Total topics: 98
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Mayor of New York suddenly, and without warning, revokes New York's status as a "sanctuary city"
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Exactly ZERO people will be released from Federal Prison due to Biden's recent pardon.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The damage done to Saudi Arabia from Biden's ruthless attacks on the crown prince has taken its toll.
Sadly, Saudi Arabia was forced to find a new ally, one that did not try to overthrow the crown prince.
Biden reaffirmed his commitment to abandoning allies, no matter the cost.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Despite the lies spread by GOP supremacists, Biden is, in fact, an incredibly hard worker for the American people.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Believing American elections are free and fair or believing that you can vote your way out of an oligarchy?
Pick your poison!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
English academic schools Don Lemon on who really owes England for the lost lives stopping slavery.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
“The war is not meant to be won; it is meant to be continuous.” — George Orwell, 1984
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Zelensky has ratified Law 5371, which strips 70% of Ukrainian workers of collective bargaining rights, introduces zero-hours contracts, and allows the state to confiscate trade union property. The price of admission into the imperialist alliance is heavy.
From "creating an efficient market for private land” to "speeding privatization... in 3,300 state-owned enterprises", the plans of the RAND Corporation — the think tank of the US military — for Ukrainian post-war reconstruction are a recipe for total economic subjugation.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Zelensky admits he let thousands of Ukrainians die to save the portfolios of his oligarch pals.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
When progressives say they are taxing the rich, they are really not taxing the rich when looking at income tax. They are taxing production. A person could make a lot in a single year and yet, not have a lot of accumulated wealth or assets.
In order to truly tax the rich, all income taxes, including capital gains, would have to be abolished and replaced with wealth taxes.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
A second civil war may be looming due to the national divide over this same question.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Banks are jumping on the chance to get other countries to pay off Ukraine's existing debt and encouraging Ukraine to take on more debt.
Rich people are making a ton of money off of the warfunding efforts.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
So the FDA which the government used as a basis to lock people away and deprive of liberty to supposedly save life and to mandate the injection of questionable chemicals and mutilation of human bodies has been actively trying to suppress the truth.
And this is why people don't trust the government.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by invading Ukraine, and the Biden administration needs to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for US/Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.
Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the US should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia.
The article goes on to describe how the IMF encouraged international corporations to invest in Ukraine, leading to massive amounts of Bribery, Extortion, and Corruption wholly against the interests of the Ukrainian people. Most of this is well understood in western media.
What is left out of most coverage is how the USA played puppet-master towards selecting the pro-American government under the pretext of "democracy" ironically.
On February 6, 2014, as the anti-government protests were intensifying, an anonymous party (assumed by many to be Russia) leaked a call between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two officials discussed which opposition officials would staff a prospective new government, agreeing that Arseniy Yatsenyuk—Nuland referred to him by the nickname “Yats”—should be in charge. It was also agreed that someone “high profile” be brought in to push things along. That someone was Joe Biden.
Weeks later, on February 22, after a massacre by suspicious snipers brought tensions to a head, the Ukrainian parliament quickly removed Yanukovych from office in a constitutionally questionable maneuver. Yanukovych then fled the country, calling the overthrow a coup. On February 27, Yatsenyuk became prime minister.
At the time the call leaked, media were quick to pounce on Nuland’s saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment dominated the headlines while the evidence of US regime change efforts was downplayed. With the headline “Russia Claims US Is Meddling Over Ukraine,” the New York Times put the facts of US involvement in the mouth of an official enemy, blunting their impact on the audience. The Times later described the two officials as benignly “talking about the political crisis in Kiev” and sharing “their views of how it might be resolved.”
The Washington Post acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of US involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship.
The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists. Their leaders made up the vanguard of the anti-Yanukovych protests, and even spoke at opposition events in the Maidan alongside US regime change advocates like McCain and Nuland.
