U.S. Politics - Thread

U.S. Politics


  • Total voters
    103
Status
Not open for further replies.

Natboy

Banned
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
SC Top Scorer
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
8,945
Reaction score
11,608
I don’t know that anyone thinks he’s ‘better’ - we’re just grateful we’re not subjected a daily running commentary because he loves the sound of his own voice. I enjoyed the comedy and the memes though.

If Biden was the best the Dems could do then that shows you the state of political talent.

He’s surely a one-termer. The real question is if Trump can delay various investigations against him until November 2022 when the GOP (probably) take control of the House back and cancel them all if they’re not already wrapped up. That will determine whether it’s Trump or another Republican who runs in 2024.

If Trump does run and it’s Biden v Trump again we’ll get a front row seat to see how crook America really is.
I miss Trump and thought he did a pretty good job :( I know we don’t agree there but fuck he was good for a laugh
 

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
22,701
Reaction score
41,519
I miss Trump and thought he did a pretty good job :( I know we don’t agree there but fuck he was good for a laugh
100% on the laugh factor.
The jokes wrote themselves :-).
You know me mate, I’m anything but a lefty.
I just think conservative politics can do way better than a self serving motormouth like Trump.
 

likeadoggy

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
545
Nah, you’re twisting things to suit your narrative as usual because you’re reply banned from the Covid threads for spinning too much shit.

Even if those were Biden’s words I doubt he meant verbatim ‘take vaccine impossible to die’ - no-one has ever said vaccinated people haven’t died - they have - mostly with underlying health issues. What he likely meant was ‘Your chances of being hospitalised or dying from C-19 are much lower if you’re vaccinated’.

But hey, twist whatever you need to fit the narrative, that’s what you do. Anyway, this is the US politics not Covid thread so I won’t hijack it by engaging your crap beyond this reply. You can continue to spin shit and call vaccinated people junkies and whatever else you find appropriate - you’ll be talking to yourself. Enjoy :-)
i’m reply banned for calling you an addict.Perhaps i should have said vaxtard instead.

which,btw,is not an anti vax statement but if the mods on here deem it ok to censor one side and let the other side convince people that the jab works then so be it. Who am i to get in the way of such stupidity.

Anyway,my point was and remains that the cacophony of lies coming from the leader of the free world is the unenviable state of U.S. (and world) politics right now.
 

MatstaDogg

The Bearded Baker
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
8,732
Juicy Smouillet has just been found guilty of 5 of the 6 charges. That's what happens when you get caught telling porkies of an unbelievable nature.

I'll just add this great examination video of the whole situation around the Juicy Smouillet "story", brought to you by Dave Chappelle :tearsofjoy:

 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
100% on the laugh factor.
The jokes wrote themselves :-).
You know me mate, I’m anything but a lefty.
I just think conservative politics can do way better than a self serving motormouth like Trump.
like who? Marco Rubio? Jeb Bush? the late John McCain? Liz Cheney? Mitch McConnell? Lindsey Graham? etc... can you point to any real ideologues on the right beyond Rand Paul? maybe Ted Cruz?

politics in the US is so incentivised with donors, PACs, inside information, dark money etc. that the overwhelming majority of these politicians just want the job and to keep it
 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
They're all evil. Trump wins because he bombed more kids. But Biden could catch up.
just look at US policy when it comes to Iraq from the 80's Iran-Iraq War, to the first Gulf War, the subsequent sanctions, no fly zones, Clinton's Desert Shield Operation in the late 90's, the WMD farce, the 2003 invasion, the George W. Bush "mission accomplished" banner bullsh*t, the subsequent implosion of Iraq into insurrection and sectarian violence, ISIS etc.

the Washington political elite destroyed Iraq... and it was bipartisan... and it was supported by Joe Biden who has been in Washington DC since the early 70's

 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
just look at US policy when it comes to Iraq from the 80's Iran-Iraq War, to the first Gulf War, the subsequent sanctions, no fly zones, Clinton's Desert Shield Operation in the late 90's, the WMD farce, the 2003 invasion, the George W. Bush "mission accomplished" banner bullsh*t, the subsequent implosion of Iraq into insurrection and sectarian violence, ISIS etc.

the Washington political elite destroyed Iraq... and it was bipartisan... and it was supported by Joe Biden who has been in Washington DC since the early 70's

Yep. That's why I said that they're all evil.

