Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Wait, I thought this was a U.N. thing? Only the U.S. had this nuclear deal with Iran and only the U.S. is responsible for keeping track and enforcement? If that's the case then I'm glad we pulled out, we don't need to be the world's sheriff.
It was an agreement between United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China, Germany and the European Union with Iran. The US was not responsible for enforcement. Trump decided he didn't like the treaty and torched it by putting sanctions back on. The US also announced they would put sanctions on any company that did business with Iran, thus making it impossible for the other countries to really continue because European companies would get hit by sanctions. So basically, Trump ruined it for everyone.
weren't some of the sanctions because of human rights abuses and terrorism?
yes. But as america should have learned a long time ago, you cannot use violence alone to get what you want. Sanctions are fine, but then you have to actually use diplomacy. Trump just burned the attempts at diplomacy and ramped up more violence.
are their human rights to a level where they should no longer be sanctioned for them?
I don't think anyone said that all sanctions would be dropped, they would be eased. That is the point of diplomacy, it is a give and take. Trump just wants to extort countries into doing what he tells them. And when they refuse, he resorts to extortion and violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
better how? worse how? what exactly has been different in the past 3 years?
Diplomatic relations had been opened. They agreed to suspend working on nuclear weapons. Now there is no diplomacy even possible. They have resumed working on their nuclear weapons. And they are almost certainly going to carry out attacks on americans in the coming weeks. And as of this moment, the US government has provided no evidence iran has had any part in any attacks on americans lately.
looks like the major sanction started in 95, but tell me again who is putting on sanctions?
Obama had reached an agreement with them. Sanctions were beginning to ease when trump burned that agreement to the ground and slapped new sanctions on them. So the answer is trump is putting on sanctions.
UN reports increasing violations of Iran nuclear deal
lol you don't say? You mean the Iranians started doing minor violations of a treaty america broke months ago? Those bastards!!!! how dare they not strictly adhere to a treaty america has already completely broken. And not only broken, but extorted others into breaking it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you think there could be peace with Iran?
Of course there can. Although with Trump betraying them it is much harder now. They will likely have a very hard time ever trusting america to keep it's word.
Do you think we should deliver them pallets of cash, lift sanctions and let them do what they want?
If by deliver pallets of cash you mean "return money america stole from them". Then yes. Lift sanctions, yeah that is going to be a requirement. Let them do whatever they want? no. That is what agreements are for. If trump hadn't torn it up, we would have one of those.
Things have been escalating for a very long time, under many presidents.
That's true. But under Obama things started to get better. Then trump tore up the agreement and started trying to kick Iran around again.
Do you turn the other cheek with a bully?
In this scenario, America is the bully. They are the ones putting in sanctions, murdering generals etc. after having already agreed to a treaty then almost immediately torching it. Iran lived up to their side, america didn't.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's not true, there have been presidents who have won both the electoral college and popular vote and those who have not.
In some cases, the states that the electoral college gives extra power to agree with the majority. Sometimes it does not. That is not a defense of giving certain groups of people more power than others.
go back and read post #6 a reply to you.
That didn't answer anything. I have no idea who "governor blackface" is or what he has done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
too overly simplistic and I don't think accurate. Why would he want to attack Iran?
There is a trump tweet for everything. Here is trump explaining why he wants to attack Iran.
I could agree that this was a message or warning. I could agree that it really was done to protect U.S. lives etc. But not that he simply just wanted to attack Iran.
He tore up a peace agreement. He ramped up sanctions killing countless Iranians as they can't get food or medicine. He torpedoed any attempt to reign in the selling of weapons to Saudis (that the saudi's then used to bomb civilians allied with Iran). He ordered an attack on an iranian base which he only called off at the last second. He murdered an Iranian general who was on a diplomatic mission. Basically, every single action trump has taken towards Iran since becoming president has escalated tensions and made war more likely.
(ever watch The Blacklist?)
no
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You just want us to sit on our feet and do nothing huh
If the choices are do nothing or get dragged into yet another war in the middle east, then YES!!!!. Doing nothing is, by a massive margin, the better option. But I reject those as the only options. There were lots of options available. The trump administration just really wants to attack Iran.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
Of knowing what? That they didn't use to get along? Iraq and Iran have been historical enemies, that is well known. But America is doing a great job pushing them together.
Which may not be too bad with this terrorist out of the way and the dust has settled. Wishful thinking I know. But one can only hope.
America has spent trillions of dollars and countless lives destroying Iraq. Some argued it was worth it because it would be rebuilt as a functioning free and fair democracy. But what america is doing to pushing Iraq further and further into the arms of Iran as the US treats the Iraqi government like shit in their own country. That would make the entire Iraq war a 100% failure.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so really you don't need more regulations you just have to NOT bail them out, it's amazing how people/business will self regulate then the threat of failure is very real.
And then the recession would have been much, much worse. Corporations are designed to be greedy. They will strive to earn money, even if there is great risk. Those risks can then harm all of society when the go badly. The best way to address it is not to just let the economy gamble and implode. it is to put in reasonable rules and regulations to prevent that kind of boom and bust cycle from ruining people.
um, no, it was put in place to try and make sure the country was represented equally rather than mob rule. In a true democracy, NY and California would pick the president and essentially run the whole country.