After the violent coup, these groups were later incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces—the same armed forces that the US has now given $2.5 billion. Though Congress technically restricted money from flowing to the Azov Battalion in 2018, trainers on the ground say there’s no mechanism to actually enforce the provision. Since the coup, the Ukrainian nationalist forces have been responsible for a wide variety of atrocities in the counterinsurgency war.
Far-right influence has increased across Ukraine as a result of Washington’s actions. A recent UN Human Rights council has noted that “fundamental freedoms in Ukraine have been squeezed” since 2014, further weakening the argument that the US is involved in the country on behalf of liberal values.
Among American neo-Nazis, there’s even a movement aimed at encouraging right-wing extremists to join the Battalion in order to “gain actual combat experience” in preparation for a potential civil war in the US.
In a recent UN vote on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism,” the US and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote no.
The New York Times ran 228 articles that refer to Ukraine, but none of them reference the pro-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s politics or government. The same can be said of the Washington Post’s 201 articles on the topic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trump is at it again, tearing the country apart.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The pursuit of radical life extension is a worthwhile cause. While I do have some reservations as to the way, Biden's cabinet will work towards reducing cancer deaths and fighting cancer, the fact he is putting a lot of effort into it, is a good thing and something that should have been done 20 years ago or more. We need to get behind it, in the way we got behind putting a man on the moon.
Cancer and heart failure, are the two biggest impediments to radical life extension. If you live long enough, and take good care of your health, cancer and heart failure is still unavoidable. This effort of Biden's will save lives.
In fact he has made impacts to save a lot of lives already with vaccine mandates. While I think he should have made PSA's and not mandates, his presidency has been one that has focused a lot on increasing the average lifespan of people.
Increasing my life expectancy is something I can get behind. Thank you BIden
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Pennsylvania suppressin mah vote yo!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The GOV of California just proposed spending 300 million to support radical racist cops in California. The same cops that deny a person's right to resist arrest unless they are a black man.
Will the people revolt and call for a recall? Or will they descend into the history of being in one of the most racist states on the planet that gave 300 million to racist murderers?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Biden vowed to defy a court order staying his OSHA mandates on various Constitutional grounds.
Should he be impeached for violating the separation of powers?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Today’s verdict is a stain on the soul of America, & sends a dangerous message about who & what values our justice system was designed to protect.
-Cuomo
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In an effort to make Brandon look good, Youtube has banned negative thoughts from its platform.
Will it work?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Biden's handlers motives for shuttering USA petroleum production (with laughter) while seeking OPEC oil are obvious.
A jumpstart kick in the nuts with the Build Back Better policies where the military industrial complex have a revitalized reason to be involved in the Middle East.
Let's go Brandon. Same as the old Brandon.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Anyone have any information about this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Folks, being President of the United States, you are afforded many opportunities to try to express your love, commitment, and admiration for the American people. And I must say to you that the single greatest honor I’ve been afforded as President is to stand before so many of you, those Medal of Honor winners out there, and talk about Veterans Day and veterans.
I want to welcome all the Cabinet members and honored guests joining us today, including the father of our Secretary of State, who served in the Army Air Corps during World War Two, Ambassador Donald Blinken, whose birthday is today. Happy Birthday. (Applause.) Thank you for your service to our country.
And I just want to tell you, I know you’re a little younger than I am, but, you know, I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro — at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues — went on to become a great pitcher in the pros — in the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige.
And Satchel Paige, on his 47th birthday, pitched a win against Chicago. (Laughs.) And all the press went in and said, “Satch, it’s amazing — 47 years old. No one’s ever, ever pitched a win at age 47. How do you feel about being 47?” He said, “Boys, that’s not how I look at it.” They said, “How do you look at it, Satch?” He said, “I look at it this way: How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you were?”
I’m 50 years old and the ambassador is 47.
But all kidding aside, Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your service during World War Two, as well as your service as an ambassador. And thank you for raising such a fine man, Tony Blinken, our Secretary of State.
