Biden suggests voting for Republicans is a threat to democracy

[Saanim]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Maybe he should be awarded the Neville Chamberlain Prize.

Not sure who you refer to... 

Anyway, many historians are claiming that the war would have not been started as it had started in case Chamberlain would had been further keeping the PM office. The one who had taken over from him had had a different approach leading to a war - not really with much victorious battles.    

[heybruce]

30 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Not sure who you refer to... 

Anyway, many historians are claiming that the war would have not been started as it had started in case Chamberlain would had been further keeping the PM office. The one who had taken over from him had had a different approach leading to a war - not really with much victorious battles.    

I don't know what historians you are referring to, or how the start of the war would have been different. 

 

Churchill's approach was to ensure Britain survived and resisted Hitler.  It worked.  Had England been successfully invaded or just beaten into "neutrality" the Normandy landings would not have happened and there's a good chance most of Europe would still be under Nazi control.

 

Also, let's not overlook Britain's success, at great sacrifice, in defending Egypt and the Suez Canal, and preventing Japan from invading India through Burma.

Edited November 14, 2022 by heybruce

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

Not sure who you refer to... 

Anyway, many historians are claiming that the war would have not been started as it had started in case Chamberlain would had been further keeping the PM office. The one who had taken over from him had had a different approach leading to a war - not really with much victorious battles.    

Care to share who these many historians are? I mean, apart from those who were Nazis. I can't find any.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Or it didn't exist in the first place.

You have been a fan of Trump for a very long time (I think more to do with the fact you think he was being bullied and you don't like bullies) but time has shown that it was in fact him that was the problem rather than any ficticous 'swamp' he sold you.

The bigger picture is there has been no POTUS in living memory who has tried more to undermine democracy than the Orange One and this alone should be the only reason you should choose to not support him. 

Actually I supported him as he was the only hope for the "ordinary bloke" against the, IMO, monster that Washington has become.

If one goes back 6 or 7 years I said on the forum ( TVF back then ) that I'd support a rock if it defeated her. I'm not a fan of millionaires, but the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is relevant with Trump. I'd have preferred Bernie, as he was openly against Wall Street, but IMO he was sabotaged by the Democrats.

Yes, Trump was being attacked on all fronts both by the Dems and by enemies in the GOP, so I saw him as the underdog.

Certainly millions and millions of Americans think Washington is a "swamp". Are they all wrong?

 

The bigger picture is there has been no POTUS in living memory who has tried more to undermine democracy than the Orange One and this alone should be the only reason you should choose to not support him. 

Given my opinion of politics today, that is reason enough to support anyone that goes against the establishment.

[candide]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually I supported him as he was the only hope for the "ordinary bloke" against the, IMO, monster that Washington has become.

If one goes back 6 or 7 years I said on the forum ( TVF back then ) that I'd support a rock if it defeated her. I'm not a fan of millionaires, but the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is relevant with Trump. I'd have preferred Bernie, as he was openly against Wall Street, but IMO he was sabotaged by the Democrats.

Yes, Trump was being attacked on all fronts both by the Dems and by enemies in the GOP, so I saw him as the underdog.

Certainly millions and millions of Americans think Washington is a "swamp". Are they all wrong?

 

The bigger picture is there has been no POTUS in living memory who has tried more to undermine democracy than the Orange One and this alone should be the only reason you should choose to not support him. 

Given my opinion of politics today, that is reason enough to support anyone that goes against the establishment.

I guess it depends how "swamp" is defined, but I get the broad idea,

However, there is no evidence that Trump went against the "swamp", or even intended to do so. At best (worst), what we could observe was an attempt to replace the previous "swamp" by his own swamp.

[Rimmer]

An off topic troll post has been removed also the replies

[johnnybangkok]

6 hours ago, candide said:

I guess it depends how "swamp" is defined, but I get the broad idea,

However, there is no evidence that Trump went against the "swamp", or even intended to do so. At best (worst), what we could observe was an attempt to replace the previous "swamp" by his own swamp.

Actually a deeper and more insidious swamp. 

 

[ozimoron]

Now that the election is over, the Dems need to impeach SC justice Thomas soon, before the GOP take over the house because they will never do it. Impeachments rarely, if ever, succeed but they need to be heard when circumstances warrant. The US can't stand to have an SC justice's wife campaigning to illegally overthrow an election while her  husband runs interference in the court. To allow that would be to surrender democracy to the unholy cabal of the oligarchy and the would be philosophy.

