Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

 

Tucker on Iran. Notice how much more direct he is on how much of a disaster a conflict with Iran would be. Maddow's criticism's are process related, Tucker is blatantly saying it would be a disaster and isn't in US interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

LOL did you even watch your own video on Venezuela? She doesn't even say stay out of Venezuela's business, she is just lamenting how chaotic it is. She's fence-sitting at best. Now, let's compare to Tucker segments on Venezuela, where he's directly calling out intervention as not being in the US interest at all.  He also had an actual reporter who was on the ground in Venezuela, giving out real facts. 

 

You first post a video where the commentator argues Maddow is in an agreement with Bolton regarding interventionism.  When it's pointed out to you that the video gets its facts wrong, you change gears and make the argument about Maddow never condemning interventionism in the age of Trump (which is kind of a silly point since there hasn't been much movement on this front since Trump took office, other than his bombings in Syria, which Maddow ridiculed at the time).  Okay, fine.

So then i point to a video of Maddow taking issue with Trump's plans for a 120k force to take on Iran, invalidating your second contention that Maddow is now somehow aligned with interventionists.  This is to say nothing of the fact that neither you or I watch Maddow nightly and can't state with any certainty that her program hasn't addressed the matter more frequently or boldly.  

Now your argument is that she's sitting on the fence regarding intervention in Venezuela (despite the fact there doesn't appear to be any threat of that at present) and that her criticism of Iran are more process oriented (which is kind of ironic since this was her main contention in the first video you posted).  

Again, this is miles away from your original post and contention, that Maddow is supportive of interventionist figures and interventionism in general.  Nevermind Maddow wrote an actual book that chronicled and criticized America's military mission creep and its tendency to increasingly involve itself through military force.   I also assume you're not familiar with her documentary Hubris, in which she took the Bush administration to task over the Iraq War.

But sure, keep believing someone like Maddow is in lockstep with interventionists despite her track record of speaking on the subject for the sake of championing ultra-hack Carlson.  And if Carlson has rebranded himself as an anti-interventionist (since, you know, he was in lockstep agreement with the Bush administration at the beginning of the Iraq war and then made the same criticism Trump made that the war should have been fought over oil), where are his criticisms of Trump for keeping forces in Syria and Afghanistan? 

But let's you and I continue to waste our time because you thought you were making a valid point with a video that was just flat out wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my mentors once told me about a memorial service that he attended for a fallen Sikh Communist leader in the 70's. He was unable to understand the ceremony as an english speaker. Suddenly the building was over run by invaders. They attacked people and trashed the place while chanting something in a foreign language. He was hiding under a table with his friend and he asked what they were saying? It was "long live so-and-so!" He then asked, wait what are we chanting? "Same thing" they responded. :lol:

Corporate networks and their millionaire hosts arent really gonna tell the full story are they? If I had to watch one of either Fox or MSNBC it'd be MSNBC, but one may as well be chanting the same name in the final assessment. Two sides of a coin, a coin that bought and paid for humanities best interests.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, soon said:

Corporate networks and their millionaire hosts arent really gonna tell the full story are they? 

But isn't this true of almost any journalist or news outlet to a certain extent?  Which news organization out there really tell the full story and is that even possible from one source?

I'm not stating that cable news outlets or corporately owned broadcast companies don't have agendas or provided limited reporting when they bother to report on a subject at all.  But I also don't think blanket cynicism is warranted or justified either.   CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post do have their merits with respect to informing their audiences.  They provide sample-sized news bites for those who can't be bothered or don't have the time or resources to ingest a five course equivalent reporting.  

Their coverage shouldn't be immediately discounted simply because they are corporately owned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, downzy said:

 

But let's you and I continue to waste our time because you thought you were making a valid point with a video that was just flat out wrong.  

I've already said Maddow has done a 180 from the pre Trump days on foreign intervention. Now her criticism's are more process oriented. Tucker has also changed his position from the Bush days. So have a lot of people, that war was a disaster and the interventionists in Washington have had a much more difficult time getting people on board for these things. I judge these figures by what they are actually doing, not what hidden internal motivations they may or may not have.