To all our veterans, past and present, we thank you, we honor you, and we remember always what you’ve done for us.
I’d like to recognize one of our national heroes who is here today: Medal of Honor recipient, Mr. Brian Thacker. During the Vietnam War, then-First Lieutenant Thacker put the safety of his fellow troops above his own, providing cover fire against an attacking enemy, and even calling in artillery fire on his own position so our forces had a better chance to withdraw.
Wounded, unable to leave the area, he evaded capture for eight days until finally federal — friendly forces retook the position. Yours is a remarkable story; it will never be forgotten.
And we’ll also never forget the stories of American leaders and icons we’ve lost recently who shaped our nation in ways that are hard to measure.
I’ve lost, like many of you, three good friends in the last month:
General Colin Powell, a child of immigrants, who grew up to be the joint — Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State. A man who was a friend but who earned the universal respect of the Americans and people for his leadership in uniform and out.
And a guy who became good friends in many times I was in and out of Iraq as a Vice President and a senator — General Ray Odierno, who I met multiple times in Iraq, and who did so much to help get us to where we are today and who always put the troops and its veterans first. It was an honor to have my son, Major Biden, serve under his command at the time.
And my friend and colleague — who was mentioned already — the United States Senator, Max Cleland, who, as a triple amputee, knew the cost of war as well as anyone could ever know it and went on to champion the dignity and care of America’s wounded veterans throughout his life.
We lost all three of these incredible veterans in the last several weeks, and our hearts go out to their families.
These are stories that inspire generation after generation of Americans to step forward to defend our nation.
And, today, we pay homage to the unrelenting bravery and dedication that distinguish all those who have earned the title of “American veteran.”
It’s an honor that not only a small percentage of Americans can claim, and one that marks those who are able to claim it as brothers and sisters. It’s a badge of courage that unites across all ages, regardless of background — because to be a veteran is to have endured and survived challenges most Americans will never know.
You’ve come through the trials and testing, braved dangers and deprivations, faced down the tragic realities of war and death.
And you’ve done it for us. You’ve done it for America — to defend and serve American values, to protect our country and our Constitution against all enemies, and to lay a stronger, more secure foundation on which future generations can continue to build a more perfect union.
Each of our veterans is a link in a proud chain of patriots that has stood in the defense of our country from Bunker Hill to Belleau Woods, Gettysburg to Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir to the Kunar Valley.
Each — each understood the price of freedom, and each shouldered that burden on our behalf.
Our veterans represent the best of America. You are the very spine of America, not just the backbone. You’re the spine of this country. And all of us — all of us — owe you.
And so, on Veterans Day and every day, we honor that great debt and recommit ourselves to keeping our sacred obligation as a nation to honor what you’ve done.
We have many obligations to our children, to our elderly, to those truly in need. But I’ve gotten in trouble way back when I was a young senator for saying we only have one truly sacred obligation. We have many obligations but one truly sacred obligation: to properly prepare those and equip those who we send into harm’s way and care for them and their families while they’re both deployed and when they return home. This is a lifetime sacred commitment. It never expires.
And for me and for Jill and for the entire Biden family: It’s personal.
When Beau was deployed to Iraq, after spending six months in Kosovo as an Assistant U.S. Attorney trying to help — he was trying to set up a criminal justice system, I got a call from him one day. He said, “Dad, what are you doing Friday?” And I said, “What do you need, hon? I’m — what do you need?” He said, “I’d like you to pin my bars on.” I said, “What in the heck have you done?” He said, “Someone’s got to finish these wars, dad.” True story.
Jill and I learned what it meant to pray every day for the safe return of someone you love. So many of you have done that.
Our grandkids learned what it meant to have their dad overseas in a warzone instead of back at home, for a year, tucking them into bed and reading that story every night. Thousands of Americans — tens of thousands have had that experience.
As the English poet John Milton wrote, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”
So, to all the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses — all those who stand alongside our veterans — and their families, caregivers, survivors: You are the solid steel spine that bears up under every burden, the courageous heart that rises to every challenge.