But it doesn't make the country be run equally. It just changes who has the power. It takes it out of the hands of the majority and places it in the hands of a minority. You are ok with that because you are part of the minority that is benefiting from the broken rules. But if those rules were being used to allow a liberal minority pass laws that a majority conservative didn't like, you would be out campaigning to have it removed.
sure or a tyrannical government threatening to use the national guard, increasing prison space etc, yes? I agree with you then, governor blackface is or is trying to become a tyrannical leader.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes it was an assassination. I don't think anyone can despite that. If you don't understand why people use "quotes " the I can only suggest you take a crash course in English grammar.
People often use quotes to denote that something is alleged but not necessarily true. In this case you put quotes into a sentence where no quotes were needed.
it appears that this twat senator Murphy wanted America to be "feared" not "impotent" not cowering and huddled and hiding from these terrorists.
Ok, but that is not, in any way, contradicted by the 2nd statement. There is a massive gulf between "we should respond" and "let's murder their national hero". The US had countless ways to react that didn't involve guaranteeing americans will die.
It is your opinion that it was murder. I believe it was a preemptive attack on an enemy terrorist . I don't care what you believe.
He was a member of the iranian government on a mission to discuss lowering tensions. The US then killed him and offered no evidence, of any kind, as to why he should be killed. That is straight up murder.
He was a national hero, to the Iranians and the terrorists groups such as Hezbollah. He was a terrorist to me and most of level headed America. Even some on the left.
The american revolutionaries were traitors, murders and terrorists to the British. They were heroes to the Americans. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But the fact that he aided in terrorism does not mean american should have him killed. America funds lots of terrorists too.
What should they have done? Tell his mummy that her son was a very naughty boy and to send him to bed without supper!?
How about go after the people who actually carried out the attacks? The fact remains that no evidence he was involved has been provided and it is guaranteed to get americans killed.
I don't think so. They understand the seriousness of this action and they have left the ball in the court of the Iranians.
Of course they understand. It massively improves the Iranian government's position. The people of Iran will rally to the flag like americans did after 9/11, easing the pressure the government has been under. It will undercut reformers and strengthen hardliners. They will counterattack. They have to.
It might even give the Americans a chance to leave Iraq with honour instead of leaving Iraq after promises to stay and help them form a government and train personnel.
With honor!?!? Being forced out because you won't stop murdering people is honorable to you?
So you keep saying. But I don't care what he was to the Islamic State of Iranians or to the Muslim terrorist groups such as Hezbollah
This kind of thinking is why america keeps getting bombed and sucked into wars. America simply doesn't care what other people think and does whatever the fuck it wants. That inevitably leads to other countries attacking it as they defend themselves from american aggression.
Maybe. We will have to see. But from what I am beginning to learn and understand many Iranians were pleased this terrorist was killed by the USA..
Where are you getting that opinion. He had like an 82% approval rating in Iran. That is like double trump's approval rating.
So? The Iraqis may have bene in on it. They are no friends of Iran , I can tell you that for fk all.
They weren't. But america is doing a great job in pushing them closer to Iran.
A General, a Diplomat, an Ambassador and a fkn peace talking Terrorist. busy little c*** wasn't he.
Oh yes, i forgot. To republicans non-white people are only allowed to be 1 thing ever.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
really? such as?
Banking regulations. It was the unregulated banks that triggered a recession in 2008. Canadian banks, which have to obey much better banking regulations, didn't make the same insane bets that US banks did. They had lobbied to have those regulations removed so they could, but the candian government refused to. When the recession hit no canadian banks needed bailing out, but half the US banking industry would have been wiped out if the government hadn't saved them.
more federal works, yup sounds like a fine idea LOL
Considering america's infrastructure is falling apart, yes that is a very good idea.
yeah I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in.
lol I will never understand why some people think that something can work all over the world, but it can't possibly work in america. Universal healthcare in other countries is much cheaper than US healthcare.
the U.S. is a republic =/= democracy you should learn some history.
A republic is a form of democracy. The US is a representative democracy. The electoral college was put in place specifically to undermine that democracy so that specific regions would get more power.
except that the people you are referring to were doing nothing but minding their own business, going to work etc until the government decided they want to try and control them.
You have literally described what a government is for. It makes rules and laws for it's people. That is, by definition, controlling them. If they don't like the laws the government is passing, they have the power to vote for someone else. However if the majority of people like the laws the government is passing, they do not have the right to use violence to force their will onto others. That is a dictatorship.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Bernie sanders is absolutely saying that. Better regulations to keep companies from abusing people makes the economy better. Unregulated capitalism is extremely destructive. He wants a federal job guarantee, that would lower unemployment. He wants to fix healthcare and massively reduce costs. You would pay more to the government, but you would be paying nothing to for-profit insurance companies and keeping much more of your money. So you would be very wrong.They are going to make the economy better? Lower unemployment? Let us keep more of the money we earn? Which democratic candidate is saying that? Um none.
Now it's one side vs the other for total control and they would even do away with the electoral college to make that happen.
The electoral college is a massively outdated concept that is, by definition, anti democratic. it is designed to give people in certain parts of the country more power than in other parts of the country.
They know a civil war is coming because they are pushing people over the edge, which fits very nicely with the gun confiscations states are trying to pass.
The only way a civil war is coming is if moronic right wing nut jobs start one.
sadly people are embracing what is seen as soft socialism but don't see the very short path to fascism.