 

It amazes me that those who believe there is a deep state also believe that it's run by the left. That's the koolaide financed by the power and wealth. The oligarchy realized that the religious right were the ideal useful idiots to target when the GOP adopted the southern strategy. The oligarchs would get protection for their racketeering (Citizens United) in return for religiously motivated laws about abortion and anti gay laws. Small bananas in return for the real power. Not for nothing is there a nexus between education and conservatism and religion. Not for nothing do the GOP disdain education.

 

There is also the possibility that, if there was an impeachment, the GOP congress would be forced to vote to impeach Thomas or be smeared with the stink of corruption and decimation at the next general election.

Edited November 15, 2022 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Now that the election is over, the Dems need to impeach SC justice Thomas soon, before the GOP take over the house because they will never do it. Impeachments rarely, if ever, succeed but they need to be heard when circumstances warrant. The US can't stand to have an SC justice's wife campaigning to illegally overthrow an election while her  husband runs interference in the court. To allow that would be to surrender democracy to the unholy cabal of the oligarchy and the would be philosophy.

 

It amazes me that those who believe there is a deep state also believe that it's run by the left. That's the koolaide financed by the power and wealth. The oligarchy realized that the religious right were the ideal useful idiots to target when the GOP adopted the southern strategy. The oligarchs would get protection for their racketeering (Citizens United) in return for religiously motivated laws about abortion and anti gay laws. Small bananas in return for the real power. Not for nothing is there a nexus between education and conservatism and religion. Not for nothing do the GOP disdain education.

 

There is also the possibility that the GOP congress will be forced to impeach Thomas or be smeared with the stink of corruption and decimation at the next general election.

I don't see that what she did was illegal except maybe in perjuring herself by claiming that she and her husband don't discuss issues before the Supreme Court. But there's no way disproving that. Thompson is obviously a partisan low life. He has actually been featured as attending fund raising events in support of right wing candidates. But while that may be unethical, it's not a crime.

[ozimoron]

Just now, placeholder said:

I don't see that what she did was illegal except maybe in perjuring herself by claiming that she and her husband don't discuss issues before the Supreme Court. But there's no way disproving that. Thompson is obviously a partisan low life. He has actually been featured as attending fund raising events in support of right wing candidates. But while that may be unethical, it's not a crime.

His failure to recuse is a crime in this circumstance. It's certainly an impeachable offense. Thomas's wife was engaged in organizing the fake electors.

[ozimoron]

Kemp to testify before Fulton grand jury Tuesday

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-kemp-to-testify-before-fulton-grand-jury-tuesday/TUIQE54KIBFH5LCINSOYARBPVY/

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, candide said:

I guess it depends how "swamp" is defined, but I get the broad idea,

However, there is no evidence that Trump went against the "swamp", or even intended to do so. At best (worst), what we could observe was an attempt to replace the previous "swamp" by his own swamp.

Alas, people often elect a politician only for them not to deliver on the promises.

I guess the recent election result was in part a reaction to that.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Alas, people often elect a politician only for them not to deliver on the promises.

I guess the recent election result was in part a reaction to that.

It looks like you're conceding that the MAGA message was essentially a con.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Alas, people often elect a politician only for them not to deliver on the promises.

I guess the recent election result was in part a reaction to that.

The GOP made no promises other than complaints and threats of retribution. The other party made the promises. If the right made any promises it was to limit assistance to Ukraine.

[ozimoron]

CNN are reporting that Russia delayed their retreat from Kherson to help the traitor party. Same collusion which occurred when the Saudis cooperated with Russia to reduce oil production and maintain high inflation.

[ozimoron]

House committee finds Trump Hotel scoring huge profits from 6 countries 'at sensitive times' for their US relations

 

At the time, the Saudis and U.A.E. were meeting with Jared Kushner about a blockade of Qatar, which is a U.S. ally and that has U.S. bases in its borders with 11,000 U.S. servicemembers. Despite the efforts of Trump and Kushner, the blockade imploded. It was ultimately revealed that Qatar paid Kushner's company $1.2 billion for the 666 Fifth Avenue property.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-hotel-profits-foreign-officials/?traffic_source=Connatix