To sum up, you've posted your Maddow video's and I've posted Carlson videos. Let's let the viewers of the thread look at the source videos and decide who is putting out a forceful anti-interventionist message and who isn't. 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I've already said Maddow has done a 180 from the pre Trump days on foreign intervention. Now her criticism's are more process oriented. Tucker has also changed his position from the Bush days. So have a lot of people, that war was a disaster and the interventionists in Washington have had a much more difficult time getting people on board for these things. I judge these figures by what they are actually doing, not what hidden internal motivations they may or may not have.

To sum up, you've posted your Maddow video's and I've posted Carlson videos. Let's let the viewers of the thread look at the source videos and decide who is putting out a forceful anti-interventionist message and who isn't. 

Yeah, I get that you've stated that Maddow has done a 180 on in foreign intervention, you just haven't provided anything that supports that point.  Carlson might be more forceful (guess he has to make up for being wrong several times over), but that doesn't translate into Maddow being a shrill for foreign interventions.  Again, that's some warped logic you're employing here.  

Your original post was, "Video of an actual leftist schooling a neoliberal on foreign policy."  There was nothing in the video that supports your contention that Maddow is now an advocate for foreign interventions.  None.  And nothing you have posted since has demonstrated that fact.  

Just admit you were wrong (or stop responding with revisionist nonsense) and let's move on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

Yeah, I get that you've stated that Maddow has done a 180 on in foreign intervention, you just haven't provided anything that supports that point.  Carlson might be more forceful (guess he has to make up for being wrong several times over), but that doesn't translate into Maddow being a shrill for foreign interventions.  Again, that's some warped logic you're employing here.  

Your original post was, "Video of an actual leftist schooling a neoliberal on foreign policy."  There was nothing in the video that supports your contention that Maddow is now an advocate for foreign interventions.  None.  And nothing you have posted since has demonstrated that fact.  

Just admit you were wrong (or stop responding with revisionist nonsense) and let's move on.

 

Just watch the videos that have been presented here. A Maddow video during the Bush/Obama years would be very forceful against the Iraq war. But in the Trump era she no longer does this. What else can I call a person who changes their tune like this other than a sellout and a shill? You've produced nothing showing her forcefully against intervention in the Trump era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Just watch the videos that have been presented here. A Maddow video during the Bush/Obama years would be very forceful against the Iraq war. But in the Trump era she no longer does this. What else can I call a person who changes their tune like this other than a sellout and a shill? You've produced nothing showing her forcefully against intervention in the Trump era.

Is there any new interventions occurring during the Trump Presidency that I'm not aware of?  

So in your mind, the lack of focus by Maddow on interventions that haven't happened yet (and likely won't happen) is somehow evidence of her complicit support of said interventions?  Again, that's some warped and twisted logic you're employing here. 

Sorry, I've produced nothing?  What about the link to the video where she laments the possible buildup of 120k ground forces to invade Iran?  How about her ridicule of Trump's bombing of Syria.  Again, you're not discussing in good faith and have continually ignored points made that are inconvenient to your original erroneous position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, downzy said:

But isn't this true of almost any journalist or news outlet to a certain extent?  Which news organization out there really tell the full story and is that even possible from one source?

I'm not stating that cable news outlets or corporately owned broadcast companies don't have agendas or provided limited reporting when they bother to report on a subject at all.  But I also don't think blanket cynicism is warranted or justified either.   CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post do have their merits with respect to informing their audiences.  They provide sample-sized news bites for those who can't be bothered or don't have the time or resources to ingest a five course equivalent reporting.  

Their coverage shouldn't be immediately discounted simply because they are corporately owned. 

I said I'd watch MSNBC, so it cant be said that I "immediately discounted" them. Mika is heavenly and the name "Joe Scarborough" cracks me up every time, I don't even know why. Like, I've rolled on the floor laughing at his name more than once - cant figure it out. Maybe its that it sounds like a street-nickname for a trucker who beat people up for Hoffa or something. Juxtaposed with that haircut, maybe? :lol: I also post NYT, WP and The Guardian frequently on here as you've possibly noticed. Even CNN and CBS now and then. I even remember praising Don Lemon - who is a bad ass! :headbang:

And I agree that single-sourcing ones news is bad - which speaks to my point, its not one network versus another. Thats not enough. They're not something to align oneself with.

