Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

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???

 

It's a very subjective question, but Harry Truman ended WWII quickly by using nuclear weapons, initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the war, created NATO, went to war to save South Korea.  I doubt if any prez since then has had to make such tough decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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

A Boy Named Crow
27 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's a very subjective question, but Harry Truman ended WWII quickly by using nuclear weapons, initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the war, created NATO, went to war to save South Korea.  I doubt if any prez since then has had to make such tough decisions.

Eesht, that's a shakey one isn't it? The use of the bomb will have hastened the end of the war, but it is viewed by some as a war crime. Depending on your view on that,  Truman is probably kept out of the "good" column on the grounds of being a war criminal...

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

Seymour M Hersh
4 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Eesht, that's a shakey one isn't it? The use of the bomb will have hastened the end of the war, but it is viewed by some as a war crime. Depending on your view on that,  Truman is probably kept out of the "good" column on the grounds of being a war criminal...

 

The Americans knew that if the continued to Island hop to Japan the human cost would be astronomical let alone what the additional cost would be to both sides if the had to take the main Japanese Islands. As brutal as the two bombs were dropping them probably saved many more lives and of course shortened the war. Remember the old fella they found on a remote Island in the pacific who was still fighting for the Emperor in the early 70's? The Japanese military had a level of fanaticism and devotion to the emperor rarely seen outside of the SS and surrender was not in their vocabulary until he told them to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Trump thinks Bin Laden was a one hit wonder and Obama shouldn't get too much credit for getting him. The Islamic State guy he got was way badder per the orange nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's a very subjective question, but Harry Truman ended WWII quickly by using nuclear weapons, initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the war, created NATO, went to war to save South Korea.  I doubt if any prez since then has had to make such tough decisions.

No he didn't. WW2 lated 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The Americans knew that if the continued to Island hop to Japan the human cost would be astronomical let alone what the additional cost would be to both sides if the had to take the main Japanese Islands. As brutal as the two bombs were dropping them probably saved many more lives and of course shortened the war. Remember the old fella they found on a remote Island in the pacific who was still fighting for the Emperor in the early 70's? The Japanese military had a level of fanaticism and devotion to the emperor rarely seen outside of the SS and surrender was not in their vocabulary until he told them to do so. 

It was murder. Same with the firebombing of the German cities. Murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
11 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was murder. Same with the firebombing of the German cities. Murder.

Years ago I knew this guy,  proper Little Englander, into military re-enactments, believed the best form of government is empire etc.

 

He called his son Arthur, surname was Harris. Kid you not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The Americans knew that if the continued to Island hop to Japan the human cost would be astronomical let alone what the additional cost would be to both sides if the had to take the main Japanese Islands. As brutal as the two bombs were dropping them probably saved many more lives and of course shortened the war. Remember the old fella they found on a remote Island in the pacific who was still fighting for the Emperor in the early 70's? The Japanese military had a level of fanaticism and devotion to the emperor rarely seen outside of the SS and surrender was not in their vocabulary until he told them to do so. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was murder. Same with the firebombing of the German cities. Murder.

 

16 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was murder. Same with the firebombing of the German cities. Murder.

 

16 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was murder. Same with the firebombing of the German cities. Murder.

 

I lived through WW2, no TV just the film news at the movie theatre. War and its content are the crime, firebombing German cities, criminal, really, how often did your Dad have to leave the house at night to go and sit in an ARP depot waiting to drive his ambulance to pick up those injured horribly in German bombing, he drove through to Glasgow when it was raided a couple of times, not a pleasant joy ride. London mass bombing, other cities in England same story. Germany started the fight, Britain engaged with them, both done terrible things, but that is war. Have you ever actually been in a street fight, do you obey the Queensberry rules. When my Dad thought I at fourteen  had threatened him, he kicked my feet from under me, then kicked me the length of the room, only stopping when my mother arrived and told me I had probably asked for it, my father when I got up  told me two things, never threaten, and there are no Queensberry rules in a street fight.