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Fascism and socialism are 2 very different things.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
complains that Trump carried out this "assassination"
It definitely was an assassination. So i'm not sure why you put it in quotes. it is just an objective fact.
"without any congressional authorization...", "...the "impotent" state of America under Trump"
I'm not sure if you are trying to disingenuous or not. Basically he said that violence required some sort of response. Trump then went and murdered an Iranian national hero. There is a huge gap between "do something" and "do something that will definitely get Americans killed".
It's like if I said someone definitely needs to punish a kid because he is doing bad things. So the teacher takes him out back and kills him. I would not be a hypocrite for saying that killing the child is a terrible thing and a response that is way too harsh. I said punish, not murder.
The right seems to be massively underplaying how bad this decision was. To the Iranians, sulimani was a national hero. He is the man who defeated ISIS (in their opinion). Killing him will unify the country behind the hard liners and make it that much easier for the regime to stay in power and continue their attacks. Killing sulimani was a stupid, stupid thing to do.
And the cherry on top of the stupidity is that he was there on a diplomatic mission to meet the Iraqi PM to discuss defusing tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He was literally meeting with the PM on the afternoon of the day the US murdered him. They killed an ambassador on his way to discussing peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Iran already has strained relations with many countries. Closing the strait would ensure a global coalition against them, maybe even getting Russia to denounce them as well.
Why? Russia would love the price of oil to spike. Russia sells lots of oil.
Most counties would denounce Iran for closing the straights. But the US has forced most countries to do this already. I mean Europe wanted to keep the Iran deal going, but the US basically extorted European companies into obeying them anyway. Most countries are not going to go to war over it. And most countries have been forced to take part in the sanctions anyway. Most countries can't really do anything about it.
But the US has forced their hand. The murder of the most popular government official in Iran requires them to react. That means terrorist attacks, kidnappings/murders, or closing the straights. I'm sure that lots of people will blame Iran when this happens, but Trump made it impossible for them to do anything else. When one or more of these things happen, that blood will be on trump's hands.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, R&D can cost millions and the FDA takes an average of 10 years to clear a new drug.
Fun side note, most R&D is actually paid for with government money. They do most of the ground work research. Drug companies then pick it up, play with the formula a little and patent it. They then slap a massive mark up on it and make absurd amounts of money on something they didn't actually do most of the work developing.
I believe companies should be able to charge high amounts in order to recoup those costs
studies have shown that the primary costs they incur is actually marketing. They spend way more on trying to convince people to buy their overpriced drugs than they do on actually developing drugs.
I am against price fixing. It can lead to shortages and decreased medical innovation in the future because of the different pricing systems that make turning a profit more difficult.
When you take into account that the majority of drug research is government funded and the fact that they spend like 2-3 times more on marketing than on research, it becomes clear this isn't true. If they stopped doing research they would run out of products to sell. Then they would cease to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
It’s unfortunate that people would be willing to support our enemies just cause they hate Trump
The same people defend Hezbollah.
This is one of the problems that lots of people have. They see people and groups as "evil" without making any effort to understand them. Iran and even Hezobollah are people. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. They have things they want to achieve and things they are willing to do to achieve them.
It is easier to just paint them as evil. Then you can justify whatever you are doing because they are bad. But if you take a step back you might see that the things your government is doing is just as evil. The US government bombs civilians. It murders people it doesn't like. It overthrows elected governments and backs dictators that murder their own people. The US has had a distinctly negative impact on large parts of the world.
My point is not to defend Iran or Hezbollah. My point is that there is blood on the hands of both sides. The only way to stop that blood being shed is by convincing the other side to stop fighting. And you will never do that by bombing them. You are only hardening their resolve to keep fighting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Something like that is probably what Dread was referencing. Seems unlikely in my opinion
In the world of international diplomacy, who knows. The Saudi's would love to see Solemani dead. Solemani was working to back groups that opposed the terrorists that the Saudi's are funding. They have alot of motive to want him dead. They would also love it if the americans destroyed Iran. Iran is the main counter balance to their power. If Iran is destroyed, then the Saudi's will get most of the benefit. If they can get the americans to do it for them, they save their own money and blood and get everything they wanted.
I'm not saying it is likely the americans were tricked into doing this. But it is certainly a possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
People who think we are going to war🤡🤡
The US assassinated a member of the Iranian government. That is an act of war. If the US had done that to China missiles would be flying right now. Instead they are planning their retaliation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This guy wasn't some two-bit warlord, he was a big deal. If you think the CIA and a dozen Intel agencies from other nations weren't keeping tabs on him 24/7 (even without plans to attack) then you are vastly underestimating his importance.
I heard an interesting theory that the US might have been tricked. I am quite certain that lots of people try to keep tabs on him. One of those groups could have given the US innacurate intel to prompt the US to kill him. There are lots of groups that would be happy to see him dead and the US get the blame. The saudi's, the Israelis, various Iraqi factions.
Any one of them might have learned he was going to be there and told the american's it was a lessor target to get them to strike it.
However, I think it is more likely the generals knew what they were doing and trump got a quick briefing on who he was (that he barely listened to or understood) and they killed him on purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Killing terrorists is terrorism. Ok boomer
They bombed an airport in a country that has expressly told them they are not allowed to drop bombs in their country. That is terrorism.
