Most Commented Politics Blogs (944)

Don't know how to upload but maybe stringman will do it for me as in my thread about the discussion of the Woodhouse brothers on nuking the muslim country.

Then Crayons posted this on my other thread.

"From - Audacity of Hope: (taken directly from obama book)

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" 

think paid islamic mercenaries & cartels sitting a few miles south of el paso waiting for the countdown to GO TIME."


Your thoughts? Fellow US citizens?

Media Call Out Donald Trump's Plan To Ban Muslims From The US For Playing Into The Hands Of ISIS

Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook:
Anything To Suggest The US "Is At Odds With The Muslim Faith ... Would Be Counterproductive To Our Efforts" To Defeat ISIS.
In a December 8 press briefing, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook alluded to Trump's proposal in explaining that it "would be counterproductive" to the goal of defeating ISIS to create "the notion that the United States is at odds with the Muslim faith and Islam".
We have troops serving that follow the Muslim faith. And, again, without wading into politics, anything that tries to bolster, if you will, the ISIL narrative that the United States is somehow at war with Islam is contrary to our values and contrary to our national security.
We are, as I mentioned, working with Muslim nations right now. We want to, in essence, take the fight to ISIL with the help of -- of Muslims and others around the world. And anything that -- that somehow challenges that, we think would be counterproductive to our national security.

New York Times' Frank Bruni:
Trump "Has Given The Islamic State ... A Piece Of Propaganda As Big As Any Of His Resorts."
In a December 8 op-ed, New York Times opinion columnist Frank Bruni stated that Trump's policy proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States "has practically collaborated with the enemy by playing into a narrative of Muslim persecution":
But what Trump just did took pressure off the president by redirecting the conversation from his tentativeness to Trump's insane overreach. We should tell him that, and we should add that he has practically collaborated with the enemy by playing into a narrative of Muslim persecution and a grand war between civilizations.
He has given the Islamic State and other barbarians a piece of propaganda as big as any of his resorts and as shimmering as any of his office towers.

NBC News' Richard Engel:
Trump's Policy "Just Feeds Into The ISIS Narrative," And Presents "A National Security Issue."
In a December 7 appearance on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel slammed Trump's proposal to ban foreign Muslims from the United States, saying it "feeds into the ISIS narrative," and "it is a national security issue." Engel explained that ISIS claims "the world is against Muslims and we, ISIS, are defending Muslims. So here comes Mr. Trump and says ISIS is right":
ENGEL: ISIS says, join the ISIS cause because the world is against Muslims and we, ISIS, are defending Muslims. So here comes Mr. Trump and says, ISIS is right. Join the ISIS team or join other radicals, or you're going to be deported, or you're going to be kicked out of the country. I kept saying, thinking to myself while he was making these statements, what exactly would this look like? I spend a lot of time on planes. So you come to the airport. Are there people standing there asking you questions? Are you a Muslim? How exactly do you prove it? Do you prove a negative? What do you know about Islam? Tell me what you think about Mohammed. Does that mean people from Indonesia, people from every corner of the Muslim world, over a billion people, including U.S. citizens?

New York Times' Thomas Friedman:
Trump, by alienating the Muslim world with his call for a ban on Muslims entering America, is acting as the Islamic State's secret agent. ISIS wants every Muslim in America (and Europe) to feel alienated. If that happens, ISIS won't need to recruit anyone. People will will just act on their own. ISIS and Islamic extremism are Muslim problems that can only be fixed by Muslims. Lumping all Muslims together as our enemies will only make that challenge harder.


(Continued in Comments Section)

"Merkel's cabinet approves faster migrant deportations
The German cabinet has passed a slew of measures aimed at streamlining the deportation process. The phones of asylum-seekers will be searched, while rejected people will likely be kept in custody longer."

Published Feb. 22, 2017



"Regretting something, Angela? Germany's Merkel announces plan to deport 100,000 migrants

ANGELA MERKEL today announced plans to deport 100,000 migrants who arrived in Germany last year as she continues to backtrack on her controversial open door asylum policy."

By NICK GUTTERIDGE
PUBLISHED: 04:31, Sun, Nov 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 11:16, Sun, Nov 27, 2016

What a change of tide. .what a change...