I also after all the carnage of the previous six years , saw men who I was a five year old when they left home , arrive back two brothers who served their full time in Burma they hadn't become men, they had become old men fighting, yes, the Japanese.

As a young policemen early 1956, war survivors were some of the people I dealt with, not usually too many talking about it, but when you spoke to the people  treating them you understood their problems.

War is a crime, people starting a war are criminals, the people fighting in a war are doing their duty as mandated, the criminals are those who start it, direct it and never participate in a physical battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's a very subjective question, but Harry Truman ended WWII quickly by using nuclear weapons, initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the war, created NATO, went to war to save South Korea.  I doubt if any prez since then has had to make such tough decisions.

 

39 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

No he didn't. WW2 lated 6 years.

 

WWII ended within a week of the atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki.  That's what I meant by quickly.  Otherwise the war would have gone on for months, possibly years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA and Japan were already in armistice talks.

USA wanted a full unconditional surrender, Japan wanted slightly less than that.

The Allies could have just maintained a blockade of Japanese waters and sieged them into an unconditional surrender, without having to invade the home islands at all.

The USSR had already invaded Manchuria and destroyed the last big Japanese land army.

They had nothing left.

 

But unfortunately for Japan, they were to become the first casualty of the Cold War.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in order to send a message to Stalin, following the USSR's annexation of most of Eastern Europe and occupation of Manchuria.

Remember that Truman was a new President and Attlee had just taken over as British Prime Minister.

The nukes were more about geopolitics than they were about military goals.

 

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cade said:

USA and Japan were already in armistice talks.

USA wanted a full unconditional surrender, Japan wanted slightly less than that.

The Allies could have just maintained a blockade of Japanese waters and sieged them into an unconditional surrender, without having to invade the home islands at all.

The USSR had already invaded Manchuria and destroyed the last big Japanese land army.

They had nothing left.

 

But unfortunately for Japan, they were to become the first casualty of the Cold War.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in order to send a message to Stalin, following the USSR's annexation of most of Eastern Europe and occupation of Manchuria.

Remember that Truman was a new President and Attlee had just taken over as British Prime Minister.

The nukes were more about geopolitics than they were about military goals.

 

 

I don't think so.

 

The Japanese had quietly approached the Soviets (who were neutral) to ask them to negotiate favourable terms, but nothing came of that.  At no point prior to the A-bomb attacks had the Americans and the Japanese held armistice talks.   If you have information that differs from that, I would be interested to hear where and when such armistice talks were held, and who attended them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I don't think so.

 

The Japanese had quietly approached the Soviets (who were neutral) to ask them to negotiate favourable terms, but nothing came of that.  At no point prior to the A-bomb attacks had the Americans and the Japanese held armistice talks.   If you have information that differs from that, I would be interested to hear where and when such armistice talks were held, and who attended them.

 

The Japanese wanted a negotiated peace, the Americans wanted a surrender, no deal was ever made and when the bomb was dropped its was as such an act of war. The two counties were in a State of War. Action although extreme was concrete because there were different opinions in Japan as to whether seek  peace or continue as was. Invasion of Japan word have been brutal, that domain would have been defended with fanatical strength, the mortality rate on both sides high. By experience I can assure anyone that no matter how large or how small the physical conflict there are people going to get hurt, that was the case here the Japanese people suffered because of erred decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Japanese were given exactly the same demands made on Germany, unconditional surrender, nothing is negotiable, but the Japanese ultimately did in fact get a slightly better negotiated offer.

It was conceded the Emperor could remain in place with no threat of war crimes charges against him. Anybody think they would have made that concession regarding Hitler or even Mussolini? The answer is absolutely no chance.

The thing with this is invading Japan would have been catastrophic for Japan and the allies too. It's estimated there could have been a million allied casualties with multiple millions of civilian Japanese casualties.