We got nukes. They can’t force official conflict with our nukes. And ever heard of Carrier Strike Forces?
and you cannot use them. If you did 10's, if not hundreds of millions of people would die.
That Trump wouldn’t retaliate for the embassy attack.
The embassy attack was carried out by Iraqi militias. The US has provided no evidence that Iran was involved.
So you’re ok with giving a state sponsor of terrorism 1.4 billion in cash?
Am I ok with a soverign nation getting 1.4 billion dollars that was stolen from them back? yeah. I am totally ok with that. You will never end this kind of conflict with violence. You can only end it with diplomacy.
And the Iranians never held their side of the bargain.
Yes they did. Even trump's own government, as well as international monitors, confirmed they held up their end. It is the US, and only the US, that violated the treaty.
Trusting a state sponsor of terrorism is like trusting a serial killer to not kill anyone by bribing them
But if you can't ever negotiate with them, then it is literally impossible for this conflict to end. You are advocating for eternal warfare in the middle east.
I’m appalled by the fact that you’re defending a state sponsor of terrorism that has caused the deaths of countless Americans and wounded thousands of Americans.
Iran is not blameless. They have done terrible things and killed alot of civilians. The US has done the exact same things. They bombs civilians regularly. Why is iran a "state sponsor of terror" but america is somehow the defender of freedom when both are committing war crimes?
The people have their government. Should say enough their “government”
The US tried hard to prop up their dictator (the shaw). When he fell, the US did everything it could to crush their nation. The US government is making it easier for the hardliners, not harder. Did 9/11 make the US cower in fear because of the power of terrorism? no, it caused the US to unify against the threat. That is what the US is doing to Iran. The are undermining the people that want reform and change by showing the Iranians that the US will never negotiate and is solely trying to destroy them. The Iranian people then have no choice but to back their government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's so disgusting western countries bribed Iran to take part in a nuclear deal by allowing Iran to ramp up their proxy armies, and we even funded Iran to do it!
Western countries eased sanctions on iran and returned a bunch of their money that the US illegally seized. Returning stolen property is not "funding iran".
Hezbollah is a fucking wart on the planet and almost 100% funded by Iran.
So the solution to terrorism is to bomb indiscriminately and massively increase how much people hate america, thus creating more terrorists? That is a moronic plan.
Anyone who thinks we weren't in a cold war with Iran for 45 years doesn't know a goddamn thing about the Middle East.
No one has been in a cold war with Iran for 45 years. They rightfully hate america for trying to keep them oppressed by a tyrannical dictator. From the moment they threw off that dictator america has been nothing buy hostile towards them. They have good reason to hate america, but they had more pressing concerns until America shit all over the place and destabilized the whole region.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
The US has engaged in 2 terrorist attacks in the last few weeks in Iraq. Why is iran a "sponsor of terror" when they so the exact same thing the US does?
Their only mechanism to fight is proxies.
they also have an effective military. Advanced technology and control of the straights of hormuz.
Trump had the balls to call Rouhani’s bluff.
What bluff? What does that even mean?
Obama just sent him 1.4 billion in cash.
Obama returned 1.4 billion of Iranian money that the US illegally seized and held. He did this as a part of a treaty that prevented Iran getting nuclear weapons. Now that trump has torn it up, they are back working on their nuclear weapons.
Cancer should be taken out. Piece by piece. Kill the high leaders and the people that move up the ladder come from the people
Iran is doing the exact same thing the US is doing. but when they do it is "cancer" that "should be taken out". But when the US does it it is somehow morally justified? This kind of twisted thinking is why the US keeps getting dragged into wars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
My understanding was that this was a planned assassination. Pompeo had calls with america's allies in the region in the 24 hours prior to the murder. (israel, saudi arabia etc). It's not impossible this was an accident, but I think it is unlikely. They announced very quickly after the murder who it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Iran's economy is clearly suffering from US sanctions. But things haven't reached North Korean levels yet. Nowhere close to it. If Rouhani and the Ayatollah believe things can't get worse, they're sadly mistaken.
I guess my answer to that is, so what? Take north Korea. Kim Jong Un does not care 1 bit about the standard of living of his people. He cares about protecting himself and his own power. A nuclear weapon practically guarantees that. The US has shown that they are willing to topple governments on a whim if they think it will get them something. The "Libya Model" changed everything. Gadafi tried to modernize and repair relations with the west. He ended up being sodomized with a bayonet and america helped that to happen. Every dictator and despot learned all they needed to know. It doesn't matter if you do what america wants. They will turn on you in a heartbeat when they are done with you. The only way to keep america from screwing you over is to have a trump card, a nuclear weapon.
America proved it couldn't be trusted to negotiate with Iran when the violated the agreement with them (which the Iranians were abiding by). America proved it can't be worked around with their invasions, their bombings, and their murders. That only leaves violence as a viable answer. They have to fight because the alternative is death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gutsy move to call Iran's bluff.
What bluff? They accused Iran of doing something that militia groups in Iraq did. They then carried out a terrorist attack in a country that ordered them to stop bombing in(Iraq). This is a catastrophic decision that will have very serious consequences.
I wonder if this was more as a signal to NK than anything that had to do with Iran?
