On 2/6/2019 at 7:00 AM, keemapoot said:

As mentioned in the article "Trump is expected to discuss foreign policy in the address to a joint session of Congress, including declaring the Islamic State militant group all but defeated."

 

Meanwhile, PRESIDENT Trump continues to show his mastery of geography, history, and foreign policy as is expected in someone in such an esteemed position as POTUS:

 

????????

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-called-bhutan-nepal-button-nipple-john-walcott_us_5c58c7b0e4b00187b5544631

 

That's just the tip of the ship sinking iceberg that is Trump... Here's the worst of it.... Note especially the 3rd pgh of the excerpt below... "willfull ignorance."

 

http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-national-security/

 

Quote

 

'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings

 

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

 

Citing multiple in-person episodes, these intelligence officials say Trump displays what one called “willful ignorance” when presented with analyses generated by America’s $81 billion-a-year intelligence services. The officials, who include analysts who prepare Trump’s briefs and the briefers themselves, describe futile attempts to keep his attention by using visual aids, confining some briefing points to two or three sentences, and repeating his name and title as frequently as possible.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 20197 yr by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

I've noticed several times references to the powerful Israel lobby but no one ever identifies who these people are. This coyness is the kind of thing that leads to suspicions of there being anti-semitic motivations behind this criticism. So all of you who cite the powerful Israel lobby, do you care to identify who you are referring to?

If Mueller really wants to get Trump on collusion charges, he should investigate all of the Israeli collusion in the 2016 Presidential election.

might want to see the  YT 4 part banned  AJ special on it  "the lobby"  or the RToncontact 2 part discussion....

 

history repeats itself .... on the depths of imperialism , neocon-profascist-nationalism   confusing what to call what financialization has done  to these  end-times  ????

This is a bill that would fit right in with Thailand

 

10 hours ago, Harveyg said:

As usual an unbalanced approach.  

Please show me where my approach is unbalanced.

19 hours ago, stevenl said:

As usual not addressing the issues raised, just vile posting.

I addressed the Bill. The sad fact is that you and others  never bothered to read the legislation and were clueless as to what the Bill stated. Instead you and others focused on a small part of the Bill related to Israel, ignoring the fact that most of the Bill was to benefit Jordan and to protect Syrian civilians from their indiscriminate bombing and poison gassing by the Assad regime. You claim a "conspiracy" even though the Bill sponsors were clear in their  stated goal that they sought to  address the expensive litigation exposure  that was wasting taxpayers money when  local  governments were forced to defend their purchases of Israeli products or in forcing the liquidation of pension fund investments in some hitech industries at a cost to the  pension fund participants. Outside political  groups that had no  real stake in the purchase of the Israeli products or were significant retirement fund participants sought to impose their  political positions on those who had a defined interest.  Why don't you take the time to read the Bill, or  would the fact that there is funding for Arabs detract from your hateful diatribe?

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Please show me where my approach is unbalanced.

You sought to paint this as a Bill forced by a sinister jew lobby, (perhaps funded by your usual bogeyman, "Goldman"?) and ignored the fact that the majority of the Bill addressed the funding of Jordan and  the implementation of protective sanctions to discourage the bombing of non combatants in Syria.

24 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

I addressed the Bill. The sad fact is that you and others  never bothered to read the legislation and were clueless as to what the Bill stated. Instead you and others focused on a small part of the Bill related to Israel, ignoring the fact that most of the Bill was to benefit Jordan and to protect Syrian civilians from their indiscriminate bombing and poison gassing by the Assad regime. You claim a "conspiracy" even though the Bill sponsors were clear in their  stated goal that they sought to  address the expensive litigation exposure  that was wasting taxpayers money when  local  governments were forced to defend their purchases of Israeli products or in forcing the liquidation of pension fund investments in some hitech industries at a cost to the  pension fund participants. Outside political  groups that had no  real stake in the purchase of the Israeli products or were significant retirement fund participants sought to impose their  political positions on those who had a defined interest.  Why don't you take the time to read the Bill, or  would the fact that there is funding for Arabs detract from your hateful diatribe?

No, that is not what I did. You're addressing me without even reading.

24 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

You sought to paint this as a Bill forced by a sinister jew lobby, (perhaps funded by your usual bogeyman, "Goldman"?) and ignored the fact that the majority of the Bill addressed the funding of Jordan and  the implementation of protective sanctions to discourage the bombing of non combatants in Syria.

Please stop and read my comment. I made no mention of implied any Jewish or Israeli lobby.

 

In retrospect, please don't get back to me. Your nonsense is really tiring.

Edited February 7, 20197 yr by stevenl

26 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

You sought to paint this as a Bill forced by a sinister jew lobby, (perhaps funded by your usual bogeyman, "Goldman"?) and ignored the fact that the majority of the Bill addressed the funding of Jordan and  the implementation of protective sanctions to discourage the bombing of non combatants in Syria.

