The All Things Political Topic - Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

[Gfted1]

7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Its disappointing when people mischaracterize you but it doesnt often happen so I cant say Im sick and tired of it because I dont get offended or really worry about it...but yes its disappointing. I dont want to attribute false emotion to how I feel 

Dont let it get you down BVC, its part and parcel for debating on this forum. I know youve been around for a while but heres a few protips of what you can expect:

1) Immediately, and vociferously, qq about any post, from any poster, that doesnt align with your viewpoints. If you remember nothing else remember this.

2) Always address the poster, not the post. Always.

3) Declare yourself the victor of the debate.

4) Failing #1 and #2, trot out a victim mentality. "<poster> aint being genuine!"

5) Its low hanging fruit, but labeling somebody an -ist.

[Malcador]

Found out Alex Jones said Biden has a weather control device, and used it to devastate Texas. So maybe he will freeze the ground in Ukraine for Putin.

[Sarex]

 

[Darkpriest]

I just can't get enough word to describe the level of stupid on US side... 

The recent incident of tresspassing territorial waters near Kuril Islands during Russian Navy trainigs, a day after US seems to bent on telling the world that Russia wants war in Ukraine, seems like the last thing you'd want to do, if you want de-escalation. 

Is Biden's admin really this stupid? 

Why have US submarine doing this during such a time? 

This will only get framed into a hostile provocation and be shown as US being aggresors and put credibility into voices that US is endangering Russias safety. 

Even effin Bernie S. said recently, that perhaps there should be a step back taken to get a better perspective at Russian concerns... 

[Malcador]

Is it actually true though?

[Darkpriest]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Is it actually true though?

If they calle US attache, then I'd assume so... 

[Malcador]

Ah the Russians have exercises in the area, that explains some of it.  Curious.

[Malcador]

In other news, the truckers blocking the bridge are starting to be dealt with, after they caused the supply chain issues they were partly complaining about. 

Still can't get over these hardman WASPs flying flags with a censored F word, though

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

49 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Still can't get over these hardman WASPs flying flags with a censored F word, though

That's the funniest thing about this tbh.

[Zoraptor]

15 hours ago, Gorth said:

I'm mostly very, very disappointed in the performance of western diplomacy, the UK in particular, sending probably the single most inept individual they had to do a grown up's work. For heavens sake, if they don't have any skilled politicians, send a professional, like a career diplomat as a representative. What happened was a woman completely out of depth wasting hours of everybody's time, and worse, proving to the Russians, that the UK has no interest in peace or diplomacy at all.

The articles deal with that fine, really- on the British side it was always intended as political theatre and not as constructive diplomacy; and quite possibly even intended to be actively destructive to attempts at diplomacy. She was always going there with the explicit purpose of looking tough. Hence cosplaying Thatcher despite it being comparatively bikini weather (with apologies to anyone now imagining Maggie in a bikini). It mostly failed at looking tough because it got overshadowed by her looking stupid, at least for the publications that published her looking stupid (which it has to be said many didn't for some reason).

The British approach has always been to pour oil on the flames- there was also that ludicrous incident with the RN destroyer months ago and them panicking about reports from the bbc and daily fail they'd run away from warning shots. If you're in a domestic crisis you always have the option to wag the dog.

12 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Even the last raid on the ISIS leader seems to have more and more info emerging, that it wasn't so clean and a lot of explosions happened, which killed civilians.

As with the bombing of that aid worker and his children* in Kabul it was pretty obvious from the start that the US version was at best... selective.

*Hmm. Wonder whether that guy's family will get a 3.5bn slush fund for compensation? I'll offer, hmm, 3.5bn to 1 odds, and feel a bit dirty taking the $1.

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

Is it actually true though?

Probably, as the US does not accept Russian sovereignty over the southern Kurils. Indeed, they don't actually recognise anyone's sovereignty over two of them. Which may be a hold back to Truman's demand that the Soviets hand one of the Kurils over to the US for basing rights...

[Gromnir]

having recent seen more than a few op eds and pundit handwringing regarding merrick garland's silence insofar as trump investigations, am thinking is worth taking a moment to consider that there is no fast approaching statute o' limitations on the obstruction o' justice offenses, or near any other crime people has suggested trump and his cronies could be charged. is plenty o' time and the biggest mistake would be moving too soon and before doj were certain they could make charges stick.