If so, it was incredibly stupid. This just further proves that the US doesn't respect anyone without nuclear weapons. The US government believes they have the right and authority to murder anyone, anywhere, at any time, no matter who objects to it. The only way to prevent them from murdering you is if you have the ability to nuke them. It will only convince more people that the only way to get america to treat you with respect is to have nuclear weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
As far as I can tell we mostly agree. This massive escalation will almost certainly lead to counter attacks that could very easily lead to another US invasion of a middle eastern country. This would be a horrible thing.
I also agree that the US government thinks Iran is weak and taking them out would be no problem. They thought the same about Iraq, and they were mostly right. They never stopped to think about what would happen if they did that. Thus we got never ending chaos and death. Although Iran could likely cause much more damage than the Iraqi army, but that is kind of a side note.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Iranian is evil. Conservatives win
I'm guessing he didn't mean it this way, but he has a point. The US has turned an Iranian conservative into a martyr. This will likely massively increase the power of the Iranian conservatives which will certainly lead to more attacks against america.
So Wooo!! congratulations american conservatives, you have helped to fuel terrorism by carrying out terrorist attacks in Iraq!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The issue is not that Iran will declare war on america tomorrow. In that sense you are correct, this will not cause a war.
But what will happen is that Iran is going to retaliate. They will bomb an american base, close the straights of Hormuz (cutting off the world's oil supply) or something like that. At that point Trump will retaliate further and the violence will escalate until a war breaks out.
Trump almost caused a war last year when he ordered an attack on an Iranian base that would have killed dozens or hundreds of people. He only called it off at the last minute. So we know that he is willing to order the military to do things that will trigger a war.
Add to this that the Iraqi government told the US like a week ago to stop carrying out bombings in their country and the situation becomes even more difficult. America is carrying out assassinations in a country where they have been ordered to stop bombing. This sort of provocation is likely to cause more Iraqi's to see Iran as their ally rather than america which will make the situation even worse.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
LOL Not true, he actually does work unlike Obama
lol he has spent like 20% of his presidency on the gold course after he trashed Obama for golfing occasionally. He is a joke.
He didn't want the Person of the Year, that is a lie
He had a fake times cover with himself on it made and put it on the wall at his golf club. but yeah... he definitely didn't want to be on the cover lol.
Again, Trump constantly says he has the "best" everythingIt's True
I'd buy he has the best case of narcissistic personality disorder, other than that it is an emphatic no.
Baracks Obama achievements was that he was black and won the presidency
I don't particularly think Obama was a successful president either. He compromised too much with the right and it bit him in the ass. He campaigned as a reform and change candidate, then did the same things republicans and dems have been doing for decades. Although the ACA was at least a step in the right direction.
Trump is not narcassistic
A man who constantly says he is "the best" is not narcissistic? You can't be serious.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no rebuttal, the right is the opposite of this
Well trump is king of the right at the moment. He literally says he has the "best", pretty much everything.
- Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance - Check
Trump requires people to say nice things about him all the time. He watches tons of fox news every day. If anyone on fox news says anything even remotely critical of him he throws a fit.
Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration - Check
Trump constantly expects to be showered with awards. He attacked a teenage girl when he was passed over for person of the year.
Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it - check
Again, Trump constantly says he has the "best" everything
- Exaggerate achievements and talents - Check
I can keep going, but it is boring. Trump checks off every single point to a Tee. And yet you think it is the left that has a problem...
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lol an entire rant where you paint half the country as being exactly the same and accidentally describe the right. that's just sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry I made a very clear mistake and accept that. Which is more than a sniveling little bigot like yourself would ever admit. I was in a hurry.
I have said literally nothing biggotted. So your streak of using ad hominem attacks to distract continues.
The DUP sufferered losses and Sinn Féin have the majority. this has absolutely nothing to do with Boris Johnson's vow to defend the lives of Chieftains around the world.
Again, I referenced the DUP because Boris made promises to them, then very quickly betrayed them. This very likely contributed to their losses to Sinn Fein. The point is that boris can't be trusted. He will say anything to get what he wants and his promises are completely worthless.
I would like to see all Muslims who commit the minor of crimes to be deported to a Muslim country. But this can never happen.
You would like to see citizens deported to another country based solely on their religion? And you think I am the bigot?
if as you say he is "destroying the country", maybe he can start repairing our once green and pleasant land by stopping immediately all aid to the Yemen (£770 million) and instead spending the money on charities here at home where it is desperately needed for Nurses, Doctors Assistants for the elderly. Schools, New Hospitals, Road Repair, New Railways and other infrastructure.I think that would be a fkn splendid start to Boris Johnson's leadership!What do you think, HistoryBuff?
This is a pretty constant thing the right likes to do. They point to one specific area and say "look, we could spend that on healthcare (or schools, roads etc), we shouldn't spend money on that". But then when they are in power they usually cut spending to the thing they said would be a better use of the money. It is a distraction. They don't actually want to fund the thing (schools, hospitals etc), they just want to de-fund something they don't agree with. The idea that the UK can't fund humanitarian aid as well as the NHS is bullshit. They can very easily do both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As far as I know,But then you don't know much at all do you? ... for someone calling himself "HistoryBuff"
lol, so rather than providing evidence to back up your point you just engage in a personal attack. Maybe provide evidence for your assertion?
Not according to the BBC and other agencies ."Christian persecution at near genocide levels"
they are quoting something someone else said. The BBC is not saying that report is accurate. They are just reporting what it says. There is also no link to the actual report. Only comments from the right wing people who commissioned it.
