All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[CTTT]

Well, we can see what Biden has done for the current invasion crisis, which is the cut the aggressor out of most of the global financial system, much of the global trading network, provide up to date intelligence to aid the defenders in their fight, provide modern weapons and training on said weapons, and rally the rest of Europe to do much of the same - although those nations that remember the Soviet yoke didn't need any encouragement. Still, getting Switzerland of all places to apply sanctions is something that really hasn't been done before.

Meanwhile, the former guy called the move "Genius."


The poorly thought out Chamberlain quip would better apply to Obama or Dubya, who both did very little while Putin carved pieces off of other nations during their administrations. But applying it to Biden demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about history.

Please you give Grandpa Joe too much credit. He couldn't even remember what he had for breakfast much less what agencies to notify. We all know his lackeys put him in a corner with his baby bottle while they did the work. He's also too busy giving hot mikes to reporters and cursing at them.

[hyped78]

Well, we can see what Biden has done for the current invasion crisis, which is the cut the aggressor out of most of the global financial system, much of the global trading network, provide up to date intelligence to aid the defenders in their fight, provide modern weapons and training on said weapons, and rally the rest of Europe to do much of the same - although those nations that remember the Soviet yoke didn't need any encouragement. Still, getting Switzerland of all places to apply sanctions is something that really hasn't been done before.

But can he - or any other US President, for that matter - do the same to China, if/ when an invasion materializes?

Not necessarily related, but Biden's discussion with MBS in Saudi Arabia wasn't exactly a masterstroke of foreign policy...

[Gray Lensman]

Please you give Grandpa Joe too much credit. He couldn't even remember what he had for breakfast much less what agencies to notify. We all know his lackeys put him in a corner with his baby bottle while they did the work. He's also too busy giving hot mikes to reporters and cursing at them.

Luckily for the rest of us, your hatewank fantasies aren't actually reality. But I suppose I can use a good laugh at whatever other fanfic you come up with.

[CaptainEurope]

Please you give Grandpa Joe too much credit. He couldn't even remember what he had for breakfast much less what agencies to notify. We all know his lackeys put him in a corner with his baby bottle while they did the work. He's also too busy giving hot mikes to reporters and cursing at them.

Thank you for your input. I will consider your ideas and opinions.

[hyped78]

Yes he is, and yes he does.

You are defined by the leader that you embrace, especially after he attempts a coup and keeps undermining and attacking democracy.

Trump defines Republicans now.

The question was about defining "Conservatism", not about defining "Republicans" - the GOP/ the current state of the GOP doesn't define what is "Conservatism". Again, "Conservatism" isn't even a US only ideology.

Regarding Trump currently defining a large part of the GOP, I agree with that. But that wasn't what was being discussed.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Luckily for the rest of us, your hatewank fantasies aren't actually reality. But I suppose I can use a good laugh at whatever other fanfic you come up with.

All Trumpsters for the most part have anger fantasies it seems. They clearly don't know what good foreign policy is.

They are used to a man kissing a dictators ass. And bragging it as some brave deal.

[thwhtGuardian]

Where do you get these definitions if this is political reality and generally known?

And would the far-right people be so extreme they can't get elected to federal office, or is something else going on?

This isn't some esoteric concept, it's literally in just about every single book on political theory written in probably the last 50-60 years. You can even google it.

As for far right, there aren't likely any elected officials in the US that would strictly qualify as far right either although Marjorie Taylor Greene quoting Hitler and talking at a neo-nazi rally is pretty close and President Trump's public bluster, willingness to embrace neo-nazi groups and that he contemplated not accepting his loss of the Presidency again definitely puts him pretty close to that far end of the spectrum.

[hyped78]

This isn't some esoteric concept, it's literally in just about every single book on political theory written in probably the last 50-60 years. You can even google it.

As for far right, there aren't likely any elected officials in the US that would strictly qualify as far right either although Marjorie Taylor Greene quoting Hitler and talking at a neo-nazi rally is pretty close and President Trump's public bluster, willingness to embrace neo-nazi groups and that he contemplated not accepting his loss of the Presidency again definitely puts him pretty close to that far end of the spectrum.

See, this is where I see that we have different definitions (and that's fine). The same way I consider Bernie/AOC as "far left", I also clearly consider MTG/Trump as "far right" (when you say that MTG is "pretty close" to far right, I see her as clearly, clearly far right). You don't have to be a fascist to be far right and a communist to be far left - not in this day and age, not in 2022.

"Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics NOW INCLUDE neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." (Carlisle, The Encyclopedia of Politics)

Isn't MTG alt-right? Doesn't she hold reactionary/ racist/ homophobic/ transphobic views?

[CTTT]

All Trumpsters for the most part have anger fantasies it seems. They clearly don't know what good foreign policy is.

They are used to a man kissing a dictators ass. And bragging it as some brave deal.

And all the liberals have hatewank for Trump and other GOPers and I'm sure some of what's bandied about isn't true either. So it works both ways.

[CTTT]

Luckily for the rest of us, your hatewank fantasies aren't actually reality. But I suppose I can use a good laugh at whatever other fanfic you come up with.

Lets see hot mike called reporter an SOB? Fact check yep it did happen

Mumbling and stumbling over words and looking like a dottery old fool, yeah that's happened too.

[hyped78]

Lets see hot mike called reporter an SOB? Fact check yep it did happen

Mumbling and stumbling over words and looking like a dottery old fool, yeah that's happened too.

Of course that's factual (unfortunately)... but you'll see most folks in radical denial about those things here on this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXPKci5nFXw

[babyblob]

Lets see hot mike called reporter an SOB? Fact check yep it did happen

Mumbling and stumbling over words and looking like a dottery old fool, yeah that's happened too.

I love how hung up people are on Biden calling a Reporter an SOB. meanwhile ignore the fact that Trump in pretty much every speech insulted the press. And didnt he in a speech openly (Not on a hot mike) make fun of a disabled reporter? I Know Biden called the reporter he insulted and told him he was sorry. Yet Trump never did.

So lets move on from Biden calling a reporter an SOB. It was petty and dumb. But damn has Trump done way worse to reporter on a daily basis. And that was petty and dumb.

But I will agree with you that Biden is not a good public speaker. Im not chalking that up to dementia but there are times I hate listening to his speeches.

[hyped78]

I love how hung up people are on Biden calling a Reporter an SOB. meanwhile ignore the fact that Trump in pretty much every speech insulted the press. And didnt he in a speech openly (Not on a hot mike) make fun of a disabled reporter? I Know Biden called the reporter he insulted and told him he was sorry. Yet Trump never did.

So lets move on from Biden calling a reporter an SOB. It was petty and dumb. But damn has Trump done way worse to reporter on a daily basis. And that was petty and dumb.

But I will agree with you that Biden is not a good public speaker. Im not chalking that up to dementia but there are times I hate listening to his speeches.

Agree 100% with all of this

Also - not everyone needs to be an awesome public speaker like Obama or MLK. A lot of great politicians and leaders are terrible public speakers or just plain average

Biden has always been an average public speaker, in my opinion, it's not a new thing. He's just gaffe prone, I don't know how else to put it

[thwhtGuardian]

See, this is where I see that we have different definitions (and that's fine). The same way I consider Bernie/AOC as "far left", I also clearly consider MTG/Trump as "far right" (when you say that MTG is "pretty close" to far right, I see her as clearly, clearly far right). You don't have to be a fascist to be far right and a communist to be far left - not in this day and age, not in 2022.

"Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics NOW INCLUDE neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." (Carlisle, The Encyclopedia of Politics)

Isn't MTG alt-right? Doesn't she hold reactionary/ racist/ homophobic/ transphobic views?

This isn't something one can really have differing opinions on, words have meaning and although meanings can change with time that isn't the case here as the accepted meanings are still the prevailing thoughts on the matter. That people often misuse the words isn't an excuse to make them subjective.

[hyped78]

This isn't something one can really have differing opinions on, words have meaning and although meanings can change with time that isn't the case here as the accepted meanings are still the prevailing thoughts on the matter. That people often misuse the words isn't an excuse to make them subjective.

I'm sorry but this is totally the case, politics and economics evolve over time and definitions are updated in political science. For example, "transphobic views" being an element of the far right isn't something you would find in a "far right" political definition 50, 100 years ago (because it wasn't a "topic"). This is just an example but it's valid for many things, e.g. climate change as well.

The term "alt-right" wasn't used (or widely used) 50 years ago.

Today no one in their right mind in a democratic country would argue that capitalism must be destroyed.

We can go on and on.

Being left, right, center-left, center-right, far left, far right, isn't the same today as it was 50 or 100 years ago, themes change, conditions change. The definition I posted above is from a political science encyclopedia and it clearly states that elements of the far right historically included X and now also include Y. This is true for all political spectrums, political science isn't set in stone and immutable forever, definitions from 50 years ago aren't necessarily totally relevant for today's internet age.

I'm quite surprised that you don't consider Marjorie Taylor Greene blatantly far right.