We’ve asked so much of you for so long, and our nation is grateful.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"It's appalling the way AstraZeneca has been treated. I wouldn't blame them if they were thoroughly fed up and decided to bow out of the Covid vaccine business."That was the view from one of the biggest institutional investors in the UK.It's not a view the pharmaceutical giant and its talismanic boss Pascal Soriot would have expected to hear, having developed a safe, effective vaccine at breakneck speed, signing contracts to deliver nearly two billion doses and doing it all without making a profit.Mr Soriot could be forgiven perhaps for thinking he would be getting a medal.Instead he is getting brickbats from EU politicians like Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts, who has accused the company of dishonesty and arrogance, in the way he alleges, it has "over-promised and under-delivered".Some are suggesting that the whole endeavour has been more trouble than it is worth.AstraZeneca has foregone over $20bn (£14.5bn) in revenue, while becoming a household name in the EU and the US for all the wrong reasons.Some investors have even questioned Pascal Soriot's position as chief executive.Astra has become a political football in a European blame game.One minute his compatriot, the French President Emmanuel Macron, is describing the vaccine as "quasi-ineffective", and the next, President Macron is volunteering to have the jab himself and backing a move to block exports outside the EU.
Based on what I read, AZ is worldwide the best option, especially for poorer nations. If you have issues either with blood clotting or blood retention then don't take it but otherwise it should be fine. I am not here to speak against Pfizer and Moderna but I'll do so against Pfizer if need be as I deeply resent how they've been blackmailing countries to take liability and cover their (Pfizer's) full legal fees even having military base locations as collateral (yes, really).
Why are some countries so anti-AZ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trump had his faults (stupidly interrupting, when he should have just let Biden dig his own grave as well as not giving a straight answer on condemning racists), but I personally think Biden couldn't have done any worse.
1. He openly endorsed the Green New Deal, universally recognized as the stupidest idea anyone has ever presented in American politics.
2. He made no condemnation of the riots and domestic terrorism plaguing America.
3. His COVID argument literally consists of "This international plague is somehow Trump's fault."
4. His economic argument is "you killed the economy" but at the same time "we need to close the country"
5. Weirdly enough, Biden hurled more insults at Trump than vice versa. This was the time he was supposed to be the grown up. Instead, they both looked childish.
There's so much more....
Really, I don't think the Democrats understand how absolutely disconnected they are from the American voter. It's like they're trying their hardest to be as radical left as possible. It's baffling to me.
Even if you agree with him on these issues, you have to admit, it is political suicide.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan. The longest war in American history. We completed one of the biggest air lifts in history with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts felt were possible. No nation, no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history, and only United States had the capacity and the will and ability to do it. And we did it today.
The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravely and selfless courage to the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professional. For weeks, they risked their lives to get American citizens, Afghans who helped us, citizens of our allies and partners and others onboard planes and out of the country. And they did it facing a crush of enormous crowds seeking to leave the country.
They did it knowing ISIS-K terrorists, sworn enemies of the Taliban, were lurking in the midst of those crowds. And still, the women and men of the United States military, our diplomatic corps and intelligence professionals did their job and did it well. Risking their lives, not for professional gains, but to serve others. Not in a mission of war, but in the mission of mercy.
Twenty service members were wounded in the service of this mission, thirteen heroes gave their lives. I was just at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude we can never repay, but we should never, ever, ever forget.
In April, I made a decision to end this war. As part of that decision, we set the date of August 31st for American troops to withdraw. The assumption was that more than 300,000 Afghan National Security Forces that we had trained over the past two decades and equipped would be a strong adversary in their civil wars with the Taliban.
That assumption that the Afghan government would be able to hold on for a period of time beyond military draw down turned out not to be accurate. But, I still instructed our National Security Team to prepare for every eventuality, even that one, and that’s what we did.