The Guardian "Persecution of Christians 'coming close to genocide' in Middle East report"
again, they are quoting the exact same report published by a right wing group. they are not saying it is accurate. They also don't have a link to the actual report that I can find.
doesn't answer this does it.
he is literally tearing GB apart. Even if everything else you believe is true (which it isn't), would it be worth saving a bit of money by destroying the country?
And so they should if they vote to have one and win. What has this got to do with Boris Johnson's vow to defend the lives of Chieftains around the world.
They are separate areas where he is a duplicitous jackass.
That will be Muslim lunatics murdering and maiming in the name of Islam and Allah. Yes It is a bit more than a handful. the Muslim population now in English prisons is so much so that they hold their own Islamic sharia trial in them.
You say it is more than a handful. How many is it? You don't seem to have any idea. But you seem to be undermining your own point. You want further crack downs on muslims. Muslims are using those crack downs to recruit people. Your plan is self defeating.
The DUP lost massive to the Scottish Nationals. There is nothing anyone can do about that. They lost that is that. Johnson got an overwhelming majority , but this has nothing to do with his vow to defend Chieftains around the world from Muslim slaughter.
The DUP are in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Nationals are in Scotland. I'm not sure you know very much about this. But the DUP were Boris' allies. He made promises about Brexit to get their support. The moment it became expedient to break those promises he did it without a 2nd thought. Boris makes lots of promises, they mean nothing to him. Boris will do what is best for Boris, everyone else be damned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
<br><br>I am MORE outraged by the spinelessness and cowardice of world leaders to even admit the slaughter of Christians carried out by Muslims around the world or to even recognize that it is even happening ; until Johnson made his vow.
What slaughter of christians? As far as I know, they are getting slaughtered at a lower rate than other groups. Why do you think they deserve preferential treatment? We should oppose the killing of any civilian. Their religion should not be a factor.
Not sure that is true but (1) he has only had 18 days in sole control of a government and (2) if as you say he is "destroying the country", maybe he can start repairing our once green and pleasant land by stopping immediately all aid to the Yemen (£770 million) and instead spending the money on charities here at home where it is desperately needed for Nurses, Doctors Assistants for the elderly. Schools, New Hospitals, Road Repair, New Railways and other infrastructure.
Both Northern Ireland and Scotland are very likely going to have referendum about leaving Britain in the near future. Boris' cavalier betrayal of the DUP and his push for a reckless and stupid brexit is literally going to destroy GB.
We could also do with a few new prisons to hold Muslim terrorist who are hell bent on destroying our tolerant and charitable western society. What do you think, HistoryBuff? I think that would be a fkn splendid start to Boris Johnson's leadership!
Lol you think there needs to be new prisons for a handful of lunatics? The large majority of terrorists in western country are christian. Building prisons for muslims would be wildly bigoted and would tear the country further.
Just a few western of charities are working in Yemen\
So western charities send some money to try to make up for the billions of dollars of weapons Western countries are selling to the Saudi's which are then being used on Yemen. The west is arming the side carrying out the massacres then trying to look charitable by throwing some money at the survivors. That does not absolve them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd say Fox is about 70% favorable after they lost Shephard Smith, but it's not all bad considering Fox gets high ratings.
They are like 95% favorable now. Shep was willing to call out Trump some of the time, but was usually pretty positive. There is now almost no one who will call out trump's lies, betrayals and crimes.
But again, you are saying that because people like the lies Fox spreads that this justifies them spreading lies. Popularity does not mean it is true. News outlets are supposed to report the news, but all fox does is cheer lead for the republicans, and now primarily just trump.
So the media still isn't near close to fair nor balanced in proportion to public support of the president.
Why do you think they are supposed to change their coverage for popular opinion? Their job is to report the facts and information. Whether or not that information is popular is irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want any president to get 90% unfavorable reporting, no matter what the source is when 90% of the people don't hate him.
you are mistaking 2 unrelated things. Unfavorable reporting should happen when a president does something bad. Whether or not uninformed, racist, cultist etc people like the bad things he is doing should not shield him from that reporting.
The flip side should be that no president should get 90% positive reporting. And on fox news it is virtually 100% positive coverage. That is because they aren't even trying to be news. They are just propaganda.
Media shouldn't create outrage and narratives, that's not democratic.
How does what media chooses to cover have anything to do with being "democratic"? News agencies are privately owned companies, not democracies.
Especially when that outrage is purchased by hedge fund managers on the left (Soros) and right (Singer) that are ready to make money when the country fails due to the paralytic fear-mongering.
I agree, the rich should not be able to buy the news they want. But you are advocating for fox news which is the worst source possible for this. They exclusively report what their rich assholes overlords want.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep, they are part of the 10% resistance.
How is printing outlandish lies as propaganda for the white house being "resistance"? That is just acting as government propaganda, the thing you claim to not want.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We are already there. State controls 90% of the media.
I agree that fox is basically living inside of trump's colon at the moment, but that doesn't meant they are state controlled. Also, they aren't 90% of the media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes he seems to have a wobbly past when it comes to vows /promises. But then he didn't have the massive majority that he now has.
he has a history of betraying people when he finds it expedient. He is a two faced, self serving asshole. No one should believe anything he says.
Christians can only hope that his vow to defend Christians around the world from Muslim persecution is heartfelt and intended. We shall have to see.
what muslim persecution would that be? This sounds like it would make a wonderful justification for a new stupid invasion.
