Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2793

  • Maple Leaf

    2199

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1483

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Cade said:

USA trying to ignore the current events in Afghanistan

 

dd0.png

 Going to send 3000, troops to Afghanistan to help persons trying to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios

Biden doesn't give a **** about the Afghans.

Trillions spent, thousands dead for what ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
36 minutes ago, Cade said:

Twenty years of warfare for no good reason that achieved the square root of feck all.

 

Vietnam 2: Electric Boogaloo.

 

 

The Yanks make a mess of everything they get involved in.

Tossers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been a while ago, but did they not first go in to get the terrorist training camp where the 911 plotter Osama Bin Laden was sheltering after that act. Why after they got him they decided after Russias example to try and take out the Taliban did they and the other willing followers bother to take on the Taliban. Sometimes as is the case with Afghanistan only its native people really know the full geography. The new mission is one of safe evacuation, but if the three thousand are attacked and soundly beaten its another coat over head and leave or get back to full military involvement again, if that happens Trump will be President again in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

The Yanks make a mess of everything they get involved in.

Tossers.

 

Whilst they have instigated a lot of it - i do look and wonder how the other Allied forces didn't push to change the approach across there. Various things didn't work time and time again whilst Taliban scaled back and retreated to safer places (for them) to wait it out. 

 

I admit it's naive but can't help but think that Afghan government would have been better served creating law that enshrined the banning of Islamic militant groups, banning of the Taliban and any association with it or other franchises then systematically working across the country to remove weapons/fight/eliminate those who want to install a barbaric regime (in some aspects like how Germany have banned Nazism). 

 

When i listened on the radio this morning to a discussion - the one thing that was said was the US politically/militarily didn't understand Afghanistan and i think that's probably true of most of us in the West. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
8 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

Whilst they have instigated a lot of it - i do look and wonder how the other Allied forces didn't push to change the approach across there. Various things didn't work time and time again whilst Taliban scaled back and retreated to safer places (for them) to wait it out. 

 

I admit it's naive but can't help but think that Afghan government would have been better served creating law that enshrined the banning of Islamic militant groups, banning of the Taliban and any association with it or other franchises then systematically working across the country to remove weapons/fight/eliminate those who want to install a barbaric regime (in some aspects like how Germany have banned Nazism). 

 

When i listened on the radio this morning to a discussion - the one thing that was said was the US politically/militarily didn't understand Afghanistan and i think that's probably true of most of us in the West. 

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sharpie said:

The new mission is one of safe evacuation, but if the three thousand are attacked and soundly beaten its another coat over head and leave or get back to full military involvement again, if that happens Trump will be President again in 2024.

 

I very much doubt the 3,000 would be attacked and beaten. The Taliban have weapons but they're nothing nothing like comparably equipped as the US army.

The location of that 3,000 will have a sky smothered with fighter aircraft and drones for miles in every direction.

Anything hostile trying to approach them would be annihilated. And I don't think the Taliban are that stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

Whilst they have instigated a lot of it - i do look and wonder how the other Allied forces didn't push to change the approach across there. Various things didn't work time and time again whilst Taliban scaled back and retreated to safer places (for them) to wait it out. 

 

I admit it's naive but can't help but think that Afghan government would have been better served creating law that enshrined the banning of Islamic militant groups, banning of the Taliban and any association with it or other franchises then systematically working across the country to remove weapons/fight/eliminate those who want to install a barbaric regime (in some aspects like how Germany have banned Nazism). 

 

When i listened on the radio this morning to a discussion - the one thing that was said was the US politically/militarily didn't understand Afghanistan and i think that's probably true of most of us in the West. 

 

When have America ever listened to someone suggesting they're doing it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanistan has never really been a fully unified single nation state.

It's a very loose coalition of tribes, which are based on ethnic background or location or a mix of both.

Most of the tribes have their own traditional laws and the national constitution seems to only exist in the main cities.

The "Government" is simply just another tribe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

When have America ever listened to someone suggesting they're doing it wrong?

 

I'm just more meaning that the leaders of the Allied Forces could easily have had a say in the direction of Afghanistan by cordially advising the US that they would withdraw support if plans didn't evolve/improve. The US needed support and politically at home there would have been uproar if left with the burden of costs.  

 

Instead of having that whole country solution it does start to look like they just went for the first option in order to get troops out - is this a case of military apathy ? @Cadehas just posted about the make up of the country and that sort of continues that view I'm suggesting of "not having a joined up" solution. 

 

nb. I get it's more complex and maybe oversimplifying. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sharpie said:

Its been a while ago, but did they not first go in to get the terrorist training camp where the 911 plotter Osama Bin Laden was sheltering after that act.