Trump took it one step further. Not only did he set a record for the number of civilian casualties, but he also rescinded the bill stopping him from covering up those civilian casualties, then lied to everyone saying that he's stopping the casualties.

They're all evil. Trump was just slightly more evil.
 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
Yep. That's why I said that they're all evil.

Trump took it one step further. Not only did he set a record for the number of civilian casualties, but he also rescinded the bill stopping him from covering up those civilian casualties, then lied to everyone saying that he's stopping the casualties.

They're all evil. Trump was just slightly more evil.
Madeleine Albright responded to that question as to the 500,000 Iraqi children deaths while still in the Clinton administration in the 1990's (ie. prior to the 2003 war)... how many more hundreds of thousands have died since, I wonder

but yeah, Trump's the worst
 

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
22,701
Reaction score
41,519
like who? Marco Rubio? Jeb Bush? the late John McCain? Liz Cheney? Mitch McConnell? Lindsey Graham? etc... can you point to any real ideologues on the right beyond Rand Paul? maybe Ted Cruz?

politics in the US is so incentivised with donors, PACs, inside information, dark money etc. that the overwhelming majority of these politicians just want the job and to keep it
None of them.
McCain did seem to have some decency/cred.
Cheney likewise in standing up to Trump - but then I think of her father and shudder. I agree they are all entrenched and it’s hard to find trustworthy talent.
The system is broke, and the actors play their parts.
 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
the Khmer Rouge regime killed somewhere between 1.5-2 million of its own people in the late 1970's --> about 25% of the Cambodia's population... now this is a complicated topic involving many players and is time and location specific (ie. Cold War in Indochina post-Vietnam War) but ask yourself how some of the following has aged -

* "The Thais and the Chinese did not want a Vietnamese-dominated Indochina. We didn't want the Vietnamese to dominate. I don't believe we did anything for Pol Pot. But I suspect we closed our eyes when some others did something for Pol Pot." - Henry Kissinger (Richard Nixon's and Gerald Ford's Secretary of State)

* "I encourage[d] the Chinese to support Pol Pot ... we could never support him, but China could." - Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor)

* to punish Vietnam for overthrowing the Khmer Rouge and ending the genocide, China invaded Vietnam in February 1979, while the US slapped more sanctions on Vietnam and blocked loans from the IMF to Vietnam

* the US voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea to retain Cambodia's UN seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam during the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and ruled just a small part of the country

* and there are allegations of far greater US involvement with the Khmer Rouge well into the 1980's with financial support, military aid to Khmer Rouge guerrillas, diplomatic efforts (eg. Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who recalled: "ASEAN wanted elections but the U.S. supported the return of a genocidal regime. Did any of you imagine that the U.S. once had in effect supported genocide?" Kausikan described the disagreement between the U.S. and ASEAN over the Khmer Rouge as reaching the threshold that the U.S. threatened Singapore with "blood on the floor"

-------------------------------------------------------------

too often we are distracted by the superficialities spoon fed to us by mainstream outlets
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
the Khmer Rouge regime killed somewhere between 1.5-2 million of its own people in the late 1970's --> about 25% of the Cambodia's population... now this is a complicated topic involving many players and is time and location specific (ie. Cold War in Indochina post-Vietnam War) but ask yourself how some of the following has aged -

* "The Thais and the Chinese did not want a Vietnamese-dominated Indochina. We didn't want the Vietnamese to dominate. I don't believe we did anything for Pol Pot. But I suspect we closed our eyes when some others did something for Pol Pot." - Henry Kissinger (Richard Nixon's and Gerald Ford's Secretary of State)

