placeholder

Where was it proved that it was all lies about Trump - Russia collusion? The Senate Committee headed by Republicans found that there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. As for the Mueller report: AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges. The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-lindsey-graham-politics-russia-f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

There are other media sites reporting the same thing. So, if the report is mere propaganda, then it ultimately comes from the UK government, not the media. Next thing you know, there will be lunatic propagandistic claims from some government or other that Ukraine is governed by Nazis...oh wait a minute...

The headline should have read "Underwhelming Evidence of Guilt... Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted of Lying to the FBI in Trump-Russia Case https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-lawyer-michael-sussman-acquitted-of-lying-to-the-fbi-in-donald-trump-russia-case

Well, if Oklahoma wants less Black citizens, it's sure going about it in a funny way. But, insofar as unwanted pregnancies coming to term keeps low income women poor, you have a point.

Ukraine is waging a civil war? That's like blaming the American North for waging civil war against the American south. So anytime a faction in some region of a country wants to secede, they are blameless? As for the Azov Brigade. Yes it certainly could be described as Neo-Nazi during the Donbas civil war. But they were far from the only brigades fighting for Ukraine. What's more, Ukraine was desperate. Russia was financing an insurrection. They took whatever help they could get. It's a measure of how desperate Ukraine was they they were using the Azov regiment even though one of its professed desires was to overthrow the Ukrainian govt. once the war in the east was won. As for the issue of unsavory allies, it should be pointed out that the USA was allied with Stalin's murderous Soviet Union against Hitler's Germany.. Does that mean that America was fighting for Communism? Are you familiar with the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? That's often the case when it comes to war.

Oh, it was only the Ukraine that failed to uphold the Minsk agreement? Not the rebels and Russia? Actually there were 2 Minsk agreements. The 2nd agreement called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Russia denied that it had any troops in Donbas and Luhansk. It is to laugh.

They voted overwhelmingly for the Ukraine to be an independent nation in 1991. They could have voted for Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation. You think every 20 years or so they should get a do-over?

I have some exciting news for you. Ukraine did hold a referendum on independence from the Russian Federation in 1991. Here are the results by region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#:~:text=A referendum on the Act,Rada on 24 August 1991.

What documents does my wife (she's Thai) need to produce for Immigration in order to get my TM30?

You use lies for explanatory reasons? Is that because the truth doesn't support your case?

Actually, if anything, those congresspeople who have the strongest support of extreme Zionists, the evangelicals, are the most likely to be opposed to US intervention against Russia. But, you weren't really referring to Zionists, as such, were you? Be careful, your anti-semitism is showing.

I suspect that the countries bordering Russia probably think that there's a pretty good explanation for having American troops (both boys and girls but thanks for the cljiché) standing around. Maybe you should take up your argument with the Finns.

It is not reasonable to refuse to be vaccinated unless for very good medical reasons. It is also not reasonable to expect employers to go to expense and bother when a free and highly effective measure is available. There was a time, not long ago, when right wingers made mocked so-called left wing earth mothers who refused to get their kids vaccinated. Vaccines as something controversial used to be considered the doctrine of cranks. And rightly so. As for your comment about it being legitimate for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee who gets an abortion...an employer's rights aren't absolute. And what choices an employee makes in the privacy of a medical institution, would not be upheld in court as work related. Public conduct is one thing. Private conduct quite another.

You really aren't familiar with his career are you? He worked for Sheldon Adelson. Remember him? The guy who did his best to drive Arabs out of Jerusalem. He helped to create the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. He strongly opposed removing Israeli settlements from Gaza. And so forth.

And how were the jurors selected? A trial in the Senate is not comparable to a criminal trial. In fact, it's not clear that what Trump did was criminal. Which, by the way, is not a defense against impeachment. It was certainly sleazy and self-serving.

Well, maybe you've been compiling a dossier on each poster and what other countries they criticize or praise or do both. Care to share that data with us? Or are you just bloviating? Anyway, this thread is about something that happened in Israel.

Well, by your criterion, whataboutery would be legitimately raised as an issue any time any country was criticized.

You really feel comfortable citing that rightwing so-and-so? From March 2003 – May 2005, he was Israel's Minister without Portfolio, responsible for Jerusalem's social and Jewish diaspora affairs. Under this position, Sharansky chaired a secret committee that approved the confiscation of East Jerusalem property of West Bank Palestinians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky#Israeli_political_career AS for his criteria of anti-semitsm, they're worthless. Plenty of countries are on the receiving end of the same kind of harsh, maybe even unfair criticisms. Just because Israel gets castigated similarly, that doesn't mean those comments are anti-Semitic.

Just to clear. Trump was impeached for pressuring a foreign leader to go after a potential opponent of his in the upcoming election. Keep in mind that for months before this meeting Trump was not responding to pleas from the Ukrainian govt to send the weapons that a law mandated be sent so that the Ukraininan govt could battle against Russian backed separatists.

Maybe because criminal courts are for people charged with crimes? What crime did she commit?

And clearly, I didn't say that the article addressed that question. Which is why my comment is below the link. But the evidence, not the conclusions or thesis, provided by the article does support my contention. What reasonable counter explanation is there for the fact that legislators who claim to oppose abortion do not do everything in their power to keep them from occurring in the first place by making sure that women who don't want to get pregnant have the means not to?

First off, this person's objection was specifically about people losing their jobs because they refuse to get vaccinated. So, I don't understand why you claim that this is somehow besides the point. That poster compared that practice to objections against laws restricting abortion. You supported the claim of another poster who according to you "quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice" As I pointed out, this poster did not rightly point out the selective application of my body my choice. It's flawed. Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease? An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business is bad for society at large and take action accordingly. Against the overwhelming evidence, some people oppose getting vaccinated against covid. So while it may not seem to some that losing a job is a reasonable price to pay, that assumption is based on a scientifically unreasonable refusal to get vaccinated. Not so long ago, such objections to being vaccinated would be considered the province of cranks. But now that it's taken on a political dimension, not so much. Let me repeat: it is not reasonable behavior to refuse to be vaccinated. So if someone wants to be unreasonable, there are consequences.

To start with last things first: the money that Texas allocates for family planning specifically disallows its use for funding abortion services. So Planned Parenthood would be prohibited from using that funding for abortion services. Obviously the best way to stop abortions from happening is to see to it that pregnancies' don't happen in the first place. Texas has actually slashed funding for family planning services for low income women. http://sites.utexas.edu/txpep/files/2021/03/TxPEP-research-brief-reproductive-health-care.pdf Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women. Particularlyh low income women who may not have the means to travel out of state. The most fervent supporters of anti-abortion laws are right wing Catholics and many evangelicals who also oppose contraception. It's these hardliners that Republicans are clearly catering to. Otherwise, why actually slash funding for contraceptive services?

Actually, when enforcement of covid rules was strictest and no cruise ships were allowed, and few vaporettos were plying the water, the water in the canals cleared and fish returned. The most dangerous agents of vandalism are the giant cruise ships. 'Nature is taking back Venice': wildlife returns to tourist-free city With the cruise ships gone and the souvenir stalls closed, the coronavirus lockdown has transformed La Serenissima’s waterways Look down into the waters of the Venice canals today and there is a surprising sight – not just a clear view of the sandy bed, but shoals of tiny fish, scuttling crabs and multicoloured plant-life. “The water is blue and clear,” said Gloria Beggiato, who owns the celebrated Metropole Hotel a few steps from St Mark’s square and has a view over the Venice lagoon. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/20/nature-is-taking-back-venice-wildlife-returns-to-tourist-free-city

Even if such protection were feasible and effective, which is dubious why is it a matter of either/or?