 

That was indeed the original mission, to try and get Bin Laden and destroy the Al-Qaeda camps, but also to remove the Taliban from power, who had allowed & protected groups such as Al-Qaeda amongst others to operate, and it was successful, apart from getting Bin Laden.

 

Then all that changed in 2003, when Bush & Blair turned their attention to Iraq and shifted all their resources to that theatre, and left a threadbare presence in Afghanistan.  They were warned to finish the job in Afghanistan first, which was at the time about 90% done, before moving onto Iraq, but Bush et al didn't listen and this allowed the Taliban to re-group and hold on to a small foothold in Afghanistan and from there they grew, whilst the US/UK were too busy in Iraq.

 

I hear people blaming Joe Biden etc, but it was Donald Trump who signed a peace deal with the Taliban last year (the Doha agreement) in which seemingly in return for American troops leaving Afghanistan, the Taliban would basically put down their arms and power share with the Afghan government, but more importantly vowed to prevent Al-Qaeda ever gaining a foothold in Afghanistan again.

 

What the greatest deal maker in history failed to understand was what the political wing of the Taliban says is a completely different thing from what the Taliban are doing on the ground.

Even today, today, there are on-going peace talks taking place in Doha between the Afghan Government & the Taliban, which have been going on for the last year or two, it should have been clear as day, that Trump/Afghan Government/The West have been completely fooled by the Taliban.

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My viewing of the non Trump news channels last night would lead me to believe that it is not a unanimous thing any agreement with what Biden has done.  The basic theme was that he acted too quickly, it is a known fact that although well equipped the Afghan army on its own are not a challenge to the estimated 17,000 or so actual Taliban fighters, although there are Taliban sympathizers in the general population. It seemed from the discussion that the Afghan Air Force are the guardians of the skies. The general impression as I stated is that Bidens decision is a bad one.

 

The Taliban have already taken over numerous districts, Biden had approached them to allow the evacuation of American staffers and some Afghanistan civilians, I ceased watching news about 6.30Pm last night to watch the more important broadcast of the BC Lions V Calgary Stampeders CFL football game which the Lions won. So I apologize if any of my Taliban comments are in error at this time, I definitely do  not want to be contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios
5 minutes ago, Cade said:

Taliban advance forces only 7 miles from Kabul.

 

It's over.

 

 

It's pretty depressing .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump set the wheels in motion reducing the presence from 15k to 2.5k and announcing a full pull out was imminent. Biden just followed through. It makes me laugh maga media are criticising Biden when they backed Trump's every move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Afghanistan so strategically important?

It's one of the poorest countries and has now had 40 years of foreign military bombing .

It has no oil and it has only exported heroin as far as I know.

Am I wrong .

I cant remember why Russia (Soviets) invaded it.

The Taliban and their philosophy seem entrenched .

Is it that way because of what's happened or was it that way which made this mess happen.

It always seems our (western) efforts are focused on the weakest nations.

The heroin trade has all the hallmarks of the CIA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ked said:

Why is Afghanistan so strategically important?

It's one of the poorest countries and has now had 40 years of foreign military bombing .

It has no oil and it has only exported heroin as far as I know.

Am I wrong .

I cant remember why Russia (Soviets) invaded it.

The Taliban and their philosophy seem entrenched .

Is it that way because of what's happened or was it that way which made this mess happen.

It always seems our (western) efforts are focused on the weakest nations.

The heroin trade has all the hallmarks of the CIA.

 

 

Amazing how Saudi Arabia wasn't invaded, considering all or most of the hijackers were from there.

 

The Heroin trade is a must for the governments of the UK and the USA. Can't have the people ready and able, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
9 hours ago, Ked said:

Why is Afghanistan so strategically important?

It's one of the poorest countries and has now had 40 years of foreign military bombing .

It has no oil and it has only exported heroin as far as I know.

Am I wrong .

I cant remember why Russia (Soviets) invaded it.

The Taliban and their philosophy seem entrenched .

Is it that way because of what's happened or was it that way which made this mess happen.

It always seems our (western) efforts are focused on the weakest nations.

The heroin trade has all the hallmarks of the CIA.

 

I'm no expert, but here's my understanding, happy to be corrected.

 

Historically they had a government put in place by the USSR (I assume because that puts them one border away from the oil rich gulf) and it was relatively stable. Then the Americans came in to **** with the god dam commies by funding, arming and training local rebels, leading to that government being overthrown.

 

The local rebels took over and we were left with US trained, armed and funded fundamentalists in charge - we came to know them as the Taliban.