My bet is that he will do absolutely nothing about the slaughter and butchery of Christians carried out by Muslims against them and just like all spineless cowardly Western world leaders, will leave " Easter worshipers" to defend themselves.
lol what? People are getting slaughtered all over the world. Saudi Arabia is using american weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen right now. Where is your outrage about that? Why do you only care about them if they worship the same god as you in the same way you do?
I do hope that I am wrong, don't you?
No not really. I don't think western countries should be attacking muslim countries. It ends badly every time. I don't want right wing assholes to engage in new wars to distract from other issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But gun restrictions do limit shootings...Muslim bans eliminate Muslim based terror attacks in the US.
But there are extremely few muslim terror attacks in the US. there are way, way more white supremacist attacks in the US. Why wouldn't you focus on the type of extremism that is actually killing americans? I'm pretty sure it is racism/bigotry.
Islam is not a race and most Muslims are classified by the UN as white.
The term is bigoted, not racist. But the two are often interchanged. also please provide a source for that UN classifying them as white. I'm pretty sure you made that up.
Discriminating against Muslims is like discriminating against AR 15 owners.
They are in fact nothing alike. An AR 15 is not a belief system. It is a tool designed exclusively to kill people. Everyone needs to believe in something. No one needs an AR 15.
Freedom is dangerous as hell but it's worth it.
All freedoms have limits. You must accept there is a limit to what weapons people can own, otherwise people could go and buy nuclear bombs at walmart. You know that all freedoms have limits. But it is alot easier to spout off talking points than actually engage with reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
lol the buffoon prime minister who is literally destroying his country? He said he would stand with the DUP too, that didn't turn out well for them.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Hillary was more popular than Bernie. That was why she was the candidate. Why she lost to Trump is a differrent issue.
Was she? She got more votes in the democratic primaries than Bernie did, that is true. But that is with the mainstream media constantly attacking him saying he was "unelectable". Alot of people might hold their nose and vote for someone they don't like because they see them as more likely to win the election. I don't know about in 2016, but pretty much every poll shows bernie as the best liked candidate now. But because the media constantly says he can't win, alot of people believe them and support a shittier candidate.
We will never know how well Warren or Bernie will do against Trump, if hey are not the candidate. I place Warren above Bernie for reasons I gave.
There is extensive polling on the subject. Bernie does better than warren.
Age { and no heart attacks yet },
There is no evidence it would prevent him from doing his job. I'm not sure why it would matter.
woman { tho men favor men }
how is this an advantage for warren?
similar polices as Bernie,
similar, but generally worse. She has completely botched her medicare plan for example in a way that basically guarantees it wouldn't happen.
has Teddy Roosevelt's rough rider enthusiasm.
please explain this. She is a 70 year old harvard professor. I have never seen anything I would call "rough rider enthusiasm"
Some aspect gerry mandering got overturned by the courts a few months back.
some aspects of it. But alot remains. There is also the purging of voter rolls, voter ID laws etc. Republicans are try very hard in lots of ways to keep people from voting.
Amy is not the only one pushing for paper ballots. Her proposed law just goes a little further and calls for additional verification process to be included. Paper ballots cannot be hacked and that will gain trust of those voters who dont trust electronic systems, and for good reason.
I have never seen any evidence of widespread issues with electronic voting systems. However the most recent voter fraud case was with paper ballots. The republicans were hiring people to collect mail in ballots then filling them out. So saying going back to paper ballots is in and of itself an improvement doesn't seem to be true.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I feel like for democrats the real question in deciding a candidate is figuring out your main goal.
Separating those things is a problem. You don't beat trump by pushing policies that don't fix anything. You beat trump by showing people that you will actually fix things. The idea that you can beat trump by "returning to normal" is a pipe dream. Hilary clinton has already run that campaign and shown us it is a failure.
Biden, for example, has great odds at beating Trump however has little to offer in terms of the policy. At least in my view.
I think Biden has no chance of beating trump. Have you seen him in the debates and videos of his rallies? He loses it when he faces questions about his corruption, his son, his record, immigration etc. He literally yells at and insults voters. Trump would eat him alive. And on top of that, he has no energy behind his campaign or actual plans to make things better. He would depress voter turnout and trump would win.
Bernie, however, is almost the exact opposite, he doesn't have a good chance at beating Trump due to his socialistic policies. However, at least in my view, he has a lot more to offer than Biden has.
virtually every poll shows that he has the best favourability rating of any candidate. He is the most trusted candidate on most of the important issues. He has a much better chance of winning than Biden. But the corporate media is doing it's best to convince people not to believe their eyes.
Overall if you're a democrat before you consider a candidate you'd like to support I'd advise you to first figure out what your goal for the 2020 election is.
Disagree. Sanders is the obvious choice for both priorities.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Your mostly focused only on that part of my rational. I think a moderate has a better chance against Trump.
Why? That is what the corporate media keeps telling everyone, but the evidence says that isn't true. Sanders has the best favorability rating of anyone. He speaks to the 10's of millions of Americans who can't stand the democrats or the republicans. Hilary was the quintessential "moderate" candidate and she lost. Why would we re-do that mistake?
Warren and Bernie I would prefer, but doubt their most liberal polices to sell to greater USA. I dunno. Time will maybe tell.