Yes, corporate news should be heavily scrutinized. They barely cover the climate as a crisis for example. And no, millionaire hosts, people who've been treated so well by the system, will not be adequately unmasking the system. Its cool Maddow makes docs and such, and its what she'd be doing full time if it wasn't for a compulsion to host her show - a compulsion that cannot be separated from her prime time salary. Other people take the other route and are far, far less susceptible to mission drift. 

All the major networks editorial positions accept the premise that the existent social order and economic structures are 'just the way it is.' They erroneously agree that the conversation is merely about how to properly navigate the apparently static reality of the establishment. Thats an ahistorical betrayal of facts. 

Luckily for us all, in this info age of the internet where one can Google "neoliberalism" if need be :lol:, we can easily access equally digestible, more accurate and honest sources for news and commentary. And I'd disagree strongly with the claim that all networks and journalists have more or less the same shortcomings as corporate news. Thats not to say that its only in the cable network news and major news paper worlds. In new media as well, Koch money is flowing to the IDWs various podcasts. 

The front line is everywhere. Who stands to gain? Follow the money, honey. Dont drink the cool aid. Thats all Im really saying. :shrugs::) 

*************

PS: I follow sports editor Dave Zirin at The Nation loosely in both print and podcast. I dont know why I think this - I dont even recall if I know if you like sports at all - but I sometimes I find myself wondering "I think Downzy and me might both agree with this guy on these issues?" Do you follow him at all?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so happy that we don't have Trump. This Brexit malarky is a walk in the park compared to Trump and his goons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, downzy said:

He's the epitome of everything that is wrong with America; a symbol for all its sins and transgressions.

This reminds me of what Hunter S Thompson said about Nixon - which fits Trump perfectly. @ 7:23

Hunter was ahead of his time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

This reminds me of what Hunter S Thompson said about Nixon - which fits Trump perfectly. @ 7:23

Hunter was ahead of his time.

Well said.  

As bad as Trump is, I'm not sure he's reached Nixon-level evil yet (well, that we know of).  

Nixon has the blood of millions on his hands for sabotaging the Paris Peace Accords that would have ended the Vietnam War in 1968.  But Nixon wanted to become President so he undermined legitimate efforts to bring the war to a close, resulting in the further deaths of millions in Vietnam and later Cambodia.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

This reminds me of what Hunter S Thompson said about Nixon - which fits Trump perfectly. @ 7:23

Hunter was ahead of his time.

What Hunter says is similar to scene in the Oliver Stone movie Nixon. If you haven't watched it, Nixon has a obsession with JFK. At some point he is in the WH looking at JFK portrait. And he says about the American people (talking to the portrait) "When they look at you. They see what they want to be. When they look at me. They see what they really are"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article that is very timely as the US feigns humanitarian concerns for the people of Venezuela. Many parallels to be drawn and/or anticipated.

***

An Anti-imperialist Analysis of the 2011 Destruction of Libya

Valerie Reynoso | Geopolitics | Analysis | April 20th, 2019

The origins of the UN concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (RTP) was initially articulated by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who presented his annual report to the UN General Assembly in September 1999, urging Member States to collaborate in abiding by Charter principles and engaging in defense of human rights. In his 2000 Millennium Report, he stated "if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to a gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?" A year later, the Canadian government filed a report, "The Responsibility to Protect," through the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The RTP concept, which is partially derived from Francis Deng's concept of "State sovereignty as a responsibility," reassures that sovereignty is not only a matter of protection from external forces, but also emphasizes that nations ensure the welfare of their own populations, internally. Hence, as it goes, the prime responsibility for the protection of "the people" lies mainly with the State. In terms of geopolitics, according to the United Nations, "residual responsibility" also rests on the international community of states; and this clause may be "activated when a particular state is clearly either unwilling or unable to fulfill its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities." [1]