So we were ready, when the Afghan Security Forces, after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own, did not hold on as long as anyone expected. We were ready when they and the people of Afghanistan watched their own government collapse and the president flee amid the corruption of malfeasance, handing over the country to their enemy, the Taliban, and significantly increasing the risk to us personnel and our allies.
As a result, to safely extract American citizens before August 31st, as well as embassy personnel, allies, and partners, and those Afghans who had worked with us and fought alongside of us for 20 years, I had authorized 6,000 troops, American troops to Kabul to help secure the airport.
As General McKenzie said, this is the way the mission was designed. It was designed to operate under severe stress and attack and that’s what it did. Since March, we reached out 19 times to Americans in Afghanistan with multiple warnings and offers to help them leave Afghanistan. All the way back as far as March.
After we started the evacuation 17 days ago, we did initial outreach and analysis and identified around 5,000 Americans who had decided earlier to stay in Afghanistan but now wanted to leave. Our operation Allie Rescue ended up getting more than 5,500 Americans out. We got out thousands of citizens and diplomats from those countries that went into Afghanistan with us to get bin Laden. We got out locally employed staff in the United States Embassy and their families, totalling roughly 2,500 people. We got thousands of Afghan translators and interpreters and others who supported the United States out as well.
Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long time residents, but earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan. The bottom line, 90% of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave. And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out.
Secretary of State Blinken is leading the continued diplomatic efforts to ensure safe passage for any American, Afghan partner or foreign national who wants to leave Afghanistan. In fact just yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that sent a clear message about the international community expects the Taliban to deliver on moving forward. Notably, freedom of travel, freedom to leave.
Together we are joined by over 100 countries that are determined to make sure the Taliban upholds those commitments. It will include ongoing efforts in Afghanistan to reopen the airport as well as overland routes, allowing for continued departure for those who want to leave and deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
The Taliban has made public commitments broadcast on television and radio across Afghanistan on safe passage for anyone wanting to leave, including those who worked alongside Americans. We don’t take them by their word alone, but by their actions. And we have leverage to make sure those commitments are met.
Let me be clear, leaving August the 31st is not due to an arbitrary deadline. It was designed to save American lives. My predecessor, the Former President, signed an agreement with the Taliban to remove US troops by May the first, just months after I was inaugurated. It included no requirement that the Taliban work out a cooperative governing arrangement with the Afghan government. But it did authorize the release of 5,000 prisoners last year, including some of the Taliban’s top war commanders among those who just took control of Afghanistan.
By the time I came to office the Taliban was in it’s strongest military position since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country. The previous administration’s agreement said that if we stuck to the May 1st deadline that they had signed on to leave by, the Taliban wouldn’t attack any American forces. But if we stayed, all bets were off.
So we were left with a simple decision, either through on the commitment made by the last administration and leave Afghanistan, or say we weren’t leaving and commit another tens of thousands more troops going back to war. That was the choice, the real choice between leaving or escalating. I was not going to extend this forever war and I was not extending a forever exit.
The decision to end the military lift operation at that Kabul airport was based on the unanimous recommendation of my civilian and military advisors. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff and all the Service chiefs and the commanders in the field, their recommendation was that the safest way to secure the passage of the remaining Americans and others out of the country was to continue with 6,000 troops on the ground in harm’s way in Kabul, but rather to get them out through non-military means.
In the 17 days that we operated in Kabul, after the Taliban seized power, we engage in an around the clock effort to provide every American the opportunity to leave. Our State Department was working 24/7 contacting and talking, and in some cases walking Americans into the airport. Again, more than 5,500 Americans were airlifted out. And for those who remain, we will make arrangements to get them out if they so choose.
As for the Afghans, we and our partners have airlifted 100,000 of them, no country in history has done more to airlift out the residents of another country than we have done. We will continue to work to help more people leave the country who are at risk. We’re far from done.