* "I encourage[d] the Chinese to support Pol Pot ... we could never support him, but China could." - Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor)

* to punish Vietnam for overthrowing the Khmer Rouge and ending the genocide, China invaded Vietnam in February 1979, while the US slapped more sanctions on Vietnam and blocked loans from the IMF to Vietnam

* the US voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea to retain Cambodia's UN seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam during the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and ruled just a small part of the country

* and there are allegations of far greater US involvement with the Khmer Rouge well into the 1980's with financial support, military aid to Khmer Rouge guerrillas, diplomatic efforts (eg. Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who recalled: "ASEAN wanted elections but the U.S. supported the return of a genocidal regime. Did any of you imagine that the U.S. once had in effect supported genocide?" Kausikan described the disagreement between the U.S. and ASEAN over the Khmer Rouge as reaching the threshold that the U.S. threatened Singapore with "blood on the floor"

-------------------------------------------------------------

too often we are distracted by the superficialities spoon fed to us by mainstream outlets
I don't think anyone is defending anything the US ever did. They've always been a warmongering nation. We're just saying that Trump was no anti-war hero, even though he tried to convince people that he was.
 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
None of them.
McCain did seem to have some decency/cred.
Cheney likewise in standing up to Trump - but then I think of her father and shudder. I agree they are all entrenched and it’s hard to find trustworthy talent.
The system is broke, and the actors play their parts.
I think if you can get money out of politics, then hopefully the proper issues will get aired and discussed and debated and the politicians accountable to the electorate during elections
 

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
22,701
Reaction score
41,519
I think if you can get money out of politics, then hopefully the proper issues will get aired and discussed and debated and the politicians accountable to the electorate during elections
Great, in theory.
The problem is ‘the issues’ seem to get buried in the noise and bureaucracy of the process if not something more sinister. I always think of this:
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
Great, in theory.
The problem is ‘the issues’ seem to get buried in the noise and bureaucracy of the process if not something more sinister. I always think of this:
Lobbying is kind of a mixed bag. It is used to influence politicians, but most often I think it's just companies supporting a cause.

Like with fossil fuel companies. They fund climate change denying politicians. Not to influence their stances. Just to encourage them to keep pushing what they're already pushing.
 

alchemist

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,393
Great, in theory.
The problem is ‘the issues’ seem to get buried in the noise and bureaucracy of the process if not something more sinister. I always think of this:
I forget the name of the decision but there is case law in the US confirming that campaign contributions equate to freedom of speech which I think is ludicrous... for example, are you exercising your first amendment rights by giving local Police or judges or jury members money or is it potential bribery to people in public roles that could benefit you should you find yourself in legal trouble or in need of someone legal finding in your favour?

you want politicians to act objectively in enacting and exercising laws for the good governance of everyone but where they are compromised by the possibility of enrichment by people that can benefit from how you behave in said role... in the subjective vs objective battle, the subjective wins every time
 

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
22,701
Reaction score
41,519
I forget the name of the decision but there is case law in the US confirming that campaign contributions equate to freedom of speech which I think is ludicrous... for example, are you exercising your first amendment rights by giving local Police or judges or jury members money or is it potential bribery to people in public roles that could benefit you should you find yourself in legal trouble or in need of someone legal finding in your favour?

you want politicians to act objectively in enacting and exercising laws for the good governance of everyone but where they are compromised by the possibility of enrichment by people that can benefit from how you behave in said role... in the subjective vs objective battle, the subjective wins every time
Thankfully it’s not as bad here with the first (and second) amendment stuff the seppos carry on with but your example is particularly bad in the sense that it’s more or less buying favours.

Globally however no political system is ever going to be dirt free because it involves people, money and power - a recipe for corruption in its many forms. I remember reading ‘Scales of Justice’ 30 years ago but always remembered the key line: ‘Corruption doesn’t start with a $10000 bribe - it starts with the half price hamburger’. Still true today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top