Clinton and Kosovo

Interestingly, the formation of the RTP concept has anti-imperialist roots, particularly in the crisis in Kosovo at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century. The NATO military intervention in Kosovo, which was accused by many of being a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, as well as the heinous acts committed in the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990s, resulted in the international community carefully discussing means to implement protections against human-rights violations. Despite NATO being an international organization, its actions in Kosovo were still perceived as violating Kosovar sovereignty and the "well bring" of Kosovar people. [2]

The NATO military intervention in Yugoslavia, which began on March 24th, 1999, lasted seventy-eight days and set a precedent by becoming the first occasion in which NATO decided to militarily intervene in a sovereign country without prior approval from the UN Security Council. The involvement of nineteen countries, led by the US, was spearheaded by the Clinton administration with the stated intention of "preventing a humanitarian disaster" and establishing a framework for Kosovo, which was the southern part of Yugoslavia under the Milosevic government. Despite these intentions, NATO's bombings of the Balkans caused more harm than good as these violations of international law resulted in the destruction of 25,000 homes, 300 miles of roads, and an estimate of 400 railways, etc. At least 5,000 people were killed in the bombings, with 12,500 more having been injured. The area was contaminated with depleted uranium, an internationally-outlawed chemical that is still to this day producing high rates of childhood cancer defects throughout the Balkans. [3] The accusation that NATO and its allies committed human rights violations was later confirmed and thus became a motivating factor in the creation of the RTP declaration, which sought to avoid such unilateral interventions in the future.

Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Libya

In 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi led a military coup against King Idris in Libya. The coup overthrew the King and resulted in the establishment of the Jamahiriya government, which lasted nearly five decades. The results of the coup were far-reaching: it eliminated the Libyan monarchy, formed a new republic, set the foundation for an accelerated approach to Pan-Africanism, and established key alliances with the Soviet Union, Egypt, and Syria.

.... (article continues)

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/anti-imperialist-analysis-of-libya.html#.XN71I2XZ5Hg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/05/2019 at 10:18 PM, janrichmond said:

I'm so happy that we don't have Trump. This Brexit malarky is a walk in the park compared to Trump and his goons.

I'd say they're in the same league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'd say they're in the same league. 

They’re not in the same league. They’re not even the same sport. :lol: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One difference between the Trump Whitehouse and British politicians is that in Britain there is a clearer delineation marking who is right wing. In NA its incredibly common for people to claim Trump isnt a right winger. Or people will act like its an overreaction to note that Trumps surrounded himself from the outset of his campaign with known far right white nationalists like Bannon, Miller and Sessions. People will not engage in an honest conversation about the rise of the far right in US mainstream Federal politics. Whereas so far as I understand that Weddbleman fash is known for what she is by the electorate. Unless Im mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Americans on here - what are your thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard?

It seems that the mainstream media focuses more on people like Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg, but Tulsi seems like one of the better candidates - almost an 'ideal candidate' for the 'modern democrats'. Does she get less coverage because of her foreign policy, and comments on Assad? Do people think she's 'in with the Russians'? I'm interested to hear what Americans think about her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Question for the Americans on here - what are your thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard?

It seems that the mainstream media focuses more on people like Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg, but Tulsi seems like one of the better candidates - almost an 'ideal candidate' for the 'modern democrats'. Does she get less coverage because of her foreign policy, and comments on Assad? Do people think she's 'in with the Russians'? I'm interested to hear what Americans think about her.

Her fatal flaw is that she chose to run in the lane occupied already by Sanders and Warren who have way more name recognition than she does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jakey Styley said:

Her fatal flaw is that she chose to run in the lane occupied already by Sanders and Warren who have way more name recognition than she does.

I'm kind of surprised that she isn't as popular as them, or even more popular, she ticks the boxes for the 'twitter democrats' (younger, female, non-white, veteran who's been vocal about stopping regime-change wars) but can still appeal to normal democrats and centrist voters. She's more charismatic than Sanders or Warren too, which is something the democrats need in a candidate.