For now, I urge all Americans to join me in grateful prayer for our troops and diplomats and intelligence officers who carried out this mission of mercy in Kabul at a tremendous risk with such unparalleled results. An air-lift that evacuated tens of thousands. To a network of volunteers and veterans who helped identify those needing evacuation, guide them to the airport and provided them for their support along the way. We’re going to continue to need their help. We need your help and I’m looking forward to meeting with you. And to everyone who is now offering or who will offer to welcome Afghan allies to their homes around the world, including in America, we thank you.
I take responsibility for the decision. Now some say we should have started mass evacuation sooner and, “Couldn’t this have been done in a more orderly manner?” I respectfully disagree. Imagine if we’d begun evacuations in June or July, bringing in thousands of American troops and evacuated more than 120,000 people in the middle of a civil war. There still would have been a rush to the airport, a breakdown in confidence and control of the government, and it still would have been a very difficult and dangerous mission.
The bottom line is there is no evacuation from the end of a war that you can run without the kinds of complexities, challenge and threats we faced. None. There are those who would say we should have stayed indefinitely, for years on end. They ask, “Why don’t we just keep doing what we were doing? Why do we have to change anything?” The fact is, everything had changed.
My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline, May one. The Taliban onslaught was coming, we faced one of two choices. Follow the agreement of the previous administration, or extend to have more time for people to get out. Or send in thousands of more troops and escalate the war.
To those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan I ask, “What is of vital national interest?” In my view, we only have one. To make sure Afghanistan can never be used again to launch an attack on our homeland. Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place, because we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on September 11th, 2001, and they were based in Afghanistan.
We delivered justice to bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 over a decade ago. Al-Qaeda was decimated. I respectfully suggest you ask yourself this question, “If we’ve been attacked on September 11th, 2001 from Yemen, instead of Afghanistan, would we have ever gone to war in Afghanistan, even though the Tali bond controlled Afghanistan in the year 2001?” I believe the honest answer is no. That’s because we had no vital interest in Afghanistan other than to prevent an attack on America’s homeland and our friends, and that’s true today.
We succeeded in what we set out to do in Afghanistan over a decade ago, then we stayed for another decade. It was time to end this war. This is a new world. The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan. We face threats from al-Shabab in Somalia, al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If Trump had a cabinet mostly filled with Chinese loyalists, it would be raising red flags. So why does Biden give so many powerful positions to Jews, and has all his children marry Jews? Why are jews so over represented in positions of power?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Biden has announced that he is banning guns. In part because he envisions a future where Patriots are defenseless against tyrants. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/24/biden-says-future-patriots-face-lost-cause-against/
He essentially is threatening to send military grade weapons against dissidents who want a voice in their government.
The ruler of the United States is out of control.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Biden has shut down almost 100 news sites he disagrees with.
Freedom of speech should also include my freedom to digest whatever source of guy speech I want to as well.
If I want to read a book financed by the Saudis, that should not be Biden's business.
If you buy a domain and own it, the government has no right to hack your hosting company or threaten them to shut your site down, especially if their justification is that they don't agree with the message of that site.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Yes or no? Why?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I will be supporting Biden over Trump, what do you think?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let me preface this by saying that if I was the one seeing this headline in the poltiics thread, I would have immediately dismissed it as bullshit without giving it a second thought.... If you're skeptical about the bold claim being made, I completely understand, I find it difficult to forsee happening myself
Just hear me out.
Warren and Bernie have been competing for the more liberal wing of the Dem party. I dont think anyone really disputes that. If you consider Bernie is further to the left of Warren enough to really establish himself as the representative of the far left is one thing, but at the end of the day the only two candidates who could even make an appeal to the liberal wing of the party was Sanders and Warren..... For that reason, its easy to conclude that should one drop out, they would almost certainly endorse the other. With Sanders now the frontrunner and Warren down to 4th, you could conclude that Warren would likely drop out and likely endorse Sanders
Heres the counterargument.
#1) In 2016, Warren never endorsed Bernie over Hillary.