“You sought to paint this as a Bill forced by a sinister jew lobby, (perhaps funded by your usual bogeyman, "Goldman"?)”

 

A fine example of attributing arguments and points of view to a member who has not expressed those arguments or points of view.

 

You are offended by your own imagined arguments.

Some troll posts have been removed. 

On 2/6/2019 at 3:37 AM, bristolboy said:

Just a note to the anti-semites out there. All the votes against except Rand Paul's were from Democrats which is the party Jews overwhelmingly favor in elections.  And at least 3 of those votes came from Jewish senators.

If One criticizes Israel or Israels actions against Palestinians then you risk being labelled as anti Semitic. The fact is Israel is annexing swathes of Arab land already occupied and claiming it as its own. It does this on the pretext of some divine book of skewed Jewish history called the Bible.

I accept the existence of Israel. But cannot support Israeli policy in the occupied territories or the United States blind support of these.

2 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

If One criticizes Israel or Israels actions against Palestinians then you risk being labelled as anti Semitic. The fact is Israel is annexing swathes of Arab land already occupied and claiming it as its own. It does this on the pretext of some divine book of skewed Jewish history called the Bible.

I accept the existence of Israel. But cannot support Israeli policy in the occupied territories or the United States blind support of these.

I don't know what you're replying to. Certainly not my post which simply asked people to identify more precisely the pro-Israel lobby. There seems a curious reluctance on the part of these critics to be precise.

On 2/6/2019 at 6:06 AM, webfact said:

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely breaks from Trump, introduced the non-binding amendment passed on Tuesday. It acknowledged progress against Islamic State and al Qaeda in Syria and Afghanistan but warned that "a precipitous withdrawal" could destabilise the region and create a vacuum that could be filled by Iran or Russia.

 

The amendment called on the Trump administration to certify conditions had been met for the groups' "enduring defeat" before any significant withdrawal from Syria or Afghanistan.

If the region is so important than why isn't Nato or for that matter the British, German, Japanese, etc governments in there defending it also?  The U.S.A. has a history like Vietnam of sticking its nose and having a dog in every fight.  We have been in Afghanistan for 18 years.  Have we defeated anyone - No. Is the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq better after countless trillions of dollars and thousands of lost lives - No.  Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.  The only reason to be constantly engaged in other people's fights is to make those who produce the weapons of war rich.  If stopping terrorism was the true goal, we would secure our borders and stop allowing those to enter from countries whose religious beliefs call for the destruction on the infidels. 

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I've noticed several times references to the powerful Israel lobby but no one ever identifies who these people are. This coyness is the kind of thing that leads to suspicions of there being anti-semitic motivations behind this criticism. So all of you who cite the powerful Israel lobby, do you care to identify who you are referring to?

Try the long list at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

 

The main pro Zionist lobby groups are Christians United for Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who seem to have a disproportionate influence on how politicians in the OP vote.

 

There are many pro Israeli groups too who support Israel's right to exist but are opposed like BDS to Zionism and the 50 plus years of illegal occupation of Palestinians.

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Try the long list at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

 

The main pro Zionist lobby groups are Christians United for Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who seem to have a disproportionate influence on how politicians in the OP vote.

 

There are many pro Israeli groups too who support Israel's right to exist but are opposed like BDS to Zionism and the 50 plus years of illegal occupation of Palestinians.

The main pro zionist faction is the Fundamentalist Christians. Before they became a factor in US politics the Republicans were much cooler in their support of Israel than the Democrats. But now that this elements constitutes the majority of the Republican base, they are by far the most politically influential element supporting Israel. Aipac is basically an organization of Jewish Republicans and as such is a minority in the American Jewish community. There just aren't enough Jews in America to make them the arbiters of American policy. In the previous 2 presidential elections they overwhelmingly supported Obama who was widely loathed by the Israeli political establishment. So much so that Netanyahu came to the US to essentially campaign for Mitt Romney.

2 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

If One criticizes Israel or Israels actions against Palestinians then you risk being labelled as anti Semitic. The fact is Israel is annexing swathes of Arab land already occupied and claiming it as its own. It does this on the pretext of some divine book of skewed Jewish history called the Bible.

I accept the existence of Israel. But cannot support Israeli policy in the occupied territories or the United States blind support of these.

 

I doubt you were directly called an anti-Semite based on the above positions, regardless if one fully accepts the presentation.

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Try the long list at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

 

The main pro Zionist lobby groups are Christians United for Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who seem to have a disproportionate influence on how politicians in the OP vote.

 

There are many pro Israeli groups too who support Israel's right to exist but are opposed like BDS to Zionism and the 50 plus years of illegal occupation of Palestinians.

 

Many of the outfits associated with the BDS support an ideological platform which, spins aside, implies Israel's end. Pretty much what you regularly preach for on these topics.

