Give the messiah all your money, Trump supporters! It's the only way he can Stop the Steal. He totally won't just pocket the money, like some sort of grifter.
Give the messiah all your money, Trump supporters! It's the only way he can Stop the Steal. He totally won't just pocket the money, like some sort of grifter.
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
LOL majority of "democratic socialist" clout consists of grifters like Sanders, Omar and AOC. Then again, American political system is based on getting gifts from corporate sugar daddies in exchange for regulating on their behalf once in office.
The game of blame continues...
Biden delayed the May 1 withdrawal date that he inherited.The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated the withdrawal deal with the Taliban that excluded the puppet government, under the pressure of the occupying country Ghani ordered the release of 1,500 Taliban prisoners, at the rate of 100 per day, and on Sept. 3, 2020, the GAO releases the final 400 Taliban prisoners, as required under the U.S.-Taliban agreement.On Jan. 15,2021, the US. force levels in Afghanistan have reached 2,500, and the GAO's Vice President Amrullah Saleh says that the Trump administration made too many concessions to the Taliban.US has conceded too much to Taliban, says Afghan ... - BBC
On July 24, at a rally in Phoenix,the retarded ex-President of the US, declares that "it was impossible for him Biden to stop it." Enjoy the intellectual poverty,the troglodyte says,
On January 16 Biden rightly says.. I told the Taliban, I spoke to the leader and I spoke. I said, let’s call him Muhammad. I said, “Muhammad, we’re leaving and we’re going to get along. But just in case, for any reason you decide to do something terrible to our country or beyond what’s normal,” because they’ve been fighting for a thousand years, “in your country, we are going to come back and we are going to hit you harder than any country has ever been hit.” And I told him that. This was a telephone conversation, had a number of them. I said, “We’re going to get along great, but I just have to make that statement. We’re going to hit you harder than any country.” And he’s a rough guy. This guy has been fighting from the time he’s two years old. That’s what they do. They fight. That’s what they do. They fight. Russia did very poorly against them.Russia is Russia now, not the Soviet Union because of Afghanistan. Afghanistan. So they fight. I said, “We’re going to come back and hit you harder. Do you understand?” He goes, “Huh?”
Realty check:The GAO, soon or later, would have collapsed under any circumstances.The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated. So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight,” the president said. “If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.
---
The interesting question is, Can NATO Survive the Afghanistan Debacle? - IP Quarterly
Dave Keating is an American journalist based in Brussels covering European politics for France24 and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.
I don't agree with everything that has been said here, but this makes perfect sense,
In fact, military, NATO is a hegemonic American protectorate.An American general is Europe's Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) and Europe's defense depends upon the willingness of the U.S. to initiate a nuclear war rather than see Europe overrun, even by conventional forces. In fact, NATO as a military alliance is wishful thinking....But it is important to remember that when these decisions were taken in 2001 and 2002, the United States was in hyper-nationalistic “you’re with us or against us” mode. It would seem that European NATO members felt powerless to do anything other than follow the US in its nation-building crusade. And 20 years later, those same NATO members felt powerless to do anything other than follow the US in its hasty retreat.
The European NATO members have of course had another humiliation in the past, during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The difference here, however, is that after early European failures those wars were eventually “won” by NATO when the US rode to the rescue.
In that sense, NATO functioned for what it is—an American military protectorate over Europe.
But this begs the question: If all these European countries were against the withdrawal plan, why did they withdraw? The conclusion is that the Europeans could never have continued even a small mission in Afghanistan without the Americans. But if that’s the case, it exposes the fanciful idea that NATO is a military alliance as wishful thinking.
Last edited by Ludicus; October 13, 2021 at 07:06 AM.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
The perennial refrain of the Biden shills:
Reality check:
Top generals told lawmakers under oath on Tuesday that they advised President Joe Biden early this year to keep several thousand troops in Afghanistan — directly contradicting the president’s comments in August that no one warned him not to withdraw troops from the country.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...hearing-514491"His new recommendation was to extend the mission with US troops for a while to see if it could yield a political settlement. Buy time for negotiations," Woodward and Costa write.
According to CNN, Blinken told Biden on a phone call that he was hearing from other NATO ministers in "quadraphonic sound" that the U.S. should gain concrete steps toward a political settlement. Around the same time, Austin reportedly came up with a proposal for a "gated" withdrawal in three or four stages that would also allow for negotiations.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...-woodward-bookBoth the Trump and Biden administrations were warned by US intelligence that the Afghan army’s resistance to the Taliban could collapse “within days” after an over-hasty withdrawal, according to a former CIA counter-terrorism chief.
The former counter-terrorism chief said that both Donald Trump and Biden had made decisions to leave for political and ideological reasons and were ultimately impervious to intelligence briefings on possible outcomes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...liban-takeover
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; October 13, 2021 at 08:34 AM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Hmm, I don't think so.
Blame the pundits of neoliberalism. In Hayek's ideal society, money and self-interest would be the only universal principles permitted and deals between individuals are superior to state laws and regulations.American political system is based on getting gifts from corporate sugar daddies in exchange for regulating on their behalf once in office.
Last edited by Abdülmecid I; October 17, 2021 at 04:40 AM. Reason: Off-topic.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
I know, but on this crucial point I disagree. Nobody likes to lose, and generals are not an exception. Seems to me unrealistic considering that for years and years the U.S. searched for a strategy to justify its exit.Written in 2017, this article seems almost prophetic,Delaying the Inevitable in Afghanistan | Geopolitical Futures
However, the author incorrectly incorrectly predicted "The Taliban are internally divided...the continued presence of American forces is delaying the tumult, but not for much longer"....Adding 4,000 U.S. troops to the 8,000 already there will not make a difference. Even with 100,000 troops in the country as recently as 2011, Washington couldn’t quell the insurgency.
...It hoped that over time, with the support of American troops, Afghan security forces would be able to fight their way to a stalemate that would force the Taliban to the table. But Afghan security forces have never gotten over their chronic weaknesses.
The blame cannot fall solely on the men and women in uniform, however; they are only as mature as the political system they are defending.Afghanistan’s more fundamental problem is that the central government has scarcely any influence over the rest of the country. Afghanistan hasn’t had a real state since its Marxist regime fell in 1992,and even then it was dealing with a serious insurgency.
After the West toppled the Taliban regime after 9/11, it brought those old, mostly Islamist warlords together to form a democratic regime.This effort – relying on a patchwork of warlords with only local or regional influence who didn’t even share ethnic and linguistic backgrounds – was never going to work. The only thing that bound the warlords together was their hatred of the Taliban. But the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was founded anyway, and it muddled through the years of the Hamid Karzai presidency (2002-14), mostly because the U.S.-led NATO task force had a large presence in theater at the time.
The 2014 election to choose Karzai’s successor ended in controversy. Ashraf Ghani was declared the winner, but his victory was challenged by his rival, Abdullah Abdullah. Then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pushed the two sides toward a compromise whereby Ghani would serve as president and Abdullah as chief executive. The arrangement was meant to be temporary until a more robust power-sharing mechanism through a constitutional amendment could be found.
That hasn’t happened, and the deal has since expired, creating more infighting.As if that weren’t enough, other warlords have entered the fray... In addition to these divisions, the Afghan armed forces suffer from another problem: too many generals...instead of advancing the national interest and fighting the Taliban jihadists, too many of these generals are focused on advancing their own partisan interests.
And this is the core problem of Afghanistan: It lacks a social contract to tie the various factions together. The U.S. military can’t hold this patchwork of a state together
...it’s unlikely that Washington will continue to squander resources like this for too long. A full withdrawal is not just the preferred course of action for Trump and his more ideological advisers – it’s also an option that is slowly gaining mainstream appeal.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
So Joe Biden goes on CNN to make some incoherent globalist mumblings and forgets that there isn't any podium there and holds an invisible one instead.
