US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Chach]

(Sorry for the late response I have neglected to login for a while)

On 18/09/2019 at 06:43, Cornish Steve said:

I’m a big fan of AOC, too. She’s one smart cookie and should go far. As for others in the squad, I worry about their antiSemitism. 

She will almost certainly be President in the future, whip smart and an (ostensible) authenticity that seems to be lacking in politics at the moment. 

On 18/09/2019 at 02:33, StevO said:

I see your politicians are mostly old white men, I see you population as being all kinds of mixed races. I believe your government should represent its people, and from the outside looking it it doesn’t look that way. I may be very very wrong, but I’m saying what I see. 

Just not true mate, the US congress is 22% BAME. African Amercians are proportionally represented. Yes, racism is a stain in most western countries but they are now demonstrably the least racist countries in the world due to their diversity.

On 16/09/2019 at 14:31, Palfy said:

But who you are does represent your political view, as does your colour religion sexuality and your location, that does make it more diverse if we didn’t use those factors there would be less diversity, I fail to understand your argument,  the last power house who tried to take away those factors that made us diverse and different were the Germans when they wanted to create the arian state where everyone was the same. 

You have certainly failed to understand my argument, the Nazi's engaging in white identity politics was exactly the type of idpol I was referring to in the post you responded to, see below.

[Chach]

On 19/12/2019 at 01:11, markjazzbassist said:

great question mike and this part is important.  as evangelicals they believe their faith is above all else, government included.  so by Trump saying he's a christian, they give him carte blanche because they believe he's "doing the will of the lord".  he basically gets a free pass, the Bush family did the same thing.   i remember people at church saying "he prays every morning, what a guy" and i'm like he's killing tons of people illegally in iraq doesn't that bother you?  who cares if he prays!  well, i don't it question him, "the lord works in mysterious ways...".  they just accept that whatever he does is ok.  only half analogy i can give is a hard core party voter, like your family is Labour all your life and you just vote labour regardless and go with whatever they say policy wise, or if it changes, then contradicts, it doesn't matter, you're labour and that's that. thick and thin, labour.

 

sucks for people of the christian faith like myself who aren't nutjobs and aren't evangelicals because it gives us a bad name and reputation.

Surprised this hasn't been posted given the way Trump has been frothing at the mouth over it (he froths so much though), such an excellent piece from what I imagine is a very authoritative source?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/christianity-today-trump-removal/603952/

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, Chach said:

(Sorry for the late response I have neglected to login for a while)

She will almost certainly be President in the future, whip smart and an (ostensible) authenticity that seems to be lacking in politics at the moment. 

Just not true mate, the US congress is 22% BAME. African Amercians are proportionally represented. Yes, racism is a stain in most western countries but they are now demonstrably the least racist countries in the world due to their diversity.

You have certainly failed to understand my argument, the Nazi's engaging in white identity politics was exactly the type of idpol I was referring to in the post you responded to, see below.

Jeez Chach that has been a long time, it feels like Trump bar screaming about his impeachment has been very subdued and not his normal condescending self, it feels like he’s been advised to rein it in a bit and not alienate him self further until his impeachment trial is over, does it feel that way in State’s or aren’t we getting the much news on his latest antics. 

[markjazzbassist]

2 hours ago, Chach said:

Surprised this hasn't been posted given the way Trump has been frothing at the mouth over it (he froths so much though), such an excellent piece from what I imagine is a very authoritative source?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/christianity-today-trump-removal/603952/

In classic trump move he called the publication “far left, liberal and progressive”.  It was founded by billy graham a die hard evengelical pastor and was the bastion of the right for decades.  One article denouncing trump and it’s far left.  Sadly his minions just lap it up and believe it.  They are sheep and he is their shepherd.  No critical thinking, no thinking for themselves, no questioning authority. Just blind obedience.

[Palfy]

56 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

In classic trump move he called the publication “far left, liberal and progressive”.  It was founded by billy graham a die hard evengelical pastor and was the bastion of the right for decades.  One article denouncing trump and it’s far left.  Sadly his minions just lap it up and believe it.  They are sheep and he is their shepherd.  No critical thinking, no thinking for themselves, no questioning authority. Just blind obedience.

Mark what can you do mate, if they can’t see for themselves you’re never convince them. 

[markjazzbassist]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

Mark what can you do mate, if they can’t see for themselves you’re never convince them. 

Yep just have to weather the storm here until he’s out of office.  

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, markjazzbassist said:

Yep just have to weather the storm here until he’s out of office.  

Wish we had the option with Boris, take it easy mate and Happy new year Mark 

[MikeO]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

Wish we had the option with Boris, take it easy mate and Happy new year Mark 

We head into a morally bankrupt new decade all over the World with our two countries at the forefront. Lessons of (relatively recent) history forgotten; if I was a religious person I'd say God help us but I'm not so I have no idea where the hope is. I fear for my grandchildren.

[Chach]

17 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

In classic trump move he called the publication “far left, liberal and progressive”.  It was founded by billy graham a die hard evengelical pastor and was the bastion of the right for decades.  One article denouncing trump and it’s far left.  Sadly his minions just lap it up and believe it.  They are sheep and he is their shepherd.  No critical thinking, no thinking for themselves, no questioning authority. Just blind obedience.

At least some Christian leaders are taking a principled stand though which I am sure is important for the sanity of thoughtful Christians who aren't blind to the immorality of Trump.

[Sibdane]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/air-strike-kills-qassim-soleimani-head-irans-elite-quds-force/

So this happens, and now all the sudden there is talk of WWIII. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Sibdane said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/air-strike-kills-qassim-soleimani-head-irans-elite-quds-force/

So this happens, and now all the sudden there is talk of WWIII. 

All of a sudden? Its been edging in that direction for years. 

[Sibdane]

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

All of a sudden? Its been edging in that direction for years. 

More referring to this as the possible catalyst. 

[Matt]

1 minute ago, Sibdane said:

More referring to this as the possible catalyst. 

There’s so many catalysts collecting on this particular dumpster fire. One of the reasons I’m desperate to stay in Switzerland; clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right...

[Sibdane]

3 minutes ago, RPG said:

At least he is being honest about being partial. It at least elevates him above the level of Bercow.

There is no "at least" in this situation. One of his job responsibilities is to be impartial. 

[Sibdane]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

I live and work in Dubai and we have become used to this sort of thing over the years. But this does have a different 'feeling' to it and I have to agree. Things may escalate.

Likewise on the feeling. Obviously aware of everything going on in the Middle East, but this does feel different. Hopefully it doesn't lead to worse, but I don't trust Trump to attempt to deescalate it. 

[Sibdane]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

So was our former speaker of the House of Commons. He claimed to be impartial when he clearly wasn't. The 'at least' referred to your man at least admitting his failings.

I wish he viewed it as a failing. There is no way McConnell thinks he's in the wrong and is just appealing to Trump's supporters (who are also more than likely to support him). 

Granted, I haven't been on this planet long, but I've never seen a president with more of a cult-like following than Trump, and that includes the folks working in the capital. 

[Sibdane]

Senator Chris Murphy:

Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question.

The question is this - as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?

It looks like it also occurred at Iraq's largest civilian airport.

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

Likewise on the feeling. Obviously aware of everything going on in the Middle East, but this does feel different. Hopefully it doesn't lead to worse, but I don't trust Trump to attempt to deescalate it. 

And you can bet Boris will be as far up his arse as humanly possible, with a promise from Trump we will get a special trade deal which Boris can use as his get out of Jail card over his EU mess up. 

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Sibdane said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/air-strike-kills-qassim-soleimani-head-irans-elite-quds-force/

So this happens, and now all the sudden there is talk of WWIII. 

Well he needs to leave something truly historic as his legacy, what could be better than WWIII? It'll go down in history as "the greatest and biggest war ever" by those lucky enough to survive it; which will obviously include him as I'm sure he has a top notch luxury underground bunker, just part of his top notch luxury underground golf course.

[Sibdane]

Just now, MikeO said:

Well he needs to leave something truly historic as his legacy, what could be better than WWIII? It'll go down in history as "the greatest and biggest war ever" by those lucky enough to survive it; which will obviously include him as I'm sure he has a top notch luxury underground bunker, just part of his top notch luxury underground golf course.

My theory is he's trying to get us into another World War so he can pull an FDR and stay in office longer than two terms. 

[Palfy]

It was a unilateral decision to do what they did so no one should back him, he needs to walk this path as he started on his own. 

[Sibdane]

On 04/01/2020 at 01:07, RPG said:

We don't (and likely won't for some time)  know the intelligence that the USA had which led them to take this decision. That is the very nature of classified intelligence gathering unfortunately. The USA position is that it was a response to past, present and known planned, deadly attacks on USA/Western personnel. For USA to give further details may compromise the sources of the intelligence and jeapordise future intelligence gathering.

This is a situation which requires individual political agendas and feelings to be set aside. At some stage, the justification (or not) for the strike will come into the public domain. Unless or until it does, it would be wrong imho to criticise the action. Trump definitely did not take this action unilaterally. There is more than enough expertise, maturity, intelligence and strength of character around him to have stopped this if there was no good Security based reason for it. If the action stopped another 911 type of scenario then it has my full support. I understand that Trump is not the most popular POTUS on this board but this decision will have been agreed to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they are not averse to saying No if necessary.