 

It isn't quite a choice between Evangelical groups/AIPAC on the one hand, and BDS supporters on the other.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The main pro zionist faction is the Fundamentalist Christians. Before they became a factor in US politics the Republicans were much cooler in their support of Israel than the Democrats. But now that this elements constitutes the majority of the Republican base, they are by far the most politically influential element supporting Israel. Aipac is basically an organization of Jewish Republicans and as such is a minority in the American Jewish community. There just aren't enough Jews in America to make them the arbiters of American policy. In the previous 2 presidential elections they overwhelmingly supported Obama who was widely loathed by the Israeli political establishment. So much so that Netanyahu came to the US to essentially campaign for Mitt Romney.

 

I wouldn't know how one determines what is the "main pro Zionist" faction, or what criteria are involved in assessing such statements.

 

As for "Fundamentalist Christians" constituting the "majority of the Republican base" - again, sounds a bit far-fetched, unless the term is very widely applies or that the reference is more to do with the level of political activity and mobilization associated with such groups.

 

AIPAC may be leaning to the right, but describing it as a Republican outfit may be a bit over the top. I think the shift is more associated with political trends in Israel, but that's a wider issue, perhaps. Same goes for the Obama comment - more a right wing thing.   

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That's just the tip of the ship sinking iceberg that is Trump... Here's the worst of it.... Note especially the 3rd pgh of the excerpt below... "willfull ignorance."

 

http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-national-security/

 

 

 

Since one of the mods deleted the 3rd paragraph of the above news report quote that I cited in my introduction, citing TVF's fair use policy...

 

So that my introductory comments aren't rendered pointless... the 3rd paragraph I was referring to above cited briefers and intelligence sources as saying that basically Trump gets angry when he's presented with intelligence that is at odds with his own public positions or personal views... And that has gotten to such a point that now, some sources said the briefers have been told NOT to give Trump intelligence information that they know he's going to disagree with.

 

That's really SHOCKING,  not to mention dangerous for the country and its people.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I wouldn't know how one determines what is the "main pro Zionist" faction, or what criteria are involved in assessing such statements.

 

As for "Fundamentalist Christians" constituting the "majority of the Republican base" - again, sounds a bit far-fetched, unless the term is very widely applies or that the reference is more to do with the level of political activity and mobilization associated with such groups.

 

AIPAC may be leaning to the right, but describing it as a Republican outfit may be a bit over the top. I think the shift is more associated with political trends in Israel, but that's a wider issue, perhaps. Same goes for the Obama comment - more a right wing thing.   

Here's a poll from Gallup. Admittedly it's from 2009 but it shows that 49 percent of republicans were white evangelicals.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx

Now according to Vox a record percentage of evangelicals voted Republican in 2016. Which means the percentage is even higher.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/evangelicals-back-donald-trump-in-record-numbers-despite-earlier-doubts-1478689372

So, no, it's not at all far-fetched. Quite the contrary

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's a poll from Gallup. Admittedly it's from 2009 but it shows that 49 percent of republicans were white evangelicals.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx

Now according to Vox a record percentage of evangelicals voted Republican in 2016. Which means the percentage is even higher.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/evangelicals-back-donald-trump-in-record-numbers-despite-earlier-doubts-1478689372

So, no, it's not at all far-fetched. Quite the contrary

 

Thanks, perhaps not all that far-fetched, then. I note that the Gallup poll doesn't directly reference evangelicals, though. A bit weary of lumping people and their beliefs - or how these supposedly translate to political views.

An off topic post has been removed. 

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I've noticed several times references to the powerful Israel lobby but no one ever identifies who these people are. This coyness is the kind of thing that leads to suspicions of there being anti-semitic motivations behind this criticism. So all of you who cite the powerful Israel lobby, do you care to identify who you are referring to?

Here is an excellent book on the subject:  https://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

 

It goes into quite a bit of detail about how far Jews have infiltrated the US government - for the benefit of Israel.  The enemy within - is all I can say.

A troll post has been removed. 

 

An off topic diatribe have been removed as well as a reply. 

The right to boycott is at the heart of US history. US independence itself is founded on an act of boycott in Boston Harbor. We owe civil rights to people like Rosa Parks who non violently inspired a boycott of public transport in Montgomery.

 

Every doctor, nurse, teacher and many others work directly and indirectly for the national government. Would they be prosecuted too under this law if they support BDS and refuse to agree with the current government's blind allegiance to a foreign power?

 

This has already happened on a state level in Texas. Outrageous abuse of civil rights and the First Amendment. The government coercing you to hold their opinions. That's not democracy What next?

 

Texas speech pathologist loses job for refusing to sign pro-Israel pledge
Children’s speech pathologist Bahia Amawi now suing Texas attorney general and the school district that dismissed her
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-speech-pathologist-fired-sign-israel-palestine-pledge-anti-bds-intercept-a8688031.html

Edited February 8, 20197 yr by dexterm

 

@dexterm

 

The opined earlier, the legislation being daft and over-the-top, and if anything, harmful to Israel's interests in the long term. Regardless, your own insistence on painting BDS as the some core element in criticizing Israeli policy is misleading.

 

Troll post removed.