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

[Gromnir]

is amusing how the conspiracy theorists who so often see the evil imperial predations o' western powers as the cause o' every conflict, nevertheless look at putin and shrug off 2014 and the current mass build up o' russian troops along the ukranian border as nothing but some kinda convenient conjured nightmare feeding unreasonable western biases. 

is hardly just the US and US journalists who seemed to believe the russians were making aggressive moves, but the fog o' war makes many look foolish and is impossible to tell if s'posed  pentagon sources were wrong or that putin has simply blinked... or if the s'posed russian draw down is even real. is precise why Gromnir hasn't commented 'cause the only thing which is certain is the uncertainty, and given uncertainty o' the situation and 100k russian troops as well as any number o' russian comments which cause greater concern as 'posed to dispelling fears, the reasonable response o' the genuine skeptic is to prepare for a worst case scenario. but skepticism is in curious short supply in the thread.

'course MAD makes acting on such reasonable fears a dangerous proposition considering that there were not enough time to discern reality before needing commit to terrible responses. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps and again, us journalists citing, "pentagon sources say," is hardly pundits beating drums o' war. we can't recall any reputable US pundit suggesting that staring a war with russia would be good. report troop buildup and an imminent threat doesn't result in war being more likely. actual reports o' russian invasion woulda' been required to get folks on the side o' a military response, regardless o' notions o' reporter accuracy.

tell us reporters knowing false reported an actual russian invasion or attack? then yeah, am seeing the point, but again, 2014, crimea and hundreds o' thousands o' russian troops on the border o' ukraine would make any reasonable person cautious and skeptical. power politics model makes doing nothing in such a situation naïve in the extreme. but am hardly blaming pundits for being nervous. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

31 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

That shouting can't last forever tho, media is bound to get bored eventually.
The diplomatic rumors I heard is that major backing down by Ukraine is only a matter of time and face-saving pretenses. 

That seems likely, there have been a few too many 'accidental' mentions of Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO in the last few days that look far too much like proposals being floated.

Zelensky's patience with some of the pro war rhetoric from the UK and US has also clearly run out, since he's being about as overtly passive aggressive about things like the announcement of the Feb 16th invasion date as I've ever seen a politician be with supposed close friends.

[Gromnir]

aside:

we got no idea who is reporting accurate regarding russia-ukraine. am sure not trusting US reporters citing unnamed pentagon sources, 'cause am understanding more than a few reporters is trying to be the individual who breaks something new and important, and for all we know their pentagon source is some glorified office functionary with no real knowledge o' anything beyond what they see on cnn or fox. am sure not believing the russians and their state media.

when a situation is so clear subject to uncertainty, is conflicting reports and the possibility o' simple mistake is high, we always advise caution, which is why you ain't gonna see us comment on the accuracy o' any reporting 'til the situation is less chaotic.

even so, we got multiple nato nations (pretty much all but germany) clear concerned by the current situation as they is changing behaviours and not just dialogue. got past lessons o' crimea. got lots o' russian troops. gotta be at least a little concerned unless you is trying real hard not to be.

am gonna take a wait-and-see approach. if russia invades and there is reputable reporting o' such, then...

 

reminder:

am not particular concerned 'bout the so-called beating o' the drums o' war.

HA! Good Fun!

ps can't believe this is a necessary clarification, but am seeing numerous persons conflate reporting o' war being imminent with pro-war/advocacy o' war. not the same thing. there may be reporting o' imminent invasion from a source most assured opposed to any sorta military action. converse, is possible to indeed be advocating war and suggest war is imminent. regardless, those who keep using terms interchangeable is either intentional or accidental misleading. 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

44 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

That seems likely, there have been a few too many 'accidental' mentions of Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO in the last few days that look far too much like proposals being floated.

Zelensky's patience with some of the pro war rhetoric from the UK and US has also clearly run out, since he's being about as overtly passive aggressive about things like the announcement of the Feb 16th invasion date as I've ever seen a politician be with supposed close friends.

Can you give one example where the governments of USA and UK are "pro- war " and want a  war with Russia?

Just one? And as usual please include a link so I can confirm the veracity of your point 

As I mentioned in the past their was never a direct war between the  West and Russia even during the Cold War because of the reality of mutually assured destruction due to nuclear weapons so  I find it strange that I hear this argument that in the year 2022 suddenly the West wants war with Russia  ?

[Gromnir]

trump removes some o' the guesswork linked to unreliable reporting by self publishing evidence which undermines his defense.

weren't investigative reporting which uncovered this letter, but trump sharing after the mazars withdrawal were announced. 