None of us on this board will know the important intelligence that led to this action for quite a while and, until we do, it is a time for cool heads to prevail.

I think most would support it, but we'll probably never know, and I prefer not to live by "ifs." 

However, "if" you think Trump listens to those around him then you haven't been paying attention. 

[Sibdane]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

Trump may be POTUS but he could not have carried out this action without the approval of the Joint Chiefs. If they disagreed and Trump still insisted, there would have been mass resignations from VERY senior military positions. That hasn't happened so the only logical conclusion is that the Joint Chiefs looked at the intelligence and approved the strike. Trump would not have gone against the advice of the Joint Chiefs on this matter.

You don't know Trump. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/05/pentagon-chief-kept-tight-circle-on-suleimani-strike/

Technically, you're right. He didn't go against any advice from his Joint Chiefs; however, it doesn't seem they were even consulted to even give advice. 

[Sibdane]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

That proves nothing. It would be quite right and proper to follow 'Need to Know' protocols. And the very article you link to quotes 'some' senior figures which, by default means not all.

The Joint Chiefs would have been in on this decision, no matter what your link says. Who do you think 'piloted' the drones and whete did they gettheorder from. There is a strict chain of command with checks and balances all the way downit. Any breach of protocol would have resulted in the trigger not being squeezed.

 

You're not paying attention then. 

[Sibdane]

Just now, RPG said:

Believe me, I am paying very close attention. I live and work about 100 miles from Iran!

That's fine, but my point is that you're putting too much faith in Trump's government to make the best decision. Most view points over here are that he took the most extreme position. 

[Sibdane]

3 minutes ago, RPG said:

We don't know that. I can understand people not trusting Trump as an individual but even as POTUS there are procedures to be followed and criteria to be met before that sort of action can even be looked at. And then, despite any media links to the contrary, it will have to have been signed off by the Joint Chiefs.

People trying to demonise Trump for this action either don't understand the safeguards in the system (and that is not a criticism of them) or are trying to make domestic political capital out of a serious global situation.

Trump may be a bit of a loose canon but he could not have taken a strike decision contrary to advicefrom the Joint Chiefs. So, it comes down to a question of trust, not in Trump, but in the safeguards in the protocols.

 

 

Who appoints the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

[Sibdane]

9 minutes ago, RPG said:

Now I think you are getting into paranoid fantasy land. The Joint Chiefs are fiercely apolitical and will always put country before politics. Like I said, it's a question of trust in the system.

Seems odd that a Brit (albeit with a fairly lengthy military background who worked on many occasions with US Forces) has more faith in the US than you, who I presume is a US citizen.

I get it that some people are anti Trump but to infer that he is the only person in the US chain of command who approved and authorised the strike is a bridge too far.

Does seem odd. Wonder why that is.. why would someone who lives in the US questions the government more than someone who doesn't live here? Strange. 

Maybe I am paranoid, but let me also mention that conducting military operations goes from President to the Sec of Defense and skips the Joint Chiefs of Staff altogether. They may advise him, but there is no "signing off" required like you mentioned above. 

[Sibdane]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

Now I think you are getting into paranoid fantasy land. The Joint Chiefs are fiercely apolitical and will always put country before politics. Like I said, it's a question of trust in the system.

Seems odd that a Brit (albeit with a fairly lengthy military background who worked on many occasions with US Forces) has more faith in the US than you, who I presume is a US citizen.

I get it that some people are anti Trump but to infer that he is the only person in the US chain of command who approved and authorised the strike is a bridge too far.

Just to expand on this some more. I do not 100% trust our system. To put 100% trust in anything that can be considered a bureaucracy is absolutely naive. 

[Sibdane]

12 hours ago, RPG said:

You are not quite right there. The joint chiefs could have stopped this if they did not agree with it from a military perspective.

And, just for context, Obama ordered 542 drone strikes, killing an estimated 3,797 people, of which 324 were civilians. Hardly a murmur from the media. Yet when Trump follows Obama's lead, it's headline news.

That's because Obama went about his business while Trump tries to pretend he's a hero and boasts about his "accomplishments" on Twitter. 

Trump has also been untruthful or misleading about literally hundreds of things, so of course he's going to get more scrutiny/coverage. He sells himself to the media and he loves that attention. He's been all over the media his entire life by his own choice. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Sibdane said:

That's because Obama went about his business while Trump tries to pretend he's a hero and boasts about his "accomplishments" on Twitter. 

Trump has also been untruthful or misleading about literally hundreds of things, so of course he's going to get more scrutiny/coverage. He sells himself to the media and he loves that attention. He's been all over the media his entire life by his own choice.