Don’t believe the hype about the statute of limitations

is no reason to afeared o' the statute o' limitations and merrick garland most definite does not need speak to the public regarding the current status o' any possible fed investigations related to the trump campaign and trump personal.

have seen it mentioned previous on this board how the failure to charge given how much time has passed can be taken as evidence there will not be charges forthcoming. hogwash. merrick garland should wait until he gots multiple credible witnesses willing to testify and that is more likely to happen as the other state, fed and Congressional investigations run their course.

now as to why the january 6 Congressional committee isn't motivated to move a bit quicker, am admitted baffled.

regardless, if anybody reads an article which suggests the statute o' limitations on trump charges is gonna run in the immediate future, just ignore. 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

@Gorth and @Zoraptor

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/kate-o-connell-women-appearance-politics-2311912-Sep2015/

If you interested here is what I was talking about how their is form of sexism where women are judged on what they wear and not in the same way men are judged which often has nothing to do with their appearance 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

@Gorth and @Zoraptor

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/kate-o-connell-women-appearance-politics-2311912-Sep2015/

If you interested here is what I was talking about how their is form of sexism where women are judged on what they wear and not in the same way men are judged which often has nothing to do with their appearance 

You're still completely missing the point Bruce. It's not about dressing "austere" or "sexy". It's about what looked like a deliberate attempt to mimic the look and feel of a party predecessor (surprised she didn't dye her hair red too), yet without having any of said predecessors abilities. You know, imitation being a form of flattery... unless you completely botch the job, in which case it's just sad. She wasn't there for any other reason than domestic opinion polls (which are nosediving for the Johnson government because of some hedonistic escapades in the government buildings during the strictest phase of lockdowns) and wasting the rest of the worlds time while doing it (and worse, reducing the chances of de-escalation any time soon).

[Chairchucker]

On 2/11/2022 at 5:37 PM, BruceVC said:

Im disappointed you are comfortable handwaving the actual reality and lived experiences of many people in our societies,  you dont make a very convincing argument when you cant support your own view?

Generally speaking, anecdotal evidence is less than worthless. Definitely true in this case. It shouldn't be too surprising that you prefer it over the actual reliable evidence that is what studies generate, because that tends to be what humans prefer. See also: antivaxxers who aren't interested in hearing about the stats that overwhelmingly show that being vaccinated gives you on average a way better chance of surviving any given illness, but may be somewhat persuaded by a single person telling their own personal story of how not being vaccinated led to illness. In any case, the benefit of studies is, if they are actually using a decent sample size, they will include the 'lived experiences' of a large number of people, and will actually reliably measure these against each other free from the individual biases of those who experienced it. That's not to say that studies will be free from biases, but that's what peer reviews and having a large number of related studies will help. As Gromnir notes, while the specific study I found with a hasty internet search might have its issues, it does have the benefit of being backed up by the overwhelming bulk of studies on the subject.

 

'I turned out fine' or 'it was helpful for me' is relatively meaningless because most people consider themselves to have turned out fine, and don't really have anything to compare against. Also, that's one isolated occurrence, whereas studies with a larger sample size than one can find you overall positive and negative trends.

 

Also, if someone's good behaviour is predicated on corporal punishment, does that mean we can expect the good behaviour to dry up if they no longer fear that corporal punishment? Let's say someone is 'kept in line' by corporal punishment until they become bigger than the person who was previously meting out said punishment. What then? The reason for their good behaviour is gone, except also you've taught them that they can get their way by dealing out 'corporal punishment' to those weaker than themselves.

 

Also, I see someone suggest group punishments, i.e. punishing everyone but the perpetrator. Interesting to note that in armed conflicts, group punishment is specifically disallowed by the Geneva Convention. I assume that poster was merely joking, however, as they hinted at punishing everyone else and the situation would 'sort itself out', presumably implying that the rest of the students would in some way induce that one student to comply. I assume that poster didn't genuinely think that could possibly be a positive thing, having a whole group gang up on one student.

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You're still completely missing the point Bruce. It's not about dressing "austere" or "sexy". It's about what looked like a deliberate attempt to mimic the look and feel of a party predecessor (surprised she didn't dye her hair red too), yet without having any of said predecessors abilities. You know, imitation being a form of flattery... unless you completely botch the job, in which case it's just sad. She wasn't there for any other reason than domestic opinion polls (which are nosediving for the Johnson government because of some hedonistic escapades in the government buildings during the strictest phase of lockdowns) and wasting the rest of the worlds time while doing it (and worse, reducing the chances of de-escalation any time soon).

I just posted that link because I wasn't  sure if you guys were aware of it, it had nothing anymore to do with the meeting with Lavrov which is why I didnt mention it when I made this post 

[Zoraptor]

I really couldn't care less about what politicians wear, unless it's actively stupid. Unfortunately Truss's outfit was.

I do very much enjoy the annual APEC silly shirt competition though. And very occasionally you get an outfit I'd 100% unironically wear.

[Elerond]

23 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Thats what I meant, when telling @BruceVCthat US gov just stole 7bn from Afghanistan.

Technically they weren't Afghanistan's money but international aid to rebuild Afghanistan, which is why they were in US and why US was able to freeze them and take over them.  They were mostly money paid by US tax payers.

EDIT: They were Afghanistan's money in sense that they were promised to them and there was already budgeted targets for them, but all those projects were cancelled when Taliban took over, so technically Taliban should start again all those projects again in order to get access to that money. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Elerond

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

having recent seen more than a few op eds and pundit handwringing regarding merrick garland's silence insofar as trump investigations, am thinking is worth taking a moment to consider that there is no fast approaching statute o' limitations on the obstruction o' justice offenses, or near any other crime people has suggested trump and his cronies could be charged. is plenty o' time and the biggest mistake would be moving too soon and before doj were certain they could make charges stick.