Why? Their policies are extremely popular. Most of the country agrees that the current medical system is shit. Most of the country agrees that taxing the rich is a good thing. It is only the rich and corporatist media trying to act like their policies are somehow unpopular.
This is critical to bringing out the vote for those who do not trust anything electronic. Some where recently some district tried out their new electronic voting and it was debacle.
The much bigger issue is the voter suppression laws that keep people from voting. I think the number of people who would avoid voting because of electronic voting machines is extremely limited and getting smaller all the time.
And who is more likely to cheat. Republicans or democrats? Putin or China?
I agree that election security should be taken seriously, but that is far from the biggest priority.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Ahh, now were getting to the grits of it. Reporting yesterday stated most republicans favored Bernie as a candidate if they had to choose one they like. He is popular. No doubt. And he is male.
this is a critical point. Bernie is the most electable candidate. Centrists want to paint politics as a spectrum. They want people to believe that since bernie is on the left, he cannot possibly be popular among people in the "center". But this is very clearly not true. He is much more electable than most of the field of candidates, if not all.
Women politicians matter to some men and many women. Amy is woman and all of the other reasons I gave.Too bad Bloomberg is not younger and a woman.
But this is a terrible plan. If you are voting for someone because they are the right race, or the right gender and not because that candidate has the right plans and policy decisions then you are missing the entire point. What their plans and policies are is WAY more important than their identity.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Because of Trumpism I choose Bloomberg over the rest.
Why? Trump has abused his office to increase his own wealth. Bloomberg is likely to do the same. He has already ordered his news agency to not give him any negative coverage.
Compared to trump Bloomberg is a saint. Sorry you cant see that.
I didn't say he wasn't better than trump. He obviously is. But he is nowhere near as good as most of the rest of the field of democrats. And certainly no where near as good as sanders.
She stand as pargamatic midwesterner female with senatorial experience and not near end of her life i.e health is not lilely to be an issue as with Bernie or Bloombberg
this is the problem. That statement tells me absolutely nothing about what she stands for. Is she going to tackle income inequality? the environment? foreign wars? What are her priorities? She never really says. All she keeps saying is
1) "i'm from the midwest and that is important" (for some reason)
2) "I have gotten lots of bills passed". (But since many of them were useless or bad, that is irrelevant)
3) "I can work with people who want to screw you over" (republicans). But that is at best dangerous and at worst terrible. Being able to compromise with republicans means she is perfectly willing to not do what her party and the people want to try to win over corrupt assholes trying to screw over the working class.
This is why I said she doesn't stand for anything. She is all platitudes about "unity" and "working together" but doesn't seem to care about what we would work together to do. Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Warren are very clear about what they want to fight for.
He is my #3 and I take him over Warren because of the reasons as mentioned EXPERIENCE.
but his experience is a negative. He was for the iraq war. He pushed reagan to tougher on drug addicts and helped to create mass incarceration. He has been wrong about most major issues his entire career.
You skipped over Warren so she must be your #1 choice. { YES WE WILL } I understand that. Female Teddy Roosevelt i.e. rough riding woman.
I skipped her because your points about her weren't particularly useful. I think sanders is, by a wide margin, the best candidate. Warren is also good. But I honestly don't see how anyone could call her "rough riding". She is a Harvard professor and she acts like it.
like Amy also cause Hillary didnt get in and I want a woman in there as soon as possible. No she doesnt have any { YES WE CAN } charisma to speak of.
This is also a major problem. You want to support candidates based on their identity, not on their policy. Identity politics is dumb. I mean there were multiple black candidates in the race but virtually all black people supported 1 of 2 white men. The idea that you should vote for a candidate based on their race or gender is deeply flawed. It is a distraction to allow flawed candidates to get elected even though their ideas are bad. Buttigieg does it too, he hides behind being gay to try to distract from what a horrible hypocrite he is.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Bernie is a socialist trying to be cool with the kids bc he is a grandpa. Bernie is nothing but a purebred idiot
there was nothing useful at all in that statement. he is a democratic socialist, yes. He is "cool with kids" because they have grown up watching the failures of capitalism play out. They see how unregulated capitalism is destroying the middle class and focusing all the wealth at the very top.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your intellectual apathy is impressive
Step 1: Look at this data on GoogleStep 2: Stuff conspiracy in your ears.Step 3: ???Step 4: Profit.
lol that is just sad. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to be able to back up what you say. You throw out ridiculous, bald faced lies and then expect me to go trying to disprove them. Then when I do that, you change the topic and throw out more lies.
Prove the things you are saying are true, or I will ignore them as the lies they probably are.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like I said, you're not even remotely interested enough in the subject to break a sweat on a google search.
I'm not interested enough to do your research for you, no. If you want to make claims in a discussion, be able to back them up or don't make them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not to mention a simple google search for mortality per kilowatt-hour brings up all the data. Surely you're not that ignorant or lazy.
You are making the claim. You need to be able to back up that claim with evidence or I am going to call you on your bullshit. You have many times in the past said things that were outright lies that you had no evidence for.
So provide a source or I will continue to ignore your conspiracy theories.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is so wrong. There's clear scientific data (and we have a LOT of it from 60 years of nuclear power) that EVERY source other than nuclear, including solar, has cause more deaths per megawatt produced BY FAR than nuclear power. Even Hydro.
please provide sources for your conspiracy theories.
Created: