General Politics Thread

[stinkubus]

I'll have you know that Jimmy Dore is the left-iest leftist who ever lefted.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'll have you know that Jimmy Dore is the left-iest leftist who ever lefted.

Take two steps back: there's nothing about abolishing the death penalty on the wiki page for Movement for a People's Party which he supports.

 

[r16]

apparently some Trump person has been arrested for lobbying for UAE , Al Crusading looked real happy about it . Of course something to remember that the Russians unveiled a programme for a "competitor" against F-35 in a very Western way of PR . ı don't any military jet project was marketed with a picture of the mockup under tarpaulins reading "Do you want to see me naked?" American response is in full gear , Russians can't , especially meeting the original F-35 cost of 35 million dollars each . And do not fall for mass media action of it was copied from Boeing's F-32 . Those who have self respect , have found a Northrop 540 something project , one of those affordable proposals in the early 1990s ; before Lockmart monopolized the robbery through the Footpad / F-35 ... The connection being that UAE might fund the Russian project ...


edit: That should be Northrop MRF-54E .

 

[Joij21]

Max Blumenthal has done some great reporting on Israel in the past, it's too bad he became a pro-Assad, pro-Putin hack.

That's what happens to all lefties. They get so anti-western that they decide to sell their souls to the most anti-western regimes.

Moderator Action: Stop targetting all members of a given demographic with hasty generalisations. ~ Arakhor

 

[Drakle]

https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1417556721908817921

Thomas Barrack has been charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent to advance the interests of the United Arab Emirates, the Justice Department just announced.

The allegations cover the period between April 2016 and April 2018, during which time Barrack was raising money for Trump's presidential campaign and chairing his inaugural committee.

This is the fourth person who has been accused of working on behalf of a foreign power while they were working for Trump.

There was already Michael Flynn (Turkey) and Paul Manafort and Rick Gates (Ukraine)

I'm reading through the indictment now. One of the allegations is that Barrack worked to modify a Trump speech on energy issues to satisfy his UAE connections

Barrack also promoted the UAE during television interviews. "I nailed it . . . for the home team," he emailed after one appearance.

Barrack allegedly acquired a cellphone for the purpose of handling encrypted communications involving the UAE

According to the indictment, Barrack wrote this op-ed in consultation with UAE leaders

The indictment refers to a conversation between Barrack and Flynn during the presidential transition.

So, an alleged unregistered agent for the UAE talking to an unregistered agent for Turkey

Barrack's work allegedly led to a phone call between Trump and an UAE official

Barrack allegedly said Trump was considering appointing him to a diplomatic role in the Middle East and that "would give Abu Dhabi more power!" (He didn't end up getting such a position.)

If you ever interviewed Barrack about the Middle East, he allegedly really wanted you to include his praise of "Emirati Official 1."

In addition to allegedly acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the UAE, Barrack allegedly lied about it when he met with the FBI

You can read the whole indictment for yourself here. https://justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1413316/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

America First (After Israel, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and others get their snouts in the trough).

And another guy lying to the FBI.

And unlike Ukraine, the UAE made it out of the Trump era with some real gains. For the price of recognition of Israel that they wanted to do anyway for economic and security reasons, the UAE got piles of US weaponry on the cheap, including a ton of normally restricted stuff. But the person who made that happen, was like maybe 1% this guy, and 99% Kushner, who still isn't being prosecuted, but was bailed out by UAE money, and openly working in their interest.

 

[Farm Boy]

Explain to me what you think is new or novel or different? That's not exactly a challenge, but I don't understand your point. As in you, not as in some article by somebody writing for pay. It's an invitation for, simply, an open-ended answer.

 

[Berzerker]

Ukraine got Javelin anti-tank weapons from Trump

 

[Zardnaar]

Ukraine got Javelin anti-tank weapons from Trump

Not many and they're deployed in western Ukraine.

 

[amadeus]

Not many and they're deployed in western Ukraine.

You can’t trust Moldova! Or Moldavia... I forget which one is the one. Anyway, I don’t know who they are or what they believe but I know they’re up to no good!

 

[Zardnaar]

You can’t trust Moldova! Or Moldavia... I forget which one is the one. Anyway, I don’t know who they are or what they believe but I know they’re up to no good!

Poor bastards.

 

[amadeus]

Poor bastards.

Ol' b&b always up to something Soviet.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ol' b&b always up to something Soviet.

Lol yeah. I think I've seen every video included in that mish mash.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Not many and they're deployed in western Ukraine.

Trump's missiles also had a do-not-use-against-Russian-forces-under-no-circumstances clause.

But at least corporate conflict profiteers still got subsidized to hock weapons that were contractually obligated to be pointless.

 

[Zardnaar]

Trump's missiles also had a do-not-use-against-Russian-forces-under-no-circumstances clause.

But at least corporate conflict profiteers still got subsidized to hock weapons that were contractually obligated to be pointless.

They were also "if the crap hits the fan wink wink".

Apparently a rumor went around they were deployed and all the tanks in that part of the Donbass mysteriously disappeared for a bot.

Basically the US was saying we don't want to directly help you but we're not throwing you under the bus either.

If the Russians pushed harder more missiles get sent and they "somehow" get used.

They don't want to piss the Russians off to much. The Russians know roughly where the line is drawn, kick that can down the street.

Putin's many things. Stupids not one of them.

 

[amadeus]

Trump's missiles also had a do-not-use-against-Russian-forces-under-no-circumstances clause.

Assuming Ukraine has their own missiles or missiles sourced from another country, the American ones can lie dormant while the Ukrainians use the non-American ones without so many supply issues.

Sending arms directly to Ukraine with the explicit agreement they are to be used against Russians is a greater escalation, and the goal of U.S. policymakers (in my opinion) should be to get Russia to be more compliant in respecting Ukraine’s borders rather than killing Russian conscripts.

 

[Bugfatty300]

"Not intended for use against Russians" warning label seems to be a uniquely child-like Trump thing.

Obama refused to supply Javelins at all.

Biden supplies the weapons without any deployment stipulations.

 

[Zardnaar]

Plausible deniability. "We told them not to use them maybe you should stay in Russia da"?

If Bidens supplying them without restrictions it's a big F you to Putin.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Plausible deniability. "We told them not to use them maybe you should stay in Russia da"?

If Bidens supplying them without restrictions it's a big F you to Putin.

The thing about plausible deniability (outside of Hollywood and comical 1960s CIA failures) is that your denials have to be plausible to the people you're lying to.

 

[EgonSpengler]

ABC News, 22 July 2021 - "Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade"

They're also asking the Court to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). I don't recall the details of the two cases right now. The Mississippi case was actually taken by the Court in May, but yesterday the Mississippi lawyers broadened their case somehow. I'm not quite sure how that works, from a legal perspective, but from a political perspective, they're simply trying to reverse a woman's right to choose. I'm not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but I still can't help thinking that the brief submitted by the state's lawyer seems to suggest that she doesn't believe in unenumerated rights (e.g. the right to privacy, the right to marry, etc.*).

Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.

EDIT: I haven't read the whole brief, so I'm just going by the quotes selected by this ABC News article, but...

Scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability. States should be able to act on those developments. But Roe and Casey shackle States to a view of the facts that is decades out of date.

So they're not arguing that when a child becomes viable has changed. They're just arguing that when a fetus starts to look recognizable should be our benchmark instead. That just seems like another way of saying, "You shouldn't be allowed to do anything that makes me feel icky."



* I've always wondered how a textualist reconciles unenumerated rights. Probably a separate question from this case, but it made me think of it.

 

[Drakle]

They're also asking the Court to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). I don't recall the details of the two cases right now. The Mississippi case was actually taken by the Court in May, but yesterday the Mississippi lawyers broadened their case somehow. I'm not quite sure how that works, from a legal perspective, but from a political perspective, they're simply trying to reverse a woman's right to choose. I'm not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but I still can't help thinking that the brief submitted by the state's lawyer seems to suggest that she doesn't believe in unenumerated rights (e.g. the right to privacy, the right to marry, etc.*).

The legal arguments don't matter. They will make something up either way. The only choice is

-Do they continue to chip away at abortion rights a piece at a time as they have been doing for decades
-Or do they finally bite the bullet, and just do it, kicking off a mess.

But Manchin and Sinema have already forcibly disarmed Democrats teeth in response, so they've weakened the potential backlash's power, and made the second far more likely.