By the way this picture was taken in southern France last year.

but for those who took my comments personally, Art, Bekard - to be 60 or 70 or 80 does not make one automatically senile and I apologise, it never occurred to me that would be taken that way. My father was still practicing medicine at 80 and getting referrals from other specialists in his field because he was like a living reference library, he'd seen it ALL. Some people can be senile at 60 and some remain sharp to 90 plus. I said senile and decrepit with respect to one individual, not intending the implication it was because of his age. I don't think he has changed in essentials in years and years. Given the chance 20 years ago he was just as likely to call national emergencies about non-emergencies before shambling away for a weekend's relaxing golf, for example. JMO.



But also JMO, I would say that a job like leading a country calls for a younger person. There's a fair amount of pressure involved, no? I joke about wanting to rule the world but it would be a pretty scary place if I did because an awful lot of people would get their heads lopped off, who has the patience for their shit at this age?

Mic, wrong, the candidate I like is way way down in the listings - Pete Buttigieg. He hasn't a hope of getting in unfortunately, one giant strike against him apart from his age: "The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, launched his presidential bid in late January. Buttigieg — pronounced BOOT-edge-edge — has an implausible resume: He’s a Rhodes Scholar who was elected mayor of this industrial Midwest city while still in his twenties. He’s led an economic revival over seven years in office, during which time he also served a seven-month tour with the Navy in Afghanistan. Buttigieg is openly gay and live-streamed his wedding on YouTube."

But you should hear him talk. Especially by comparison to the old farts of both parties. No shouting, no ranting, no platitudes. He's informed, sensible, intelligent AND clued-up. Not many interviews because he obviously hasn't a hope but he really comes across well on the two I watched. Sadly, being gay, he would naturally instantly be accused of wanting to introduce forced homosexuality in schools

No comments, that was all I wanted to say but I didn't care to return to that blog.

Update: I expected this blog to be read a couple of times, no comments, and to drop out of sight while still topical. So, since vague pointy-finger blogs are annoying, the troll in question has a name not unlike GoldenShower (gold, diamonds, whatever) was Caucasian, now a Pacific Islander, was living in New York, now on an island, was Christian then switched to Islamic (so far - he hasn't been with us long, who knows how many times he can reinvent himself, watch that space) and the blog was 'creepy Joe Biden'. I objected to it, got called on a couple of my comments, and responded here.

Oh and GoldenShower said he didn't want Biden near his daughter, so he may well be adding ex-wives and children to his profile at some point but at the time of the blog didn't, um, have a daughter.

Trit trot.

According to a brand new Rasmussen poll, President Trump’s approval numbers have now climbed back to 46%, near the highest of his presidency. And all the other polls have now reflected the bump: the NBC/WSJ poll over the weekend shows Trump at an all-time high of 45%. That poll also showed that just 53% of Republicans approved of Trump’s behavior at his meeting with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in Helsinki — but that didn’t matter much to their overall approval of him, which is nearly universal (88%).

What’s bolstering Trump’s high approval rating? The NBC/WSJ poll suggests that Trump’s economic record is his biggest asset: 50% of Americans like the way he’s handling the economy. 51% dislike the way he has handled Putin overall, 58% disapprove of his immigration policy, and 53% disapprove of his tariff policy.

But there’s something else that has happened, too: Trump’s approval rating has been remarkably stable since long before he was president. He began his presidency at nearly the same number he now occupies; during the election cycle, he hovered in the low-40s as well. News coverage simply doesn’t touch Trump, because everything is baked in. There’s nobody in America who doesn’t have a personal opinion or take on Trump. He’s become the political equivalent of the Super Bowl: the thing everybody watches and talks about.

And that means that new information doesn’t change the math.

What does change, however, is the impact Trump has on Congressional elections. Republicans aren’t nearly as priced-in as Trump. That means that when Trump does something unpopular, Congressional Republicans bear the brunt in the polls. So, for example, at the beginning of June, before the latest round of hubbub, Democrats led Republicans in the generic ballot by 3 points; now that number is 7.4%, according to RealClearPolitics.

That’s actually not unique to Trump. President Obama retained high approval ratings throughout his time in office, because everyone had an opinion about him. But his actions reflected far more on his Congressional Democrats than on Obama himself, which is why Democrats experienced heavy losses across the country. All of which suggests that some caution is in order before Republicans declare victory thanks to Trump’s solid approval ratings: the variability in our national polls no longer seems to apply to presidential approval ratings nearly as much as to Congressional approval ratings. That’s because we’ve now used the presidency as a proxy for all of our partisanship, and we seem to reserve our more nuanced political judgment for Congressional races, where the stakes of going out to vote are lower and seemingly less fraught.

"It’s no secret that President Donald Trump loves dictators. Over the course of his presidency, Trump has expressed admiration for a slew of authoritarians, from Russian President Vladimir Putin to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The latest to receive such praise is Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In closed-door remarks to Republicans on Saturday, Trump celebrated Xi for his recent consolidation of power and for getting rid of presidential term limits, according to CNN, which obtained a recording of the meeting."

Read the rest in the above link.

JUSTICE IS SERVED



"Republicans face a difficult 2018 midterm election in about one month’s time. But on its eve, the GOP just secured its greatest amount of political power and leverage since at least the Great Depression."

There are Americans, and Free Citizens not in the USA, who are dumbfounded by the apparent illogic of some.

These types appear to be well described by KGB Defector, Lev Bezmanov, who explained that the indoctrination of such people is so complete that no amount of proof of facts would sway them from the Party Line. You could prove that Black was Black and White was White, it did not matter. Their minds, in the words of Bezmanov, were "contaminated," and thus impervious to the truth.


Where did this come from?

Recall that the Soviets, before they were Soviets, were Russians, the home of Russian psychologist, Ivan Pavlov. During the 1890s, Pavlov led the field in psychological conditioning. It was Pavlov who came up with Stimulus-Response. Punishment / Reward, conditioning training.


This was later used to great effect by the Soviets, first against their own people, and later exported worldwide by the Soviet Communist International (COMINTERN), example: PSYCHO-POLITICS

Psychopolitics, at its very core, is the Soviet art of brainwashing. Since 1933, the United States has been subject to a far-reaching and comprehensive campaign of psychopolitical warfare aimed at subverting and destroying our Constitutional Republic, and according to the Lucille Miller case of 1950, to “recruit every agency of the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of religious healing.”
...
In a Capitalistic state, you are aided on all sides by the corruption of the philosophy of man and the times. You will discover that everything will aid you in your campaign to seize, control and use all ‘mental healing’ to spread our doctrine and rid us of our enemies within their own borders.

Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization of healing societies, by constant campaign about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness make you Capitalist himself, by his own appropriations, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of the nation.

By psychopolitics, create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace [absence of opposition] Man has ever known... Thank You.”


The Manual on Psychopolitics can be found HERE:


Look, particularly, at the section called: CHAPTER V: An Examination of Loyalties


In a demonic fashion, it explains how any society can be brought low by a constant process of defamation, destroying all that which is good and noble and beautiful, and to destroy the bonds of loyalty at the atomic level: between man and woman, husband and wife, parent and child, church and penitent, employer and employee, citizen and state.

The perversion of psychology and drugs was honed to a high and evil science. In the USSR, notably at the infamous SERBSKY INSTITUTE, where dissidents would be falsely labeled as insane and then subjected to endless mental and physical torture.


In the USA, the CIA echoed the Soviet effort in secret operations under various names, such as MK-ULTRA.

Which of these words do you like to say the most? They are both very popular words, as can be seen by the number of threads with at least one in its title. But if you could only choose one, which would it be? Which one could you simply not live without. Is it more satisfying to call someone who thinks your views are insane a leftist or a liberal? Which one causes the most offence?

But I want them both, Mommy.

Apparently, Mr Biden has stated in no uncertain terms that the policy of the US is to defend Taiwan from invasion even militarily if the situation demands it.

It has always been known that the US stood on Taiwan's side, however, how far the US was prepared to go in case of a Chinese invasion was never made explicitly clear before. This policy of uncertainty was deliberate, and it was intended to discourage China from invading Taiwan while keeping Taiwan on its toes and preventing it from making rash decisions comfortable in the knowledge that the US would intervene if China made a move.

What is your opinion? I understand that Biden is concerned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine may encourage China to invade Taiwan, and that he wants to make absolutely sure that China doesn't dare; however, by coming clean, the US is now committed on the world stage. Not making good on its threats would be devastating politically.