Look at the fanatical defence of barren uninhabited rocks in the pacific for evidence of that. The Japanese had around 21,000 soldiers on this rock. The US attacked with around 110,000 to take this rock. Th result was around 18,000 Jpanese dead with a couple of hundred captured and the rest "in hiding"

The US had around 7,000 dead and 20,000 wounded. Try translating that to an attack on the homeland of this fanatical population itself. It would have been a mass slaughter of historic proportions for both sides.

There was an element in the US who simply wanted to use this weapon first to test it in real conditions. And secondly to demonstrate to others and specifically to Stalin that we have this power and we are willing to use it.

But that being said the atom bombs ended the war and in my view ironically saved millions of lives. Which isn't a suggestion that these weapons' have any sound and rational military use in the modern day environment.

They don't and most top level military men will tell you that. It's become nothing but a deterrent to prevent others from nuking us.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/08/2021 at 00:21, A Boy Named Crow said:

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???

 

Reagan - adopted policy positions that put enough pressure on the Warsaw Pact to collapse it, while also modernising the American economy

Bush - Quite possibly the worst President of my lifetime, and with the orange tub of hurricane-nuking bleach-injecting ****wittery in the running that is some achievement.

Clinton - presided over the longest economic upturn in American peacetime, the largest (or one of the largest) job creation figures, and the biggest improvement in Federal government finances of any post-war administration

Dubya - had to pivot very rapidly to a sudden change in the security demands on the USA, and might have succeeded but for his obsession with Iraq.

Obama - saved the American economy from collapse following the 2008 crisis, and never got sufficient credit for it

Trump - a man who failed to understand that the first responsibility of the President of the United States of America is to look after the interests of the United States of America.

Biden- jury is still out, but signs are that he will be an inward-looking President, focusing on the American economy rather than international relations.  He shouldn't run for a second term, and he's unlikely to get one if he runs.

 

In answer to your question, and Ron's answer, Truman may have won the war but it was Eisenhower who presided over winning the peace throughout the 1950s, so I'd probably give him the nod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

In answer to your question, and Ron's answer, Truman may have won the war but it was Eisenhower who presided over winning the peace throughout the 1950s, so I'd probably give him the nod.

 

I wouldn't give Truman credit for winning the war, that was Roosevelt with Truman entering in the final weeks when victory was already assured. Hitler took the old Nazi cyanide and bullet exit strategy just 18 days after Roosevelt died.

If it were entirely up to Roosevelt the US would have been in the war sooner. He understood what the average American did not. That the Nazis were an existential threat on a level way above Japan.

And the US was lucky to get away with it in my view. I believe that if Britain had fallen in 1940 Germany would have won the war and ultimately made moves on the US.

The Battle of Britain was key and a very close run thing. If Germany had established control of channel and Southern England air space we and the whole world would have been in deep shit.

If Britain had fallen there would have been no aid for the next target, Stalin. Barbarossa would have been launched earlier than it ultimately was. Hitler would have taken Moscow before the onset of Winter.

Beyond that there is no possibility of a D day type operation to liberate the continent with no floating aircraft carrier the size of the British main land to launch and supply it from. 

Keep in mind that Germany was the pre-eminent scientific power and the US was no scientific power at all in comparison to pretty much any Western European country far less Germany. Churchill didn't want the US in the war for their scientific expertise, they had none. He was gifting them science such as radar and proximity fuses with a lot more besides. 

While what Churchill wanted in return was their massive manpower and production capabilities. That's what won the war. An overwhelming allied manpower and production capability. Britain alone at peak production was producing more aircraft than Germany.

And also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was perhaps the greatest fighting force the continent has ever seen. Anytime they ever faced anything like comparable numbers they prevailed.

It took the gigantic manpower and production capabilities of the two post war super powers in the US and Soviet Union plus still superpower British empire and many allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many many more.

All to defeat Germany and it was still an almighty struggle that took years. An even greater struggle after they have tamed the continent and got it's entire industry organised for their uses. Which during the war they never effectively did. 