 

I'm sure some of that will be wrong, someone with half a brain will be along soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios

Behind the Al Jazeera journalist  live in Kabul is gunfire,  black smoke and sirens all coming from the area of the US Embassy . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I'm no expert, but here's my understanding, happy to be corrected.

 

Historically they had a government put in place by the USSR (I assume because that puts them one border away from the oil rich gulf) and it was relatively stable. Then the Americans came in to **** with the god dam commies by funding, arming and training local rebels, leading to that government being overthrown.

 

The local rebels took over and we were left with US trained, armed and funded fundamentalists in charge - we came to know them as the Taliban.

 

I'm sure some of that will be wrong, someone with half a brain will be along soon.

 

It was the Mujahideen who the US funded to fight against the Soviet's in the 80's, the Taliban formed in Northern Afghanistan & Pakistan (funded by the Saudi's) in the 90's to overthrow the Mujahideen who by then had taken control of Afghanistan after the Soviet army left.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718

 

As is the case with almost anything in this region, very little is ever for certain, local warlords come and go, allegiances change all the time, been like this for hundreds of years.

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That was the Mujahideen who the US funded to fight against the Soviet's in the 80's, the Taliban formed in Northern Afghanistan & Pakistan (funded by the Saudi's) in the 90's to overthrow the Mujahideen who by then had taken control of Afghanistan after the Soviet army left.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718

 

As is the case with almost anything in this region, very little is ever for certain, local warlords come and go, allegiances change all the time, been like this for hundreds of years.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jalalabad has fallen, without a fight, the Taliban just walked in.

 

The speed that towns/cities are falling often with little or no resistance, looks like deals have been done to allow the Taliban to literally just walk in and take control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios
9 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Jalalabad has fallen, without a fight, the Taliban just walked in.

 

The speed that towns/cities are falling often with little or no resistance, looks like deals have been done to allow the Taliban to literally just walk in and take control.

Watching Al Jazeera live from Kabul it looks like the Taliban are already in Kabul .

US helicopters dropping heat flares whilst evacuating those in US Embassy ,

Obviously frightened of Taliban with RPG's near Embassy .

Afghan government officials have fled to Pakistan .

It's going to be a horrible few days .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2021 at 09:21, Mysterion said:

 

Whilst they have instigated a lot of it - i do look and wonder how the other Allied forces didn't push to change the approach across there. Various things didn't work time and time again whilst Taliban scaled back and retreated to safer places (for them) to wait it out. 

 

I admit it's naive but can't help but think that Afghan government would have been better served creating law that enshrined the banning of Islamic militant groups, banning of the Taliban and any association with it or other franchises then systematically working across the country to remove weapons/fight/eliminate those who want to install a barbaric regime (in some aspects like how Germany have banned Nazism). 

 

When i listened on the radio this morning to a discussion - the one thing that was said was the US politically/militarily didn't understand Afghanistan and i think that's probably true of most of us in the West. 

 

You are naive.

 

Should the Conservatives ban socialism? 

 

The Taliban were just underestimated. As are the support of the Pakistan, a major Western ally without which they wouldn't be strong enough to firstly avoid being wiped out then rebuild and come back strong. 

 

The one plus is that in Afghanistan they don't tend to fight to the death. Change sides easily. Hence the easy relatively bloodless transition. And support for the Taliban is limited and conditional. Hence they have to be so harsh. Consent is harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You are naive.

 

Should the Conservatives ban socialism? 

 

:rofl:

That's literally the most extreme argument i've seen on here. So the suggestion that banning a group who want to impose barbaric ideology including and not limited to treating women as second class citizens its akin to Conservatives banning socialism - incredible. FFS man. 

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cade said:

US Embassy, Saigon, 1975
350px-Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

 

US Embassy, Kabul, 2021

6214.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=forma

My best American pal when I was working in Saudi, he flew the last helicopter from the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

:rofl:

That's literally the most extreme argument i've seen on here. So the suggestion that banning a group who want to impose barbaric ideology including and not limited to treating women as second class citizens its akin to Conservatives banning socialism - incredible. FFS man. 

 

:facepalm:

Although his argument was a bit extreme can I ask who would have enforced any banning of the Taliban? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

:rofl:

That's literally the most extreme argument i've seen on here. So the suggestion that banning a group who want to impose barbaric ideology including and not limited to treating women as second class citizens its akin to Conservatives banning socialism - incredible. FFS man. 

 

:facepalm:

 

You need to do some research. 