...

insanity defense is not an option, and the courts ain't subject to ordinary gaslighting, so am not sure what were the rationale behind offering up the letter.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir

[Chairchucker]

I get the impression that a prime motivator for Trump is generally 'bragging about how rich he is'.

[Gromnir]

is no question threats to trump's financial manhood is likely to garner a response, a response involving his worst fabulist instincts. tim o'brien knows more 'bout trump taxes and trump's reflexive efforts to go comic bigly with narratives o' his personal monetary power than just 'bout anybody. even so, this kinda self-sabotage by trump is... irrational. shouldn't surprise us trump is incapable o' showing restraint even when is a matter o' self preservation, but the trump fortunes is not gonna improve 'cause he is providing his many outstanding creditors with literal cause to call in his outstanding loans.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gorth]

Iirc, his next major bankruptcy (if one such happens, which would not be unlikely if he ends up behind bars some day) would be his fifth. Gotta give him, he can sell sand in Sahara the way he can repeatedly con investors into giving him money time after time.

[Gromnir]

quixotic and counter-intuitive, trump huge losses, losses borne for the most part by investors, is the basis o' a significant portion o' the success he has enjoyed. trump is able to carry forward business losses to offset his personal taxes. literal nobody has ever exploited losses the way trump has, which is why his taxes has been in perpetual audit forever and his historical refund is in seeming limbo. am knowing it don't make sense, but the fact trump lost so much money is how he survived being ~$1BILLION in debt... or possible more.

...

but again, am not shocked by trump wild embellishing his assets. what is curious is his proffer o' a letter from his now former accountant which explains that decades worth o' financial disclosures from trump is at the least not conforming with GAAP but also raising serious concerns as to legitimacy. so why offer the letter?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir

[Chairchucker]

I remember hearing that at the roast of Trump, the only thing that was 'off limits' was that roasters weren't allowed to suggest that Trump has less money than he said he did.

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

so why offer the letter?

HA! Good Fun!

He is an impulsive and irrational actor.  Exactly who you don't want in positions of power. The problem with life is you get the test first and the lesson after. 

But don't be too harsh on 2016 America. If the other candidate had been anyone other than Hillary Clinton he would never have won I think. 

[Gorth]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

He is an impulsive and irrational actor.  Exactly who you don't want in positions of power. The problem with life is you get the test first and the lesson after. 

But don't be too harsh on 2016 America. If the other candidate had been anyone other than Hillary Clinton he would never have won I think. 

So... 4 years with Bernie Sanders then

[BruceVC]

37 minutes ago, Gorth said:

So... 4 years with Bernie Sanders then

Thats scary and that would have been worse than Trump....the US becoming another failed socialist experiment is not ideal 

I think Hilary was the best Democrat candidate of the possible candidates 

Edited February 16, 2022 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

9 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 

I think Hilary was the best Democrat candidate of the possible candidates 

No way. Jim Webb would have made the best President on the Dems. But he had no shot because he was a Blue Dog, Vietnam Vet AND a war hero (Navy Cross) and wasn't a communist. He wasn't into social justice and didn't think Fidel Castro was the greatest leader of the 20th Century so he had no shot of being nominated. But he would have been a competent and moderate President. Not flashy, not in the news every day. Bob Bullock in 2020 was in the same mold. Ditto for Bill Weld on the GOP side in 2020. In 2016 there were a number of GOP candidates that would have made a decent and competent caretaker of the executive office. But with the crazies controlling the nomination process candidates like that will be culled out every time. 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

No way. Jim Webb would have made the best President on the Dems. But he had no shot because he was a Blue Dog, Vietnam Vet AND a war hero (Navy Cross) and wasn't a communist. He wasn't into social justice and didn't think Fidel Castro was the greatest leader of the 20th Century so he had no shot of being nominated. But he would have been a competent and moderate President. Not flashy, not in the news every day. Bob Bullock in 2020 was in the same mold. Ditto for Bill Weld on the GOP side in 2020. In 2016 there were a number of GOP candidates that would have made a decent and competent caretaker of the executive office. But with the crazies controlling the nomination process candidates like that will be culled out every time. 

He does sounds ideal, I dont remember him being one of candidates but I see he was 

I see he stepped down and you right. He mentions ""not comfortable" with many political positions from the party's leadership " . Imagine how different the Democrats would be under his leadership

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

[Gfted1]

19 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

...the US becoming another failed socialist experiment is not ideal

No way, Jose! With the fatcats hoarding 90% of the wealth we could totally make it work by making them PAY. Well start small with UBI and UHC and in a few years expand it to UFH and UFE. Hmm, maybe I should become president.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Gfted1 said:

No way, Jose! With the fatcats hoarding 90% of the wealth we could totally make it work by making them PAY. Well start small with UBI and UHC and in a few years expand it to UFH and UFE. Hmm, maybe I should become president.