In 2016 we had a clear 1v1 faceoff between a very centrist establishment candidate (Hillary) against a leftist outsider opponent (Bernie) in the primary. Shit, a lot of people wanted Warren to run against Hillary as the leftist representative but instead Bernie was the one who jumped in and carried the torch. You might think that because of how much the two had in common and the legitimate race between the two, Warren would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary since Warren was not campaigning, the primary was a close race, and Bernie clearly was closer to her ideologically than Hillary.... But Warren never endorsed Bernie...... Warren waited until the race was practically over before endorsing Hillary, so even though Warren offered high praise for Bernie all throughout the campaign, she still endorsed Hillary instead.
Maybe though she just knew Hillary would win, or that it was more important to unite behind whichever candidate won to defeat Trump in the general election. Fair theory, fair conclusion.
#2) Following this election, Warren's political career will likely be capped/over thanks to Sanders
In 2018, Warren handily won reelection to the Senate in Massachusetts by an almost 2 to 1 margin. While her Senate term doesnt expire until 2024, right when the next presidential election would be taking place, at that point she would be 74 years old. While the oldest current senator is Dianne Feinstein from California (86 years old), the ability of ANY candidate to win votes in a presidential contest at that age would become a stark problem that would be borderline impossible to overcome..... If Trump loses in 2020 and a Dem takes the White House in 2020, then the next opening for Dems to jump in would be 2028, where Warren would be approaching 80 if she tried running then.
To summarize, this election and this run for President was arguably Warren's last good shot where she had decent odds to actually win the nomination. Assuming she doesnt win at this point, she will not get a better opportunity to win in the future and will be relegated to being a Senator for the remainder of her career barring a VP selection of some sort. If this is the end of the road for a run for president, which it very well appears to be, then SANDERS would be the one most responsible. Not Biden, not Hillary, not the DNC, not the media or some sort of scandal or flip-flop on a policy issue, it would be Sanders. Sanders has flat out eaten her base of support and united the progressive wing of the party behind himself and away from Warren..... If Warren is salty enough at missing out on her shot to be President thanks to Sanders taking over her base, she could endorse a more moderate candidate out of spite.
Maybe though she is not that type of person. Maybe she wouldnt sink to that level over something as petty as spite, that being president was not the only thing in the world she cared about, and losing because Sanders took her base wont upset her in the long term. Fair theory, fair conclusion.
#3) Bernie and Warren have butted heads in the past.
If you watched that last shit-slinging of a Dem debate, 3 things happened. #1, everyone was yelling. #2, Bloomberg sucked a fat dick. #3, Warren was firing shots at EVERYONE, including Bernie. Warren has shifted to total war in the campaign in just about every stage, and that has included against Bernie who is the closest ideological comparison to her in the race.
- She has lumped Bernie together with Biden and Bloomberg in ads for her campaign as "politicians and billionaires won't cut it"
- She has claimed that Bernie "consistently calls for things he fails to get done"
- She has infamously claimed that Bernie told her "A woman cannot defeat Donald Trump" which Bernie fiercely denies
- She has pledged to fight all the way to the convention, ignoring calls to drop out and endorse Sanders to unite the progressive wing
- Theres the infamous debate moment where Sanders went for a handshake at a debate and Warren refused
- Staffers on both Sanders and Warren's campaigns haev complained over dirty tactics used by the other side
If the competing shots between Sanders and Warren is more then just political chess-moves to try to win the progressive base of the party, the two may have at some point crossed the line from being supposed allies with much in common to being any other rival in the Dem primary. If thats the case and that line has supposedly been crossed, then Warren would not owe any allegiance to Bernie just because they are ideologically similar. If the campaign has really left its mark, Warren may endorse Biden or another candidate over Bernie if the strategic benefits in doing so outweigh the benefits of uniting the progressive base behind the best option.
