US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Gaudion M said:
A slight over reach from his role in the administration of a state with no connection with the southern border. These people are nuts.
Click to expand...

... ah, you noticed?

Looks like she was extrapolating wildly from a conversation 10 days ago.

Seems she has previous too.
www.independent.co.uk

Idaho governor, National Guard boss shun lt. gov. actions

Idaho Gov. Brad Little says he will rescind an executive order involving COVID-19 vaccines by Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

McGeachin - RWNJ Lt Gov
Garshak - head of the Idaho National Guard.

“As of Wednesday, my constitutional authority as Governor affords me the power of activating the Idaho National Guard,” McGeachin wrote to Garshak in the letter obtained by The Associated Press. “As the Adjutant General, I am requesting information from you on the steps needed for the Governor to activate the National Guard.”

Garshak replied with one paragraph on Tuesday afternoon.

“I am unaware of any request for Idaho National Guard assistance under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) from Texas or Arizona,” Garshak wrote, in part, to McGeachin. “As you are aware, the Idaho National Guard is not a law enforcement agency.”
 
Bigga said:
FFS!! More word salad from that grifter thicko-druggie-bookselling-champagne-socialist-millionaire Mr Brand!

Proud and honourable cabal members mute the vid and look away now lest he speak a truth...

Click to expand...

Honestly nothing ground breaking in that video and it’s 6 minutes in before he drops the stand up routine and even begins to address the question. Then his main source are quotes from a low circulation American magazine, not that that renders them any less relevant but I guess underlines the “not MSM” aspect.

Brand presents one side of the argument, having preceded and followed that with his suggestion to his viewers that they make up their own minds.

To the question, is Clinton a war criminal, considered here because someone shouted it at her, well I guess a proper analysis would start by giving a proper legal definition of a war criminal.

Was Clinton less than honest about the motives for US involvement in several military campaigns? Probably.

Did Clinton favour the needs of corporate America over it’s own citizens? Possibly

Did innocent people die as a result of American military action? No shit, it’s always a given.

Do we need Russell Brand to provide us the answers to these questions? No. In his own way he is preaching to his own flock and despite any claims that he is a speaker of some previously unseen “truth” he is just another man, with an audience, regurgitating someone else’s points here.

No disrespect but I find him a hard watch, not because he assails me with uncomfortable truths I might never have previously considered but because, well he’s got a pretty irritating style
 
journolud said:
Honestly nothing ground breaking in that video and it’s 6 minutes in before he drops the stand up routine and even begins to address the question. Then his main source are quotes from a low circulation American magazine, not that that renders them any less relevant but I guess underlines the “not MSM” aspect.

Brand presents one side of the argument, having preceded and followed that with his suggestion to his viewers that they make up their own minds.

To the question, is Clinton a war criminal, considered here because someone shouted it at her, well I guess a proper analysis would start by giving a proper legal definition of a war criminal.

Was Clinton less than honest about the motives for US involvement in several military campaigns? Probably.

Did Clinton favour the needs of corporate America over it’s own citizens? Possibly

Did innocent people die as a result of American military action? No shit, it’s always a given.

Do we need Russell Brand to provide us the answers to these questions? No. In his own way he is preaching to his own flock and despite any claims that he is a speaker of some previously unseen “truth” he is just another man, with an audience, regurgitating someone else’s points here.

No disrespect but I find him a hard watch, not because he assails me with uncomfortable truths I might never have previously considered but because, well he’s got a pretty irritating style
Click to expand...
It should really be on a thread about American history anyway because Hillary Clinton stopped being relevant in contemporary US politics almost 5 years ago. Can’t understand why some people are so obsessed with her.
 
journolud said:
Honestly nothing ground breaking in that video and it’s 6 minutes in before he drops the stand up routine and even begins to address the question. Then his main source are quotes from a low circulation American magazine, not that that renders them any less relevant but I guess underlines the “not MSM” aspect.

Brand presents one side of the argument, having preceded and followed that with his suggestion to his viewers that they make up their own minds.

To the question, is Clinton a war criminal, considered here because someone shouted it at her, well I guess a proper analysis would start by giving a proper legal definition of a war criminal.

Was Clinton less than honest about the motives for US involvement in several military campaigns? Probably.

Did Clinton favour the needs of corporate America over it’s own citizens? Possibly

Did innocent people die as a result of American military action? No shit, it’s always a given.

Do we need Russell Brand to provide us the answers to these questions? No. In his own way he is preaching to his own flock and despite any claims that he is a speaker of some previously unseen “truth” he is just another man, with an audience, regurgitating someone else’s points here.

No disrespect but I find him a hard watch, not because he assails me with uncomfortable truths I might never have previously considered but because, well he’s got a pretty irritating style
Click to expand...

The reason, as you point out in an offhand way, he reads from a smaller news outlets, such as 'Jacobin' et al, is because this coverage was not/ would not be covered in a similar fashion in MSM.

He has no choice as that is his only avenue, these days.

The rest of your post merely leans towards the affirmative more than denial, just without saying the word 'yes' as it sits like a stone on your tongue. I cannot understand the difficulty in saying 'yes'/ 'I agree'.

The 'flock' you say Brand 'preaches to' are people that tune in to listen to something alternative and that 'unspins' the media narrative, left or right. Would you say they're in the wrong, then?

Finally, yes, he can be a hard watch but I've learned to listen and look at the information past the style and crappy jokes. That's the important bit. That's where I am.

At least, though, there has been decent viewpoints expressed between us.
 
Bigga said:
The reason, as you point out in an offhand way, he reads from a smaller news outlets, such as 'Jacobin' et al, is because this coverage was not/ would not be covered in a similar fashion in MSM.

He has no choice as that is his only avenue, these days.

The rest of your post merely leans towards the affirmative more than denial, just without saying the word 'yes' as it sits like a stone on your tongue. I cannot understand the difficulty in saying 'yes'/ 'I agree'.

The 'flock' you say Brand 'preaches to' are people that tune in to listen to something alternative and that 'unspins' the media narrative, left or right. Would you say they're in the wrong, then?

Finally, yes, he can be a hard watch but I've learned to listen and look at the information past the style and crappy jokes. That's the important bit. That's where I am.

At least, though, there has been decent viewpoints expressed between us.
Click to expand...
If by being covered in a "similar fashion" you mean with a particular viewpoint already arrived at and an interpretation of events to support it you might be right. A quote from the article that Brand so extensively quoted himself;

She racked up quite the rap sheet during her time as secretary of state.

Here’s the short list of her crimes.

Hardly evidence of an objective assessment and to rely on it solely in his piece then Brand loses any pretences he might have himself of presenting "the facts" and allowing others to make their own mind up. It is true that using the same source material as Brand presumably did (ie the internet) there isn't a great deal out there but this from the Guardian (yes I know MSM but there is a danger in dismissing pertinent views either side just because of "the source") presents a more nuanced view

Hillary Clinton's record as secretary of state hints at possible presidential role | Hillary Clinton | The Guardian

The two articles were posted a couple of months apart.

Your suggestion that the word "yes" sits like a tongue on my stone is typical you I'm afraid, you've made an assumption about me which is purely subjective. That I lean towards the affirmative may be correct but I would need to have much more information before taking a definitive position, I wouldn't do it based on someone with a preconceived position (Brand) quoting from someone with the same preconceived position. Anyway, the initial and important point isn't addressed. Brand posted his piece in response to someone shouting at Clinton that she is a war criminal, emotive but again subjective. That Brand doesn't offer us a definition of a war criminal by which to measure her "crimes" and you sidestep the issue suggests that really it's a moot point. This from the UN points us in the right direction

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

There is perhaps a distinction to be made between someone guilty of war crimes and someone who made unwise, dishonest, self serving, disastrous decisions (you can insert your own adjective and I apply them generically here rather than directly to Clinton).

The "flock" that tunes in to Brand might be looking for an "alternative" view to those generally presented via the MSM but let's be honest they are looking for views that chime with their own. Brand doesn't unspin anything, he puts his own spin on it. Despite it's faults I would generally rather get my facts from carefully selected (as we all do) MSM outlets than a narrowly focussed "alternative" view. My own probably imperfect choices are the Independent, the BBC, to a lesser extent the Guardian and fact checking websites. These obviously reflect my left leaning tendencies and I would dismiss anything in the Express and Mail as being inevitably filtered through a world view that is opposed to mine.

We're agreed at least that Brand is a hard watch, my preference for comedians doing politics would be Stewart Lee and Jonathan Pie.
 
journolud said:
If by being covered in a "similar fashion" you mean with a particular viewpoint already arrived at and an interpretation of events to support it you might be right. A quote from the article that Brand so extensively quoted himself;

She racked up quite the rap sheet during her time as secretary of state.

Here’s the short list of her crimes.

Hardly evidence of an objective assessment and to rely on it solely in his piece then Brand loses any pretences he might have himself of presenting "the facts" and allowing others to make their own mind up. It is true that using the same source material as Brand presumably did (ie the internet) there isn't a great deal out there but this from the Guardian (yes I know MSM but there is a danger in dismissing pertinent views either side just because of "the source") presents a more nuanced view

Hillary Clinton's record as secretary of state hints at possible presidential role | Hillary Clinton | The Guardian

The two articles were posted a couple of months apart.

Your suggestion that the word "yes" sits like a tongue on my stone is typical you I'm afraid, you've made an assumption about me which is purely subjective. That I lean towards the affirmative may be correct but I would need to have much more information before taking a definitive position, I wouldn't do it based on someone with a preconceived position (Brand) quoting from someone with the same preconceived position. Anyway, the initial and important point isn't addressed. Brand posted his piece in response to someone shouting at Clinton that she is a war criminal, emotive but again subjective. That Brand doesn't offer us a definition of a war criminal by which to measure her "crimes" and you sidestep the issue suggests that really it's a moot point. This from the UN points us in the right direction

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

There is perhaps a distinction to be made between someone guilty of war crimes and someone who made unwise, dishonest, self serving, disastrous decisions (you can insert your own adjective and I apply them generically here rather than directly to Clinton).