Hilarity ensues. I wonder what kind of damage control will journos come up for this one.
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...tive-privilege
Trump spent the months leading up to the election viciously slandering Biden and his family. Now, he's throwing himself at his feet and begging Biden to help him. What a disgusting coward.The White House is rejecting more claims of executive privilege from former President Trump over documents requested by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, directing the National Archives to turn over the Trump-era documents to the committee.
In a new letter obtained by The Hill, White House counsel Dana Remus wrote that Biden consulted with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and determined that the former president’s privilege assertion “is not justified.”
I don't even know what's funnier, Democrat cultists pretending that Trump is some kind of comic book villain for daring to question the globalist narrative, or that Biden isn't a senile vegetable that is hilariously unfit to rule.
Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius
This is what America has come to, two senile old men being the main choices to lead.
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
I'd say both are corrupt sellouts, only difference being that Trump is somewhat lucid, while Biden is already demented. I do, nonetheless, admire Trump for essentially destroying the neoliberal status quo, making it more establishment vs the people, then red vs blue. Whether that was his intention or just a byproduct of his ruling doesn't even matter, at this point. What matters is that Trump laid the foundation for significant changes US is going to undergo in the future post-global world.
I agree that Trump taught us something, I just disagree on what. He disrupted tradition, or more specifically showed us that what we call our unique democracy is no more than that: Tradition. A party is power of at least two parts of our government, in this case Executive and Congress, can unilaterally decide an election if they chose. (regardless of your view of the 2020 election, a party in power can simply refuse to accept the outcome as we saw almost happen on Jan 6th). I remember after the 2000 election, and the Democrats having to accept the State run by the winning POTUSs brother chosing the outcome of the election, all the talk of how the US in unique in that we accept a peaceful transition of power. Now we have a question to that: We transferred power peacefully, but a portion of the population believe it was not legitimate (true or otherwise). What will happen if that portion/party loses another election?
2 Points: 1) maybe Trump was so bad for some that someone demented seemed a better choice.
2) More personally and for clarity: I need to ask, what was the neoliberalism status quo? Is this something you can even define?
Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius
What Trump really did was change the overtone window. He, first and foremost, pretty much killed neoconservatism. That stupid boomer pseudo-right-wing globalist thing that Reagan and Bush-spawn constantly pushed for is now dead (just like lots of war criminals from Bush Dubya's cabinet, hehehe), and for that alone Trump deserves some kind of Nobel prize.
Then he pretty much changed the whole public outlook on politics. The political/economic American status quo that was established for better part of XX century is gone, its never coming back, and its a good thing. Right-wing populism is here to stay, also thanks to Trump, and it is also a good thing, because right-wing populism is an excellent political idea to do away with globalist elements. Public will never trust the establishment and will never trust the media again, which is also a good thing. Like Trump or hate Trump he is probably the most important figure in American history along with Founding Fathers and Lincoln. Or maybe he will be remembered as American Tito, the last wise ruler to keep the country together, until greedy corporate puppets tore it apart and America balkanizes.
The fact that you revel in the removal of the media as a legitimate part of of American democracy just shows, to me, that you don't understand American democracy as envisioned by the founders.
1st Amendment established freedom of speech envisioned the media as the fourth leg of the government. By controlling, or in this case discrediting, the media, you willingly sacrifice an independent, or alternative, voice for the status quo of the party in power.
"Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything; and in no instance is this more true, than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the states, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect, that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression; who reflect, that to the same beneficent source, the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the rank of a free and independent nation; and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness." James Madison.
"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." Thomas Jefferson
"I am...for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." Benjamin Franklin
Also, you never answered my question: What was the neoliberalism status quo? Is this something you can even define?
Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius
The mainstream press has a well-earned reputation for partisanship. It feeds off sensationalism, polarization and misinformation. This is why media trust ratings are in the gutter. The 1A guarantees the right to free speech, not an obligation to listen.
That is a fair response. But when the Executive is praised for diminishing the legitimacy of the press, well..... how do we square the corners of the Executive both defending free speech and diminishing it?
And the 'mainstream press' is nothing new in American politics. Only the effort to change, or shift, the public's trust from the press to the Executive; who you want to believe more is a personal choice, either way it's going to be a highly partisan message.
Even Jefferson had a hard time figuring this out;
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Thomas Jefferson
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. Thomas Jefferson
When one party, or the Executive themselves, attempts to undermine the freedom of the press, I personally begin to question their motives. If discrediting the press is the only way to make me believe you, then what do your words mean? (I freely admit that this is my own ideology. Then again I was brought up on the age old warning of editorial muckraking: "Remember the Maine, Down with Spain!")
Last edited by Ramashan; October 27, 2021 at 07:19 PM.
Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius
The press is often praised for diminishing the legitimacy of the executive. Freedom of speech guarantees the president’s right to respond just as it guarantees the press’ right to criticize.
I doubt that those most sceptical of the press (far more likely to be Republican by political affiliation) trust the executive. They certainly don’t trust Congress (which has even lower approval ratings than the press).And the 'mainstream press' is nothing new in American politics. Only the effort to change, or shift, the public's trust from the press to the Executive; who you want to believe more is a personal choice, either way it's going to be a highly partisan message.
The mainstream press discredits itself for the reasons I mentioned above. Trump’s messaging on the media landed because it was already distrusted by the voters he was targeting. At the same time, most of the evidence indicates that liberals are significantly more likely to favor govt. intervention to limit free speech than conservatives.Even Jefferson had a hard time figuring this out;
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Thomas Jefferson
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. Thomas Jefferson
When one party, or the Executive themselves, attempts to undermine the freedom of the press, I personally begin to question their motives. If discrediting the press is the only way to make me believe you, then what do your words mean? (I freely admit that this is my own ideology. Then again I was brought up on the age old warning of editorial muckraking: "Remember the Maine, Down with Spain!")
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The agenda behind the right's push for the "liberal media" and "enemy of the people" agitprop is fairly obvious.
The American right depends on lies to win elections and remain in power. So anyone who tells the truth is a dire threat and must be silenced. But a free press, along with academia and fact-checkers, makes it very hard, if not impossible, to do this. That's why the right demonizes all three as liars in the pocket of the NWO/Jews/Obama/Space Lizards, to keep their brainwashed and deluded voters far away from anyone telling the truth or presenting actual facts.
If they could the right would copy their hero Putin by nationalizing the media and academia and jailing or killing anyone who contradicts them. Then they could lie with impunity and never have to worry that anyone will call them out.
So when you hear the right-wing politician complain about "liberal bias" or "fake news", remember that their real complaint is that you are hearing something they don't want you to hear. Most importantly, don’t believe a word they say, especially if they are calling someone else a liar.
Let's be honest here, if Founding Fathers were alive today, there'd be global shortage of tars and feathers, because boy would they have work cut out for them.
Jokes aside, it is quite silly to apply quotations about free press to American corporate media which is neither free nor real press, it is owned by pretty much a small handful of corporate owners, and majority of which provides same pro-establishment perspective, maybe with very few and cosmetic differences. Few truly alternative voices are being heavily suppressed by the same corporate oligopoly, so by your own logic, American state of today has long-betrayed the principles, upon which founding fathers envisioned it. Pretty much all alphabet networks are just neoliberal propaganda outlets, and FOX, which is a neocon propaganda outlet. Their loss of public trust is a good thing.
The more American public dislikes the globalist establishment, the better. Hopefully this rift will increase to the point, where structural changes finally happen, and America goes back to the vision that founding fathers wanted.