 

Shades of grey. Not absolute. And your bigger mistake is how popular the ideology is. And it's not all extreme. Pretty mainstream in many places. More popular than socialism. 

 

And for example less corruption which more than anything has brought down this Afghan government. US and UK maybe never tackled corruption because they don't mind. But more than anything has led to this failure.

Edited by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember who it was that said that the West could never win a land war in Asia, but it looks like he's right again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
On 12/08/2021 at 21:56, The Real Maroonblood said:

The Yanks make a mess of everything they get involved in.

Tossers.

The Russians did show them from 1980.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Barack said:

I'd say a straw poll of most women, wouldn't be very favourable. 

 

Maybe they've mellowed in their years of exile, and are now more liberated & forward thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye.

👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no Taliban mark II in any liberalising sense. Yes some of their mouthpieces have been saying it is but that's not what's happening on the ground.

 

I have seen some speculation of hope that it doesn't become a universal base camp for terrorist groups again but it will. Probably already happening.

In my view the Taliban are no different nor any more radical than the likes of al qaeda, isis etc. They all share the same extremist ideology so what beef would the Taliban have with such brethren setting up there? And getting a share of all the goodies left behind.

I would also speculate that these Afghani mullahs are even crazier than your Iranian variant. It's going to be a hellish nightmare for the inhabitants particularly the women.

And the very existence of this unstable medieval minded entity in that region is extremely problematic. The very best we can hope for is that they dare I say 'religiously' stick to terrorising their captive population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

This is no Taliban mark II in any liberalising sense. Yes some of their mouthpieces have been saying it is but that's not what's happening on the ground.

 

I have seen some speculation of hope that it doesn't become a universal base camp for terrorist groups again but it will. Probably already happening.

In my view the Taliban are no different nor any more radical than the likes of al qaeda, isis etc. They all share the same extremist ideology so what beef would the Taliban have with such brethren setting up there? And getting a share of all the goodies left behind.

I would also speculate that these Afghani mullahs are even crazier than your Iranian variant. It's going to be a hellish nightmare for the inhabitants particularly the women.

And the very existence of this unstable medieval minded entity in that region is extremely problematic. The very best we can hope for is that they dare I say 'religiously' stick to terrorising their captive population.

Yeah, they could always go to America or The UK, they don't have any religious or racial problems. A utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

This is no Taliban mark II in any liberalising sense. Yes some of their mouthpieces have been saying it is but that's not what's happening on the ground.

 

I have seen some speculation of hope that it doesn't become a universal base camp for terrorist groups again but it will. Probably already happening.

In my view the Taliban are no different nor any more radical than the likes of al qaeda, isis etc. They all share the same extremist ideology so what beef would the Taliban have with such brethren setting up there? And getting a share of all the goodies left behind.

I would also speculate that these Afghani mullahs are even crazier than your Iranian variant. It's going to be a hellish nightmare for the inhabitants particularly the women.

And the very existence of this unstable medieval minded entity in that region is extremely problematic. The very best we can hope for is that they dare I say 'religiously' stick to terrorising their captive population.

 

There are reports coming out of Afghanistan of mass executions of Afghan soldiers, forced marriages, etc etc, so it doesn't look like they have changed any from Taliban Mk I.

 

With any luck the Taliban (Sunni) and the Iranians (Shi'a) are too busy giving each other a hard time, to worry about the West....................yea, I know wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is calling for Biden to resign over the pulling out of troops, even though he had planned the withdrawal and called for it to take place faster than had been scheduled. I know you should never waste a good crisis and all that, but you've got to admire Trump's shameless hypocrisy.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-afghanistan-biden-withdrawal-timeline-b1833728.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/08/2021 at 12:08, XB52 said:

My best American pal when I was working in Saudi, he flew the last helicopter from the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon. 

 

If his name wasn't Gerry Berry then he was having you on.

 

Edit: I think, unless he was the pilot of the helicopter who picked up the stranded marines later on.

Edited by redjambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:
On 15/08/2021 at 12:08, XB52 said:

My best American pal when I was working in Saudi, he flew the last helicopter from the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon. 

 

If his name wasn't Gerry Berry then he was having you on.

 

I knew a guy who claimed to have been on the last chopper out of Saigon.

Said he had to pedal like hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

This is no Taliban mark II in any liberalising sense. Yes some of their mouthpieces have been saying it is but that's not what's happening on the ground.

 

I have seen some speculation of hope that it doesn't become a universal base camp for terrorist groups again but it will. Probably already happening.

In my view the Taliban are no different nor any more radical than the likes of al qaeda, isis etc. They all share the same extremist ideology so what beef would the Taliban have with such brethren setting up there? And getting a share of all the goodies left behind.

