-
There’s funny then there’s sick.
-
@Godder said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Tim said in US Politics:
Boobs.
Lock the thread, it's done. Goes out in peak fern style.
I wonder if Biden gets an opinion on who is running mate will be.
Yes, but it won't be her as she isn't eligible to be president (too young).
Not to mention she would lead the nation to rack and ruin.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Godder said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Tim said in US Politics:
Boobs.
Lock the thread, it's done. Goes out in peak fern style.
I wonder if Biden gets an opinion on who is running mate will be.
Yes, but it won't be her as she isn't eligible to be president (too young).
Not to mention she would lead the nation to rack and ruin.
See what you did there. I think they might be there already and are being lead by a boob, (or tit) but certainly would be a better rack with her in charge.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Godder said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Tim said in US Politics:
Boobs.
Lock the thread, it's done. Goes out in peak fern style.
I wonder if Biden gets an opinion on who is running mate will be.
Yes, but it won't be her as she isn't eligible to be president (too young).
Not to mention she would lead the nation to rack and ruin.
I doubt it, their system doesn't let anyone do anything.
-
If we are judging the past by today's standards does context to this matter? Would it if it were Trump speaking?
It is Biden quoting someone else but how easy this could be taken the wrong way. Full clip:
https://c-span.org/video/?c4854577/user-clip-1985-hearing-joe-biden-wordhttp://www.c-span.org/video/?c4854577/user-clip-1985-hearing-joe-biden-word… -
From what I can see so far both campaigns are basically:
Trump: "at least I'm not Biden!"
Biden: "at least I'm not Trump!"
-
This is the Trump campaign argument.
It is based on the idea the Democrat controlled cities are seeing all the violence.In my opinion, Trump doesn't want to federalize the National Guard via the Insurrection Act because it is his belief the Dem Governors and mayors will undercut him and he will be blamed for subsequent violence. It's a brutal calculation. Right now he is slipping in the polls, but a few moths in politics is a long time.
-
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
Should have worded that better, keen to know 'the source'. See if it is worth trudging through hyper-partisan media spin to look into.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
Should have worded that better, keen to know 'the source'. See if it is worth trudging through hyper-partisan media spin to look into.
Even some 'Fox-ies' are raising questions on this. They don't want to go down with a sinking ship themselves.
It will certainly be interesting 'how' this gets proved. If it was in a briefing then that is a highly classified document so can't be leaked. Any whistleblower needs to point to the document as evidence.
Assuming that the allegations are correct, Trump is hiding behind controlling any official comment from military and appointed heads of dept. Also knowing that the PDB can't be released.
The story does appear to have some bones to it though. Some pretty reputable people have obviously seen/heard some kind of evidence. Whether it has been interpreted correctly could be the argument.
I have read somewhere (can't find link) that this was part of the usual Russian destabilisation type stuff pulled by the same unit that organised the Skripal attack.Look, Trump may even have 'justifiable ' policy reasons for not acting on this that he knows is unpalatable to the public. But the optics sure aren't good.
Even if Putin's mob were 'fishing' they would have known that this would be a win/win. If he doesn't take the bite he looks bad to the US public, if he does take the bite it keeps the whole Taliban conflict going. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
So again its 'anonymous sources'
Will have to be more than that to make people give a damn.
You can't always fob that off.
Watergate was anonymous sources as well.
When dealing with sensitive and highly confidential briefings/documents then of course sources will stay behind the curtains.
What is interesting here is that it looks at the moment like some people have been party to the 'evidence' and are asking the questions. You need to look at the quality of those raising the issue and ask if they would do so without substance. Even GOP Senators are saying 'this needs clearing up'. That is where the pressure will come from. If they realise that this can't be kept under wraps they will disavow Trump as quick as anything to jump on the bandwagon to save their own skins.
The next few days will be interesting, that's for sue.
-
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Just as it is quite easy to spot those in the media looking to slant everything to their view it is also easy to spot things that make you sit up and watch for the evidence.
If any of this shit sticks it will spell the end for him.
US Politics