Left unhindered by allied bombing raids on their industry and cities and espionage of their atomic efforts Germany would have defeated Russia to basically control the entire continent. Unlimited supplies of Russian oil plus the middle east too if he feels like just walking in there. With Britain out of it there is no one to lift a finger.

The US would likely have been dealt with before the decade was out potentially by missile bombardment plus invasion possibilities from the South with a lot of pro Nazi governments in central and South America. Hence why South America became a bolt hole for the likes of Eichmann when it all fell apart.

Basically the entire world outside the Americas would have been in Nazi control or compliant with Nazi control with South America heavily infiltrated. That would be too much for an isolated US with no powerful allies.

All that hinged on the battle of Britain. Churchill wasn't exaggerating when he said "never was so much by owed by so many to so few"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I wouldn't give Truman credit for winning the war, that was Roosevelt with Truman entering in the final weeks when victory was already assured. Hitler took the old Nazi cyanide and bullet exit strategy just 18 days after Roosevelt died.

If it were entirely up to Roosevelt the US would have been in the war sooner. He understood what the average American did not. That the Nazis were an existential threat on a level way above Japan.

And the US was lucky to get away with it in my view. I believe that if Britain had fallen in 1940 Germany would have won the war and ultimately made moves on the US.

The Battle of Britain was key and a very close run thing. If Germany had established control of channel and Southern England air space we and the whole world would have been in deep shit.

If Britain had fallen there would have been no aid for the next target, Stalin. Barbarossa would have been launched earlier than it ultimately was. Hitler would have taken Moscow before the onset of Winter.

Beyond that there is no possibility of a D day type operation to liberate the continent with no floating aircraft carrier the size of the British main land to launch and supply it from. 

Keep in mind that Germany was the pre-eminent scientific power and the US was no scientific power at all in comparison to pretty much any Western European country far less Germany. Churchill didn't want the US in the war for their scientific expertise, they had none. He was gifting them science such as radar and proximity fuses with a lot more besides. 

While what Churchill wanted in return was their massive manpower and production capabilities. That's what won the war. An overwhelming allied manpower and production capability. Britain alone at peak production was producing more aircraft than Germany.

And also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was perhaps the greatest fighting force the continent has ever seen. Anytime they ever faced anything like comparable numbers they prevailed.

It took the gigantic manpower and production capabilities of the two post war super powers in the US and Soviet Union plus still superpower British empire and many allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many many more.

All to defeat Germany and it was still an almighty struggle that took years. An even greater struggle after they have tamed the continent and got it's entire industry organised for their uses. Which during the war they never effectively did. 

Left unhindered by allied bombing raids on their industry and cities and espionage of their atomic efforts Germany would have defeated Russia to basically control the entire continent. Unlimited supplies of Russian oil plus the middle east too if he feels like just walking in there. With Britain out of it there is no one to lift a finger.

The US would likely have been dealt with before the decade was out potentially by missile bombardment plus invasion possibilities from the South with a lot of pro Nazi governments in central and South America. Hence why South America became a bolt hole for the likes of Eichmann when it all fell apart.

Basically the entire world outside the Americas would have been in Nazi control or compliant with Nazi control with South America heavily infiltrated. That would be too much for an isolated US with no powerful allies.

All that hinged on the battle of Britain. Churchill wasn't exaggerating when he said "never was so much by owed by so many to so few"

 

I was following on from Ron's comment about Truman.

 

If it wasn't Truman, it must have been Roosevelt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I was following on from Ron's comment about Truman.

 

If it wasn't Truman, it must have been Roosevelt.

 

I would regard Eisenhower who I believe also got a mention as perhaps the last honest president. Honest to the degree that the position imposes. And Eisenhower may even be considered prophetic.

For anyone who has never heard his farewell speech after two terms of office, 1953 to 1961, this may be very interesting. Known In popular culture as the 'military industrial complex warning'. They didn't even have full time arms industry prior to WW2.