I would also speculate that these Afghani mullahs are even crazier than your Iranian variant. It's going to be a hellish nightmare for the inhabitants particularly the women.

And the very existence of this unstable medieval minded entity in that region is extremely problematic. The very best we can hope for is that they dare I say 'religiously' stick to terrorising their captive population.

 

The treatment of women under the Taliban probably won't be that much worse than the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia.  I'm told that women's "rights" are spelled out in the Koran and that those rights are significantly different from what the Western democracies aim for, i.e equality with men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Old Testament also calls for those that have sex before marriage to be stoned to death.

We choose to ignore that particular passage because it's mental.

Fundamentalists simply take every single passage in any given religious text and apply it in full, even though some of them openly contradict each other.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

But if the charge is true, and no evidence that the girl was a virgin can be found, they must take the girl to the entrance of her father’s house.
The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel:
She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father’s house.
You must get rid of this evil.

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

If his name wasn't Gerry Berry then he was having you on.

 

Edit: I think, unless he was the pilot of the helicopter who picked up the stranded marines later on.

His name was John O'Neill and he definitely flew out from the US Embassy on the last day. It's possible I picked him up wrong and it wasn't the actual last helicopter. He certainly wasn't a boaster and never really mentioned his actions much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cade said:

The Old Testament also calls for those that have sex before marriage to be stoned to death.

We choose to ignore that particular passage because it's mental.

Fundamentalists simply take every single passage in any given religious text and apply it in full, even though some of them openly contradict each other.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

But if the charge is true, and no evidence that the girl was a virgin can be found, they must take the girl to the entrance of her father’s house.
The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel:
She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father’s house.
You must get rid of this evil.

Is this law enacted anywhere 2000 years later from when it was written?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched Trump interviewed by Hannity last night, he didn't seem to have his usual orange make up and his hair was not properly glued in place, he looked like he has aged.  Despite the fore going he was Donald Trump. Emphasised how he talked strongly to the Taliban, how if he had been left to to do it the final withdrawal would have gone smoothly, he would have left the military there until all the people who were leaving got out, that all would have happened if he hadn't lost as he stated "a rigged election".

He boasted how he had again talked strongly to other world leaders to gain victory in various discussions. Although and I have been one criticisms of Biden seem to be justified at this juncture and the subject of Afghanistan, but Tumps insulting comments and total lack of respect, egged on by Hannity to the sitting President were to a level I don't recall seeing a former President level at his successor. As I have become used to I do not recall through the interview either Trump or Hannity refer to President Biden as such.

Hannity asked Trump directly if he was a candidate for the next Presidential election, he responded that Campaign law restricts a candidate from responding to this question, but then went on in a circular manner to impart a clue that he was if not definitely, strongly, a word he used constantly, to hint that he was considering running.

He campaigned by recounting Bidens failures in Border security, losing connections that he had gained with world leaders by being strong, the building of the wall which if not ceased by Biden would have been totally completed in a month. How he had created the strongest best equipped army in the world.

It is terrible for a Trump dissenter such a I to hear, but what is worse, if Biden and the Democrats do not get their accumulative act together Trump and his personal Republican Party which have ceded all authority and leadership to him will succeed.

God Help America.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2021 at 14:00, Cade said:

*The Old Testament also calls for those that have sex before marriage to be stoned to death.

We choose to ignore that particular passage because it's mental.

Fundamentalists simply take every single passage in any given religious text and apply it in full, even though some of them openly contradict each other.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

But if the charge is true, and no evidence that the girl was a virgin can be found, they must take the girl to the entrance of her father’s house.
The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel:
She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father’s house.
You must get rid of this evil.

*Does it mention being drunk?

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
A Boy Named Crow

I was thinking about the horror show that is the withdrawal from Afghanistan,  and how unfortunate it is that the US has had a narcissistic troll like Trump, followed by what appears to be an ineffectual,  muddled  incompetent in Biden, who may not be up to fixing the mess he was handed.

 

But then it struck me, in my lifetime they've had:

Regan - an actor playing the president (who may or may not have been suffering from Alzheimers in office)

Bush - a man who remembered mostly for his dislike of broccoli, 

Clinton - remembered mostly for pumping an intern

Dubya - the useful idiot

Obama - didn't achieve nearly at much as hoped, the numbers were against him, but still a disappointment 

Trump - nuff sed 

Biden- jury is still out, but early signs are not good

 

Which leads me to ask,  who was their last "good" president???

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kalamazoo Jambo changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (title updated)
  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...