The "flock" that tunes in to Brand might be looking for an "alternative" view to those generally presented via the MSM but let's be honest they are looking for views that chime with their own. Brand doesn't unspin anything, he puts his own spin on it. Despite it's faults I would generally rather get my facts from carefully selected (as we all do) MSM outlets than a narrowly focussed "alternative" view. My own probably imperfect choices are the Independent, the BBC, to a lesser extent the Guardian and fact checking websites. These obviously reflect my left leaning tendencies and I would dismiss anything in the Express and Mail as being inevitably filtered through a world view that is opposed to mine.

We're agreed at least that Brand is a hard watch, my preference for comedians doing politics would be Stewart Lee and Jonathan Pie.
Click to expand...

Thanks, an interesting response.

A few points, if I may...

Like Brand did I, myself, would have bypassed certain lines of personal views, such as the one you quoted from the article is it was pointless information. You have chosen to include the article's personal view which, somehow, you think should undercut the main point of it...

What is your position on The Clintons, The Bushs' (Rumsfeld, Cheney et al) and Blair and co when it comes to the war criminal accusation? Because they all sit under the same shadow. Should they looked upon with nuance too?

Clinton happened to be the one given this dubious ceremony at the time on foreign soil. You've noticed, I hope, the railing against such people being lauded in public of late, non?

My comment about you're 'fence-sitting' is line with what I've written above; that you seem be 'impartial' about the involvement of such acts that have created death and misery of millions of people, home and abroad, in gain of power and wealth because... 'evidence'? I'm not sure as it's puzzling at seeing dead people with lives shortened in the name of lies.


I, myself, like to thread the needle on subjects from a wider reading digestion, which is also why I can remember stuff people alter/ leave out in their presentations of viewpoints and offer a caveat to their reasoning. I don't mind people doing that to me if I'm happy to do that to them.

It's discussion, after all.

And, finally, preferring the more jovial characters of Lee and Pie arriving at the same point as Brand, ultimately, is... arriving at the same point.
 
Bigga said:
Thanks, an interesting response.

A few points, if I may...

Like Brand did I, myself, would have bypassed certain lines of personal views, such as the one you quoted from the article is it was pointless information. You have chosen to include the article's personal view which, somehow, you think should undercut the main point of it...

What is your position on The Clintons, The Bushs' (Rumsfeld, Cheney et al) and Blair and co when it comes to the war criminal accusation? Because they all sit under the same shadow. Should they looked upon with nuance too?

Clinton happened to be the one given this dubious ceremony at the time on foreign soil. You've noticed, I hope, the railing against such people being lauded in public of late, non?

My comment about you're 'fence-sitting' is line with what I've written above; that you seem be 'impartial' about the involvement of such acts that have created death and misery of millions of people, home and abroad, in gain of power and wealth because... 'evidence'? I'm not sure as it's puzzling at seeing dead people with lives shortened in the name of lies.


I, myself, like to thread the needle on subjects from a wider reading digestion, which is also why I can remember stuff people alter/ leave out in their presentations of viewpoints and offer a caveat to their reasoning. I don't mind people doing that to me if I'm happy to do that to them.

It's discussion, after all.

And, finally, preferring the more jovial characters of Lee and Pie arriving at the same point as Brand, ultimately, is... arriving at the same point.
Click to expand...
A quick response because we’re off to have a meal and watch the Bond movie shortly. My stance on the war criminal accusation? I like terms like that when they are thrown about to be legally accurate, not based on emotion. Someone with a better understanding than me could say whether they fit the bill or not. I suspect they don’t.

Do I support the decisions they made? Absolutely not, they were metaphorically criminal if not leading to acts that were legally criminal.I can’t understand why we and the Americans seem fit to intervene as much as they do
 
journolud said:
A quick response because we’re off to have a meal and watch the Bond movie shortly. My stance on the war criminal accusation? I like terms like that when they are thrown about to be legally accurate, not based on emotion. Someone with a better understanding than me could say whether they fit the bill or not. I suspect they don’t.

Do I support the decisions they made? Absolutely not, they were metaphorically criminal if not leading to acts that were legally criminal.I can’t understand why we and the Americans seem fit to intervene as much as they do
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Ah a thread about US Politics, I just knew there was going to be people here fighting.

On topic though ,I just want to see AOC president one day.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Trump has done more in 5 years to undermine US democracy than Hilary and Bill Clinton ever did in their combined 70 years+ in politics.
Click to expand...

The Clintons' policies in imprisonment of minorities, low wages, lack of healthcare and war invited characters like Trump who was a non-political(I say that but he threw money into the Clinton funds) conman figure to throw his hat into the ring... and win.

Perhaps you should expand the thinking to beyond 5 years.
 
Bigga said:
The Clintons' policies in imprisonment of minorities, low wages, lack of healthcare and war invited characters like Trump who was a non-political(I say that but he threw money into the Clinton funds) conman figure to throw his hat into the ring... and win.

Perhaps you should expand the thinking to beyond 5 years.
Click to expand...
Blaming the Clinton's for Trump is a bit of a stretch, even for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top