She was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently, and whether or not you like Rogan as a host, a 2.5 hour interview is a better way to hear from candidates than a 4~ minute segment on cable news. I recommend listening to that episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to check out that JRE. I thought this was a good interview, too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

She was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently, and whether or not you like Rogan as a host, a 2.5 hour interview is a better way to hear from candidates than a 4~ minute segment on cable news. I recommend listening to that episode.

I find Rogan a waste of time and extremely overrated.  

What's the point of having a guest on for two plus hours if you don't bother asking them a worthwhile question that challenges their core concepts?

Rogan, to me, is a bit of a dangerous platform in that he gives voice to some of the more fanatical voices in American society and provides zero pushback.  I wish he took his job seriously or went back to UFC commentary. 

On 2019-05-17 at 3:12 PM, soon said:

PS: I follow sports editor Dave Zirin at The Nation loosely in both print and podcast. I dont know why I think this - I dont even recall if I know if you like sports at all - but I sometimes I find myself wondering "I think Downzy and me might both agree with this guy on these issues?" Do you follow him at all?

 

As I get older I pay less and less attention to sports, hence I hardly ever read sports commentators.  Does he speak to more than just sports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-05-19 at 8:20 AM, soon said:

 

People ask me if I listen to podcasts and this is a pretty good example of why I don't (save for the very good Appetite for Distortion, of course)....

They just meander and drone on about topics for the sake of droning on about topics.  Since there's no limit on time, there's no need to self-edit and all the minutia is aired in full.  

In any event, I find these "podcasts" strange in that they accuse others of focusing on something narrow while missing the point of the entire piece.

Anyone who knows anything about Maddow knows she's taken people like Bolton to task time and time again for what happened with Iraq.  It's not even debatable.  Whether you agree with her positions or not, she's been pretty consistent on her distaste for those responsible for Iraq and those who would unjustifiably put America into war. 

The point she's trying to make isn't about Bolton.  It's not about Russia.  It's about Trump's repeated instances of undermining his own cabinet and officials.  Bolton goes out and says one thing, Trump says another to completely cut him off.  Her focus is on the unprofessionalism of the Trump presidency; that he continually sells out his own officials; that the administration is never on the same page.  That's the point she's making, and hence why she makes the caveat that she's not concerned about how one views Bolton.  

But I guess people with podcasts who don't structure their shows need to fill time to keep people listening.  

As I said before, there's a lot to knock Maddow about.  Her faith and certainty in the Mueller report and Trump's absolute guilt led her to a place that undermined her credibility.  She got way ahead of that story and has since had a difficult time acknowledging that she resorted to almost conspiratorial nonsense to support her certainty in Trump's guilty and Mueller's mission.  So I'm not here saying that Maddow isn't without faults and isn't above criticisms.  But these people trying to make a name for themselves with podcasts need to adjust their sights a bit.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, downzy said:

I find Rogan a waste of time and extremely overrated.  

What's the point of having a guest on for two plus hours if you don't bother asking them a worthwhile question that challenges their core concepts?

Rogan, to me, is a bit of a dangerous platform in that he gives voice to some of the more fanatical voices in American society and provides zero pushback.  I wish he took his job seriously or went back to UFC commentary.

I think he's alright for his format, he doesn't pretend to be a journalist, he's just a guy who either wants to discuss things or hear/learn a point of view, and he does call out his guests at times. His podcast shouldn't be a primary news source or anything, but it can be a good balance of entertaining and informative. I only watch it every once in a while but there are some good episodes, with Mathew Walker or Graham Hancock for example.

I also don't see a problem with him having guests like Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro, I don't agree with those people but why deny them a platform? At least the Alex Jones episode had some funny clips, and it's not like Rogan just agreed with him. It's only dangerous if you think of it as something more than it is - it's casual, it can be ridiculous, it's not intended to be taken as a serious news source. It's entertainment first.

As far as guests like Tulsi Gabbard, or Andrew Yang, it's a good platform. Long-form 'conversations' online are a good way to hear from candidates, I don't think Rogan is all that great but the podcast format is better than relatively short cable news segments.

Edited by Gordon Comstock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×