Maybe this is just part of campaigning for president and that these spats and sparring will not leave their mark. Maybe Warren will be able to forgive all of this and still stands firmly with Sanders if she cant represent the progressive wing herself. Fair theory, fair conclusion
#4) Warren's interest in beating Trump may, well, trump her interest in supporting the next ideological candidate
The predominant fact of Dem primary is that voters care more about selecting a candidate best able to beat Donald Trump in a general election than it is to select a candidate that most closely represents ones political beliefs.... While more candidates than ever have run for the nomination and represent many different political stances, in this primary voters just want someone who can beat Trump...... While Biden's position of appealing to centrist and undecided voters unsatisfied with Trump is a pretty easy sell to make, Bernies position of beating Trump by exciting non-voters to come out and support his candidacy is by default riskier. It is just as likely that someone who likes Sanders as a candidate supports him as it is for a centrist and undecided voter to not like Sanders and instead just tough it out with Trump for the last 4 years..... A majority of Dems care more about having someone capable of beating Trump then it is voting for someone that shares their values, we have to consider that Elizabeth Warren might be one of them.
If Warren figures that helping Biden to beat Trump will likely be more successful than if she decided to help Sanders to beat Trump, then she would go with Biden.
She did the same thing in 2016 with Hillary over Bernie
#5 Biden might respect Warren as a VP candidate more than Bernie would respect Warren.
Biden sat out the race in 2016 despite calls for him to enter the race, though he did toy with the idea of entering the race while the opportunity was present. While deciding to jump in or not, Biden made some calls to talk to people about whether or not they would support his campaign over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. One of the people he turned to, and was actively considering having as his VP on the ticket, happened to be Elizabeth Warren.
Biden values Warren, both her voice and her stances, to the point that from the get-go he was considering having Warren be his VP on a 2016 ticket. Warren's hard stance against Wall Street and subsequent legislation on banking regulations really caught Biden's eye when he considered entering the race, and he actively sought out Warren as a possible VP candidate to see if it was worth running in 2016. based on reports, Warren liked the idea but was still skeptical since Hillary effectively had the moderate/centrist vote on lockdown, leaving Biden with a very difficult path to even winning the nomination to begin with. Even when Hillary was campaigning people thought Warren should VP for her, since it would supposedly unite the moderates and progressives in the Dem party behind one ticket.... Warren liked THAT idea too because she figured it would give her some leverage in pulling Hillary more to the left on certain issues in order to secure her agreement to be VP.
Biden values Warren, and Warren could strategically pull Biden to the left on certain issues if she was VP while also uniting the party behind one ticket to beat Trump.
Thats not the case with Sanders though. If Sanders was the nominee and Warren his VP, then she doesnt get to have much of a say at all. Sanders as the face of the progressive movement would be able to go with whichever policy or agenda he feels is right since voters have made him the representative of the progressive faction in the first place. Sure, Warren would likely agree with Bernie's policies more regularly than Biden, but thats assuming that they get to the White House in the first place. Preaching purely to the left wing faction of the base to drive out fanatical levels of support is what Bernie is basing his entire argument that he can beat Trump on. Thats a very risky strategy that could very well fall short considering how conservative many swing states in the country are and will be..... Biden's strategy on the other hand would be to appeal to centrist and moderate voters more easily swayed away from Trump while Warren becomes the advocate for the progressive faction in an administration, which has better odds of succeeding just from the nature of politics in America.
To summarize, Warren might endorse Biden over Bernie even though Bernie is ideologically closer to her.
1 - Warren went strategy over ideology in 2016 by endorsing Hillary over Bernie
2 - Her political future as of right now appears to have hit its ceiling thanks predominantly to Bernie
3 - Warren and Bernie have not gotten along recently in the campaign
4 - If Warren's biggest goal is to defeat Trump, Warren may again put strategy over Ideology and endorse Biden over Sanders in 2020
5 - Warren would have more of a voice and boost chances of winning as Biden's VP compared to being Sanders' VP
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics