? That was my point.

 

[britbox]

Oh, no, I read it. I saw the bit about "what about-ism." I just don't care, in this case. Because I also saw your post earlier implying that Harris isn't that smart. That's basically what I'm reacting to. You're perfectly happy to buy that she got in on DEI, without looking at how unqualified Trump and Vance are, by any standard, and especially in comparison to Harris. But they're white guys. The racism (and sexism) isn't mine, dude. Biden and Carter were qualified for the job. See the difference? That was my point.

Yeah, I don't think she's that smart, and neither are many others. I believe you mistakenly conflate experience (time tenure in a role) with proficiency . I look at outcomes. Care to show me one great speech or some real outcomes that have made a tangible difference to the civilians? Again, it's not her specifically - I could level the same arguments on some buffoon like George W Bush.

Your country is trillions in debt, the political class continually enriches itself, all wealth gets transferred to fewer and fewer oligarchs... as George Carlin said "It's one big club, and you're not in it". One day, it may dawn on you that these people aren't your friends at all... but that would be like giving up your favourite football team for a full-fledged cheerleader.

By the way, Tulsi Gabbard always struck me as a pretty good pick for an administration. Smart, articulate - actually says something understandable. She ain't white or male, but you won't like her because she left your "tribe". Also Candace Owens is blowing the lid off from many things... also highly articulate.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I don't think she's that smart, and neither are many others. I believe you mistakenly conflate experience (time tenure in a role) with proficiency . I look at outcomes. Care to show me one great speech or some real outcomes that have made a tangible difference to the civilians? Again, it's not her specifically - I could level the same arguments on some buffoon like George W Bush.

I don't know why you don't think she's that smart, honestly. I certainly don't see why you would even begin to compare her to GW Bush. Aren't you the guy that mentioned nepotism in a recent previous post? Anyway, Bush was president, and was besides a dummy, ineffective. Ignored 9/11 warnings. Harris was VP, so not offered much to do. However, her record previous, which is important and does matter, such as as AG in CA, was effective. Here's some info.

What to know about Kamala Harris' record as California attorney general

In 2010, Kamala Harris became the first female, Black and South Asian attorney general in California history.

www.cbsnews.com

So no, I'm not mistaking just having a job for effectiveness in it. I was making my point briefly, because I thought it was clear enough. Trump and Vance have almost no qualifications whatsoever. And Trump is an idiot, but that doesn't seem to bother you. He is a sociopath with no governor, which people find refreshing, because it's the opposite of "political," but it's also dangerous, esp. when he has power. And let's face it...he's losing it. He's way worse mentally that he was 4 years ago.

Your country is trillions in debt, the political class continually enriches itself, all wealth gets transferred to fewer and fewer oligarchs... as George Carlin said "It's one big club, and you're not in it". One day, it may dawn on you that these people aren't your friends at all... but that would be like giving up your favourite football team for a full-fledged cheerleader.

I do not even know what you mean by this. I think you're talking to Trump voters. And Bush ones, for that matter. Folks used to say they voted for him because they'd like to have a beer with him. Even though he was sober and couldn't drink. The appeal of Trump I briefly explain above, even though he cares about no one but himself.

By the way, Tulsi Gabbard always struck me as a pretty good pick for an administration. Smart, articulate - actually says something understandable. She ain't white or male, but you won't like her because she left your "tribe". Also Candace Owens is blowing the lid off from many things... also highly articulate.

What bothers me about Tulsi Gabbard is not that she returned to her Republican roots, having become a Democrat, it seems, because that's the only way to get elected in Hawaii. I hear she's back with her cult-y father...anyway, she grew up in a cult. She's cozied up to Putin and Assad, and they're talking about her for National security. Who's going to want to share secrets with us? No one.

 

[britbox]

I don't know why you don't think she's that smart, honestly. I certainly don't see why you would even begin to compare her to GW Bush. Aren't you the guy that mentioned nepotism in a recent previous post? Anyway, Bush was president, and was besides a dummy, ineffective. Ignored 9/11 warnings. Harris was VP, so not offered much to do. However, her record previous, which is important and does matter, such as as AG in CA, was effective. Here's some info.

What to know about Kamala Harris' record as California attorney general

In 2010, Kamala Harris became the first female, Black and South Asian attorney general in California history.

www.cbsnews.com

So no, I'm not mistaking just having a job for effectiveness in it. I was making my point briefly, because I thought it was clear enough. Trump and Vance have almost no qualifications whatsoever. And Trump is an idiot, but that doesn't seem to bother you. He is a sociopath with no governor, which people find refreshing, because it's the opposite of "political," but it's also dangerous, esp. when he has power. And let's face it...he's losing it. He's way worse mentally that he was 4 years ago.

I do not even know what you mean by this. I think you're talking to Trump voters. And Bush ones, for that matter. Folks used to say they voted for him because they'd like to have a beer with him. Even though he was sober and couldn't drink. The appeal of Trump I briefly explain above, even though he cares about no one but himself.

What bothers me about Tulsi Gabbard is not that she returned to her Republican roots, having become a Democrat, it seems, because that's the only way to get elected in Hawaii. I hear she's back with her cult-y father...anyway, she grew up in a cult. She's cozied up to Putin and Assad, and they're talking about her for National security. Who's going to want to share secrets with us? No one.

I used Bush as an example to show the system itself is the problem... and it's not just a DNC problem. I thought that was fairly obvious, particularly with nepotism and generational dynasties thrown into the mix. Somehow you managed to make it about Trump and Vance as expected. One of the original points.

As for Tulsi Gabbard and cults... from my understanding, it's small potatoes compared to the dark shit that's been going within the higher echelons of Western Civilization for many years. From politicians to entertainers at the highest level. Saville, Epstein, Diddy, etc are just the tip of the iceberg. Whistleblowers are coming out from every mouse hole...

 

[Federberg]

This one will tickle you @britbox So I was just having a conversation with a mate about US politics. He brought up Hillary. He never liked her. So I rolled my eyes and said so tell me what she did... her... not her husband. I told him that I'm fed up with the contrived blame for Hillary to justify voting for Trump. Then he told me about a speech she made in Central America when she was Secretary of State. She claimed that women were the primary victims of war because they lose their husbands, brothers and sons. Jeepers! If you had told me that line in one of our endless HRC vs Trump debates you might have shut me down right there

 

[mrzz]

She's cozied up to Putin and Assad, and they're talking about her for National security. Who's going to want to share secrets with us? No one.

I really don't feel like getting into US politics, also lately no even in world politics, but this is simply a wrong way to see things.

Real-world, professional geopolitics demands you to engage with all heads of state. Period. This happens, everyday, every time. Some times via back channels, some times unofficially, whatever. In very rare occasions there is no diplomatic/political engagement between to states, even warring states.

Even if your working hypothesis is that Putin or Assad are incarnations of the devil, you have to engage them. Unless you are vying for "total war" (to use a expression Germany coined in WW1).

Now comes the second point: critics will say that leaders like Putin feed of the "legitimacy" that high level political talks give them. Problem is, like it or not, a good bunch of them have legitimacy. And, even when they don't (like the current situation in Venezuela), you still need to engage them.

Third phase of the discussion: "talking points" (I hate that expression, by the way). What really get people's hair on fire is that someone like Gabbard would not only engage with such leaders, but address the questions and issues they raise. Again, this is grown-up, real world politics, even if you don't think they have a point. It is pointless and, honestly, extremely childish to just put your finger in your ears and scream "blah blah blah" when those topics are raised. I know you will ask, so how this is done in modern politics? By one line deniers in political pieces in major news outlets. Inside some "analysis" there is a one liner that addresses the question saying simply "this is not true", generally giving a link to a shady article, or another opinion piece, or even some circular references (I already followed a few). I am not saying those "talking points" are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but they don't come out of the blue either. Again, you have to address them, because most times, when the political settlement is finally found, they will be addressed one way or the other.

I could go on way longer in most points here, but you surely got the picture. Not saying Gabbard is right in everything she says and does, and I get that you do not like her -- you have different political positions. But the kind of (geo)political thinking behind this particular argument is reductionist. It serves a double-edged purpose: shut down inconvenient discussions and fuel hybrid "total wars", which are already in place. Dangerous game to play.

 

[Moxie]

I really don't feel like getting into US politics, also lately no even in world politics, but this is simply a wrong way to see things.

Real-world, professional geopolitics demands you to engage with all heads of state. Period. This happens, everyday, every time. Some times via back channels, some times unofficially, whatever. In very rare occasions there is no diplomatic/political engagement between to states, even warring states.

Even if your working hypothesis is that Putin or Assad are incarnations of the devil, you have to engage them. Unless you are vying for "total war" (to use a expression Germany coined in WW1).

Now comes the second point: critics will say that leaders like Putin feed of the "legitimacy" that high level political talks give them. Problem is, like it or not, a good bunch of them have legitimacy. And, even when they don't (like the current situation in Venezuela), you still need to engage them.

Third phase of the discussion: "talking points" (I hate that expression, by the way). What really get people's hair on fire is that someone like Gabbard would not only engage with such leaders, but address the questions and issues they raise. Again, this is grown-up, real world politics, even if you don't think they have a point. It is pointless and, honestly, extremely childish to just put your finger in your ears and scream "blah blah blah" when those topics are raised. I know you will ask, so how this is done in modern politics? By one line deniers in political pieces in major news outlets. Inside some "analysis" there is a one liner that addresses the question saying simply "this is not true", generally giving a link to a shady article, or another opinion piece, or even some circular references (I already followed a few). I am not saying those "talking points" are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but they don't come out of the blue either. Again, you have to address them, because most times, when the political settlement is finally found, they will be addressed one way or the other.

I could go on way longer in most points here, but you surely got the picture. Not saying Gabbard is right in everything she says and does, and I get that you do not like her -- you have different political positions. But the kind of (geo)political thinking behind this particular argument is reductionist. It serves a double-edged purpose: shut down inconvenient discussions and fuel hybrid "total wars", which are already in place. Dangerous game to play.

If she were President, or VP, or Sec. of State, yes, but she made an unannounced trip to Syria, and spoke in sympathetic terms of Assad and the likes of him, such as Putin, and spouted Russian propaganda. She's has no experience in Intelligence, I think she is temperamentally suspect, and even the appearance of her choosing sides with enemies can have a chilling effect on intelligence sharing with our allies. My point is not that we shouldn't engage all world leaders, but the circumstances in which she has is less appropriate. My main point is that I don't think she's qualified for the job.

 

[Moxie]

I used Bush as an example to show the system itself is the problem... and it's not just a DNC problem. I thought that was fairly obvious, particularly with nepotism and generational dynasties thrown into the mix. Somehow you managed to make it about Trump and Vance as expected. One of the original points.

Bush is kind of an extreme example, and to use him to say, "see, Republicans elect idiots, too," is overly insulting to Harris, IMO. Plus, she has nothing to do with nepotism or dynasties. It was overly general. You get mad that I keep bringing in Trump and Vance, as some sort of "what-about-ism," but they are actually a direct comparison in this case, because they ran against each other, and we're not talking about she said this and Trump said that. We're talking about relative intelligence and qualification for the job. Or, at least I am. Bush is your outlier example, and your "whatabout-ism."

As for Tulsi Gabbard and cults... from my understanding, it's small potatoes compared to the dark shit that's been going within the higher echelons of Western Civilization for many years. From politicians to entertainers at the highest level. Saville, Epstein, Diddy, etc are just the tip of the iceberg. Whistleblowers are coming out from every mouse hole...

I'm talking about why Gabbard is unqualified for the job, and you've latched onto something scrapped up from the lint-crusted corners of the internet, likely invented by someone who's seen "Eyes Wide Shut" a few too many times. I mention the cult connection because she demonstrates questionable judgement in that and other things.

 

[britbox]

Bush is kind of an extreme example, and to use him to say, "see, Republicans elect idiots, too," is overly insulting to Harris, IMO. Plus, she has nothing to do with nepotism or dynasties. It was overly general. You get mad that I keep bringing in Trump and Vance, as some sort of "what-about-ism," but they are actually a direct comparison in this case, because they ran against each other, and we're not talking about she said this and Trump said that. We're talking about relative intelligence and qualification for the job. Or, at least I am. Bush is your outlier example, and your "whatabout-ism."

I'm talking about why Gabbard is unqualified for the job, and you've latched onto something scrapped up from the lint-crusted corners of the internet, likely invented by someone who's seen "Eyes Wide Shut" a few too many times. I mention the cult connection because she demonstrates questionable judgement in that and other things.

I don't get "mad" about you bringing up Trump and Vance. It is more of a "roll eyes" as it's typical of a tribal zombie position.

Bush is hardly an "outlier". His father was a president, and his brother a Governor. Members of the 322 Skull and Bones "cult" which you don't have to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" to know. Even Kerry who he ran against was in the same group. Nearly all of your past presidents are distantly related and have been in one "secret society" or another.

So, Gabbard thinks outside the box a little and actually talks to people... wow!! Fancy, straying away from the status quo of shoot anything that moves.

 

[Federberg]

So... Biden pardons Liz Cheney, Fauci and Milley. Not a good look. I understand why he did it, but in effect they've admitted their guilt. Let's have the same energy we would have if Republicans had done the same thing. We all know the biggest pardon is the Fauci one. This is terrible!

 

[Moxie]

I don't get "mad" about you bringing up Trump and Vance. It is more of a "roll eyes" as it's typical of a tribal zombie position.

Bush is hardly an "outlier". His father was a president, and his brother a Governor. Members of the 322 Skull and Bones "cult" which you don't have to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" to know. Even Kerry who he ran against was in the same group. Nearly all of your past presidents are distantly related and have been in one "secret society" or another.

So, Gabbard thinks outside the box a little and actually talks to people... wow!! Fancy, straying away from the status quo of shoot anything that moves.

We clearly are not having the same conversation. I don't know why you should roll your eyes at a direct comparison, however much you try to prohibit it. I notice you have no opinion about how smart (or not) Trump is, while you are willing to say that you don't think Harris isn't, and based on nothing. You also don't address that he and his VP are far less qualified...basically than anyone who's ever held the offices.

I see you put "cult" in quotes, but do wonder how you define it, because your definition seems pretty elastic, if it includes college fraternities and rapper parties.

Smart-ass quips about Gabbard thinking "outside of the box" and "actually talking to people" doesn't address the downsides of her lack of qualifications, which you refuse to do.

 

[Federberg]

This was so fascinating. Their take on the body language gave me a different take on the whole thing. Worth a watch

 

[Moxie]

So... Biden pardons Liz Cheney, Fauci and Milley. Not a good look. I understand why he did it, but in effect they've admitted their guilt. Let's have the same energy we would have if Republicans had done the same thing. We all know the biggest pardon is the Fauci one. This is terrible!

You forgot to note that he also pardoned Capital police officers who testified. Before you look to Democrats for the "same energy" to condemn, why don't you spare a moment for where this all started? Trump has been threatening all of these people for months. With nothing more than retribution. You could at least mention it.

 

[Federberg]

You forgot to note that he also pardoned Capital police officers who testified. Before you look to Democrats for the "same energy" to condemn, why don't you spare a moment for where this all started? Trump has been threatening all of these people for months. With nothing more than retribution. You could at least mention it.

prior bad acts don't justify further bad acts. Let Trump do his worst. Either you have the rule of law or you don't. The man is not a king. What is clear is that Dems cannot claim any high ground. A pox on both their houses. I'm actually surprised Liz Cheney accepted a pardon. Did Adam Kinziger? I seem to recall him saying he wouldn't as it would be an admission of guilt

 

[Federberg]

In any case, back to Fauci... that's the one that bothers me. If they wanted to test something in the courts, the world would have been a better place for everything to come out into the open. Biden has denied all of us the publication of facts and justified all the conspiracy theorists

 

[Moxie]

Let Trump do his worst.

It could be worse than you think.

Either you have the rule of law or you don't.

As of about a couple of hours ago, I fear we don't so much.

 

[Federberg]

It could be worse than you think.

As of about a couple of hours ago, I fear we don't so much.

I hope we're wrong. I'm holding out some hope. His behaviour with Russia-Ukraine has been positive so far. And he was great with the Gaza conflict

 

[Federberg]

Say it with your chest!!!