Don’t believe the hype about the statute of limitations

is no reason to afeared o' the statute o' limitations and merrick garland most definite does not need speak to the public regarding the current status o' any possible fed investigations related to the trump campaign and trump personal.

have seen it mentioned previous on this board how the failure to charge given how much time has passed can be taken as evidence there will not be charges forthcoming. hogwash. merrick garland should wait until he gots multiple credible witnesses willing to testify and that is more likely to happen as the other state, fed and Congressional investigations run their course.

now as to why the january 6 Congressional committee isn't motivated to move a bit quicker, am admitted baffled.

regardless, if anybody reads an article which suggests the statute o' limitations on trump charges is gonna run in the immediate future, just ignore. 

HA! Good Fun!

Regarding the Jan 6 Commission one theory is they have no real motivation to reach a conclusion. The idea is to keep it in the news cycle through 2024. It terms of politics it's not a bad plan if that IS the plan. Plenty of hay to be made in that hayfield. But in terms of seeking actual justice it sucks. Again, if true. It would be short sighted. There is a very good chance control of Congress will change. If that happens the whole thing will likely be scuttled and I would like to read their conclusions. 

As for Garland, I am not impressed with him. I am very pleased he is not on the Supreme Court. It was dirty pool the way the Senate treated his nomination. They should have given him his Confirmation Hearing and voted not to confirm him. Declining to hear his nomination and THEN seating Kavanaugh under the exact same circumstances only makes the government hating cynics more hating and more cynical. But I would like to see him kill off Trump's political fortunes for good and all with a few indictments. Even if not of him just close enough. I have no doubt there is ample evidence to demand such.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Guard Dog

[Darkpriest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/surreal-plot-twist-ukraines-president-demands-proof-us-over-russian-invasion-claims

Why instead of confirming details, US admin is pushing this narrative. Is it supposed to drive votes for them in midterms? 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-says-diplomacy-still-open-end-ukraine-standoff-with-russia-2022-02-13/

They can't even confirm it as asked by Ukraine. They can't even confirm themselves, yet they stoke fear an panic? 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-intelligence-idUSKBN2KI0ES

 

This is Alex Jones level of political activism.... 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Darkpriest]

5 hours ago, Elerond said:

Technically they weren't Afghanistan's money but international aid to rebuild Afghanistan, which is why they were in US and why US was able to freeze them and take over them.  They were mostly money paid by US tax payers.

EDIT: They were Afghanistan's money in sense that they were promised to them and there was already budgeted targets for them, but all those projects were cancelled when Taliban took over, so technically Taliban should start again all those projects again in order to get access to that money. 

Funny, and here I thought these were foreign held assets of Afghan's Central bank, and not some special purpose international fund with some free aid money. 

I might be wrong on the originbof these assets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_frozen_assets

But then, I'd like to see a proof of them being some special purpose aid, which is dated prior to Taliban take over. 

[Darkpriest]

Anyone can tell a bit more on this topic? 

Seems that not much is covered on sites like Reuters. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bigger-watergate-trump-furious-after-durham-spy-scandal-bombshell-demands-prosecutions

Edited February 13, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Funny, and here I thought these were foreign held assets of Afghan's Central bank, and not some special purpose international fund with some free aid money.

The Afghans had ~7bn USD in gold and foreign currency (USD) reserves, held in the US (at the New York Federal Reserve); but starting at the latest in 2017, ie 5 years ago. So it's certainly not from recent donations.

The ultimate source probably was aid though, as Afghanistan had few ways to accumulate cash otherwise, eg less than 1bn in exports. It was definitively Aghanistan's money legally though, you can't get more formal than held by its central bank.

Main lesson: don't use the US to store your cash.

[pmp10]

Ukraine has to allocate millions just to keep airlines flying.
If this panic spreading is a cynical game by the US then they are handing Putin a serious win.

[rjshae]

33 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Ukraine has to allocate millions just to keep airlines flying.
If this panic spreading is a cynical game by the US then they are handing Putin a serious win.

You mean this was all just Putin's plan to make Ukrainians pay more for airplane tickets? Ah. 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

The Afghans had ~7bn USD in gold and foreign currency (USD) reserves, held in the US (at the New York Federal Reserve); but starting at the latest in 2017, ie 5 years ago. So it's certainly not from recent donations.

The ultimate source probably was aid though, as Afghanistan had few ways to accumulate cash otherwise, eg less than 1bn in exports. It was definitively Aghanistan's money legally though, you can't get more formal than held by its central bank.

Main lesson: don't use the US to store your cash.

In 2017 Afghanistan's budget balance was in -2.5 billion dollars  and it got worse after that, but they have only 1.3 billion of debt, so without foreign aid there would be nothing left of those 7 billion worth of assets today.

Also currently Da Afghanistan Bank does not have official leadership and it does not have official position in Taliban governance, so its formality is not that simple. 

Taliban is also bit on thin ice when complaining about US seizing those funds considering how much foreign assets Taliban seized when they took over the Afghanistan