You should, I mentioned in the past I would vote for you if I could vote ...think of all the fatcat perks you would gain 

[Gfted1]

Why do you think it wont work? If Dolly can spring for things like UFE, then our government can too.  

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Why do you think it wont work? If Dolly can spring for things like UFE, then our government can too.  

Im sure expecting the wealthiest people in the US to fund stimulus programs would be challenged both legally and Constitutionally?

Also you would need a constant source of revenue from them to fund national stimulus programs so how much would it cost? That would have to be the first step in taxing " the 1% " and then what makes it more complicated is that no country has ever implemented nation wide programs like UBI before. Their are only pilot projects and limited examples to test and understand what it means and its impact throughout the world 

Would you really feel comfortable with the US being the first country to see if it works? And then programs like UBI can potentially lead to an increase in inflation and economies getting weaker like we seeing at the moment with this global inflation and issues with the supply chain 

But the main concern IMO is I would like to see other countries who have implemented nationwide programs like UBI and then see the outcome? 

[Keyrock]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

With the fatcats hoarding 90% of the wealth 

90%? What magical utopia are you living in? It's probably closer to 98 or 99%.

[Gfted1]

15 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Im sure expecting the wealthiest people in the US to fund stimulus programs would be challenged both legally and Constitutionally?

I dont think theres anything in the constitution about that. 

16 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Also you would need a constant source of revenue from them to fund national stimulus programs so how much would it cost?

Tax, tax, tax! Well simply tax ourselves into prosperity.

19 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But the main concern IMO is I would like to see other countries who have implemented nationwide programs like UBI and then see the outcome?

We cant wait around forever. Just because it hasnt worked yet doesnt mean it cant work. And I have more years behind me than in front of me so Im totally down for the US to give it a shot. If it doesnt work, not me or mines problem.

16 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

90%? What magical utopia are you living in? It's probably closer to 98 or 99%.

I got my information from a pamphlet I found on my windshield. The numbers could be off +/- 10%.

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I dont think theres anything in the constitution about that. 

Tax, tax, tax! Well simply tax ourselves into prosperity.

We cant wait around forever. Just because it hasnt worked yet doesnt mean it cant work. And I have more years behind me than in front of me so Im totally down for the US to give it a shot. If it doesnt work, not me or mines problem.

I got my information from a pamphlet I found on my windshield. The numbers could be off +/- 10%.

I think I am the only person on this forum who doesnt live in a first world country and real  inequality and poverty doesnt exist in first world countries. And obviously I am not  suggesting I live in poverty but its exists in SA and I have seen it throughout Africa in certain countries where bad leadership and lack of governance and prudent economic policies is a direct consequence to people becoming indigent for generations....no jokes but decades 

If you look at the collapse of countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela you will notice from the timelines that these countries use to be functional and then because of deeply flawed government policies within 10-12 years of implementing these policies they ended up broken

So the reality is it is possible for a bad government to destroy the livelihoods of most of its citizens after a decade or so. So if the US implemented stimulus programs that had the end result of hurting the economy it would effect everyone and all families except for the people in government who always have wealth due to taxes and the fact they government. You will notice even in the worst run countries in the world the people aligned to government always have resources and nice things...they avoid suffering like the citizens 

Now its not possible to predict the economic outcome and results of a program like UBI in the US but I ask again, would you really be prepared to take that risk ? 

 

 

 

[Gfted1]

21 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Now its not possible to predict the economic outcome and results of a program like UBI in the US but I ask again, would you really be prepared to take that risk ? 

Thats a good question. I think it will help you understand my position when I say; I dont spend energy worrying about futures that me or my loved ones wont be around for. I only really care about the next ~60 years. So with that in mind, Id be willing to roll the dice on UBI, and if it works, phasing in other programs. Generational poverty is already real in the US and I personally know people that are poor, their parents were poor and their grandparents were poor. The US doesnt have to go full Venezuela to provide me my basic inalienable human rights.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Thats a good question. I think it will help you understand my position when I say; I dont spend energy worrying about futures that me or my loved ones wont be around for. I only really care about the next ~60 years. So with that in mind, Id be willing to roll the dice on UBI, and if it works, phasing in other programs. Generational poverty is already real in the US and I personally know people that are poor, their parents were poor and their grandparents were poor. The US doesnt have to go full Venezuela to provide me my basic inalienable human rights.

Fair enough, end of the day it will be US citizens who decide and live with the good and bad of new government policies 

[Gfted1]

Iirc, you were born in the UK? Dont they already provide UHC and UFE? How are they doing it?