He also appears to be warning against potential corporatocracy. That was prophetic.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I wouldn't give Truman credit for winning the war, that was Roosevelt with Truman entering in the final weeks when victory was already assured. Hitler took the old Nazi cyanide and bullet exit strategy just 18 days after Roosevelt died.

If it were entirely up to Roosevelt the US would have been in the war sooner. He understood what the average American did not. That the Nazis were an existential threat on a level way above Japan.

And the US was lucky to get away with it in my view. I believe that if Britain had fallen in 1940 Germany would have won the war and ultimately made moves on the US.

The Battle of Britain was key and a very close run thing. If Germany had established control of channel and Southern England air space we and the whole world would have been in deep shit.

If Britain had fallen there would have been no aid for the next target, Stalin. Barbarossa would have been launched earlier than it ultimately was. Hitler would have taken Moscow before the onset of Winter.

Beyond that there is no possibility of a D day type operation to liberate the continent with no floating aircraft carrier the size of the British main land to launch and supply it from. 

Keep in mind that Germany was the pre-eminent scientific power and the US was no scientific power at all in comparison to pretty much any Western European country far less Germany. Churchill didn't want the US in the war for their scientific expertise, they had none. He was gifting them science such as radar and proximity fuses with a lot more besides. 

While what Churchill wanted in return was their massive manpower and production capabilities. That's what won the war. An overwhelming allied manpower and production capability. Britain alone at peak production was producing more aircraft than Germany.

And also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was perhaps the greatest fighting force the continent has ever seen. Anytime they ever faced anything like comparable numbers they prevailed.

It took the gigantic manpower and production capabilities of the two post war super powers in the US and Soviet Union plus still superpower British empire and many allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many many more.

All to defeat Germany and it was still an almighty struggle that took years. An even greater struggle after they have tamed the continent and got it's entire industry organised for their uses. Which during the war they never effectively did. 

Left unhindered by allied bombing raids on their industry and cities and espionage of their atomic efforts Germany would have defeated Russia to basically control the entire continent. Unlimited supplies of Russian oil plus the middle east too if he feels like just walking in there. With Britain out of it there is no one to lift a finger.

The US would likely have been dealt with before the decade was out potentially by missile bombardment plus invasion possibilities from the South with a lot of pro Nazi governments in central and South America. Hence why South America became a bolt hole for the likes of Eichmann when it all fell apart.

Basically the entire world outside the Americas would have been in Nazi control or compliant with Nazi control with South America heavily infiltrated. That would be too much for an isolated US with no powerful allies.

All that hinged on the battle of Britain. Churchill wasn't exaggerating when he said "never was so much by owed by so many to so few"

Russia won the war, End of. You nuked Japan. How brave. How many dead? But hey, one day soon, someone will return the compliment.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Russia won the war, End of. You nuked Japan. How brave. How many dead? But hey, one day soon, someone will return the compliment.

 

No single nation won the war, End of. Which I made perfectly clear.
 

Quote

It took the gigantic manpower and production capabilities of the two post war super powers in the US and Soviet Union plus still superpower British empire and many allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many many more.

 

I find that a frankly vacuous rant. A rant in which no rationale is given while I provided ample for my argument.

Russia did their part and certainly took the brunt of the casualties. Countless numbers of those casualties simply because Stalin had zero interest in casualty numbers. And they could not have remained there to do their part without US aid.

Without allied and especially so American aid they would have collapsed without other circumstances occurring beforehand. A still standing Britain being a major one which without the American aid would have been impractical.

This is American aid alone to Russia the vast majority of which came in the crucial early stages when Germany still held the initiative.
 

Quote

400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food


Those 400,000 jeeps and trucks alone are a game changer. Prior to that the Soviets were taking days or even weeks to respond to German offensives by which time it's too late to blunt the momentum. Now they can move men and heavy equipment sometimes in just hours rather than days. The 8,000 tractors hauling heavy artillery.

Then there's the food. Nit during the war noir at anytime after did the Soviets/Russians ever concede any Western help was critical. Any rational person knows they never would. But in an unguarded moment their equivalent of Eisenhower who was Zhukov admitted that would American food supplies he would have been unable to feed his army.

Let's just do a little math on that. If you convert that 4.5 million tons of food to pounds you have over 10 billion pounds of food. Research suggests most humans consume between 3 and 5 pounds of food a day. Let's go for the 5 pound estimate.

So, to feed say 2 million men would require 10 million pounds of food a day. The Americans provided enough food to supply 2 million men for over two and a half years.

And this drivel about nukes I find outright bizarre. I nuked somebody? Really? What in the world are you talking about? What do I have to do with it?

 

How many dead? An estimated 140,000 between both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Brave? What in the world are you talking about? This is a total war. You grasp what that means? Or are you so naïve as to imagine if either Hitler or Tojo had those weapons first they would have "bravely" refrained from using them? Getting the vacuous nature of your rant?

In the same way the Nazis bravely gassed and incinerated millions while the Japanese bravely massacred over 300,000 Chinese civilians in the Nanjing massacre including using barbarous behaviour like bayoneting women and the babies they were carrying in their arms. Or did I do that too? 

As for the nukes they saved millions of both allied and Japanese lives which is the point I was making. It was no rationale in defence of nukes which I actually went on to say have no valid military purpose.

So now maybe you cold provide some rationale for your rant?

Edited by JFK-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Russia won the war, End of. You nuked Japan. How brave. How many dead? But hey, one day soon, someone will return the compliment.

 

Russia won the war, the part of it that took place in Russia mebbe, after receiving supplies from Britain during the period of the Russian convoys where ships were sank and men lost  delivering the requirements of war and life to the struggling Russians who were also assisted by their horrendous winters. A big factor in the European war took place in North Africa where the British Eighth Army took on Hitlers most successful and brilliant General Rommel, and fought them tooth and nail all the way in to Italy. Presidents, Prime Ministers Leaders are just like football managers and coaches and players, they are only a good as the skill ,desire, and strengths of the men the put on the field. The Germans were good soldiers, they just were not big enough to take on the masses that were the united allies. Germany were virtually alone, their original ally Italy were dismissed and became the subject of comedians jokes. I met as a boy many Italian prisoners at the camps in the Duddingston area, they were really nice people, not at all warriors. The German prisoners were not given the same level of freedoms. You know the honest truth is, nobody wins a war, deep down when we all ran into Princes street when the news came out that Germany had joined in a peace, we all danced and sang , and celebrated, but not really because we had won or lost, but because it was all over, finished,done.  

Just go to the Castle and go into the building with all the names of the dead, go to London and look at the Memorial there how can you say you won when you see the numbers of dead, when as a wee boy you had seen women crying in the street because one of the men in her family was never coming home, Russia won, bullshit there are no winners in a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

 

 

Sky News Australia makes Sky News UK look positively pulitzer prize standard. 

Trying to work out why the Ozzy Sky News are doing a hatchet job on Biden (pretty sure not for the first time) - is this a Murdoch thing?

 

I've watched it all and it's really weakly argued nonsense.

 

The clips they've lined up - 

Clip 1 - Biden with the Israel PM - was cut to make it look like he was dozing when he wasn't. 

 

Clip 2 - Biden at the Afghanistan Press Conference - made out he was inattentive/fatigued.

Having watched that press conference live - Biden was definitely emotional, clearly upset about things. The comment seems to ignore this and expect all presidents must put on a macho/defiant performance. If anything looked like a real person coping with the horror of their terrible decision. Would prefer that than a narcissist/psychopath. 

 

Clip 3 - Biden telling strange story

Yeah it's weird, but doesn't mean he's deplorable and inept. Clip 3 was used to set up clip 4.

 

Clip 4 - Biden at the Afghanistan Press Conference comments about having a list of reporters to go to. 

So what ? That's good press management by Psaki and her team. Last thing he wants to randomly pick the nut cases of OAN/Newsmax. 

 

Clip 5 - Follow up clip making out he's been told when to speak 

Was clearly advised not to take questions when he was on a visit to FEMA - may well be that his schedule didn't have time for it. You can see Biden railing against that to take a question so it invalidates the point made that he was avoiding scrutiny.  He's there for the Hurricane issues not for Afghanistan so it's a really thin argument that's been made out of context. 

 

Genuinely had no idea that Sky News Australia was a black hole for journalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have no disagreement with any of the comments, some of the conservative news channels are extremely cruel to this man. But in an effort at constructive criticism, he does say good things badly at times, when anyone would consider what they were going to say, he presents a look that sometimes looks bewildered. I saw the "I was told not to answer questions live", it did come out because of his manner, and dare I say it old man slowness like he was being given that instruction. He is completely different to what I recall of other  Presidents, they maintained control, President Biden unfortunately does not have that demeanor. I live in a 55+ community, I see and I am one of the examples, some people are just fortunate enough that they maintain either physical or cerebral fitness, it shows but life can still be good, as long as you realise you are not what you were when you were forty, and channel your life accordingly, I don't think the President whom I like and respect as a man does these things though in his present position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas goes full religious fundamentalist with their new abortion law.

All abortions after 6 weeks are illegal, no exceptions for rape or incest.

Private citizens are encouraged to launch private lawsuits against any medical facility suspected of breaching the law or anyone aiding and abetting.

 

Multiple frivolous suits have already been launched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Texas goes full religious fundamentalist with their new abortion law.

All abortions after 6 weeks are illegal, no exceptions for rape or incest.

Private citizens are encouraged to launch private lawsuits against any medical facility suspected of breaching the law or anyone aiding and abetting.

 

Multiple frivolous suits have already been launched.

 

As in most jurisdictions, rich women will find a way around these laws.  It's poor women who will be forced to give birth to unwanted children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden looking to codify Roe/Wade into law through Congress.

 

Can't rely on the original Supreme Court precedent any more, it has to be made nationwide law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cade said:

Texas goes full religious fundamentalist with their new abortion law.

All abortions after 6 weeks are illegal, no exceptions for rape or incest.

Private citizens are encouraged to launch private lawsuits against any medical facility suspected of breaching the law or anyone aiding and abetting.

 

Multiple frivolous suits have already been launched.

Is Texas full of ex Ulster Scots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
On 31/08/2021 at 22:23, Mysterion said:

 

Sky News Australia makes Sky News UK look positively pulitzer prize standard. 

Trying to work out why the Ozzy Sky News are doing a hatchet job on Biden (pretty sure not for the first time) - is this a Murdoch thing?

 

I've watched it all and it's really weakly argued nonsense.

 

The clips they've lined up - 

Clip 1 - Biden with the Israel PM - was cut to make it look like he was dozing when he wasn't. 

 

Clip 2 - Biden at the Afghanistan Press Conference - made out he was inattentive/fatigued.

Having watched that press conference live - Biden was definitely emotional, clearly upset about things. The comment seems to ignore this and expect all presidents must put on a macho/defiant performance. If anything looked like a real person coping with the horror of their terrible decision. Would prefer that than a narcissist/psychopath. 

 

Clip 3 - Biden telling strange story

Yeah it's weird, but doesn't mean he's deplorable and inept. Clip 3 was used to set up clip 4.

 

Clip 4 - Biden at the Afghanistan Press Conference comments about having a list of reporters to go to. 

So what ? That's good press management by Psaki and her team. Last thing he wants to randomly pick the nut cases of OAN/Newsmax. 

 

Clip 5 - Follow up clip making out he's been told when to speak 

Was clearly advised not to take questions when he was on a visit to FEMA - may well be that his schedule didn't have time for it. You can see Biden railing against that to take a question so it invalidates the point made that he was avoiding scrutiny.  He's there for the Hurricane issues not for Afghanistan so it's a really thin argument that's been made out of context. 

 

Genuinely had no idea that Sky News Australia was a black hole for journalism. 

Sky News is awful in Australia, as are the Murdoch papers. They are basically just mouthpieces for right wing nut jobs,  spouting conspiracy theories etc. 

I used to work for News Corp Australia. One day somebody asked if they could borrow a login to read something behind the paywall on the Telegraph website (Telegraph here is like the Daily Mail in the UK).

Every member of staff is entitled to a free login to all the Murdoch websites, but nobody at all in an office of dozens of people had bothered to take up the offer. This was reassuring!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2021 at 12:28, Maple Leaf said:

 

As in most jurisdictions, rich women will find a way around these laws.  It's poor women who will be forced to give birth to unwanted children.

 

There's an article by a guy I know you're a fan of, David Frum, questioning the wisdom of this act by the Republicans in Texas. He think it's more likely than not to backfire om them big time. 

Texas Republicans Got What They Wanted. They Might Regret It.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

There's an article by a guy I know you're a fan of, David Frum, questioning the wisdom of this act by the Republicans in Texas. He think it's more likely than not to backfire om them big time. 

Texas Republicans Got What They Wanted. They Might Regret It.

 

 

Yes, I am a fan of his and that is a very good article.  Despite being a life-long Conservative, he invariably expresses a balanced viewpoint on most issues.  I hope he's right in this case but, due to Republican politicians' voting restrictions imposed on poor people in Texas, they might avoid paying a political price.

 

In a nation that's already very divided on many issues, one of the biggest has just gone back on the front burner ... just as Republicans had hoped with their recent SC appointees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

@Sharpie @Maple Leaf

Just thought I'd say hello to our older lads. :wavey:

 

 

 

 

Thanks pal!  :thumb:  It's getting to be a grind, but a nice derby win will make all the aches and pains disappear. 

 

:fth::

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is a deeply flawed and troubled society. Hyperpartisan politics, the Republicans will oppose anything proposed by the Dems no matter how beneficial to the entire nation that proposal may be. Nor how damaging to the nation blocking a proposal may be.

That alone should make them unelectable by rational people before even adding in the current insanity of the entire Republican party. Perhaps as classic an example as you could get of the lunatics taking over the asylum.

Conspiracy nuts, absurd stolen election claims the entire world far less the entire country knows are completely baseless. Where do you start or finish with their madness? A party who have convinced large numbers of the indoctrinated to refuse vaccination during a historic global pandemic featuring a novel new virus.

Is that as crazy as it gets? Hardly, we're not even into the Jewish space lasers yet. Imagine this were either of the big two in the UK. Would the crazy half be remotely electable? I would say absolutely no chance and I expect the same thing would be true of Canada if they were faced with such bizarre rambling from people who want to control the nation.

And given that, like it nor not, a normally functioning US is absolutely essential to global stability the madness is more than troubling. People talk about leaving a nation if/when specific individuals are elected.

Johnny Depp among others said they would leave the country if Bush the 2nd were elected, and to give Depp some due he actually followed up and decamped to France during the Dubya years.

But, imagine the unimaginable, Trump and the entire gang of misfits, QAnon crazies etc. win the next election. Unless Elon Musk has a surprise up his sleeve we're all caught in a developing nightmare.

You can escape a nation but there is no way to escape the planet. And I fear Trump would be even crazier if he got another stab at establishing dictatorship. Which he would be scheming to do from day one.

I currently see no way back from the brink of total meltdown in the US.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
6 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

We're not even into the Jewish space lasers yet.

 

Those ****ing space Jews again.  :seething:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Thanks pal!  :thumb:  It's getting to be a grind, but a nice derby win will make all the aches and pains disappear. 

 

:fth::

 

:robboyas:

 

 

:fth:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Those ****ing space Jews again.  :seething:

 

 

Jewish space lasers, :rofl: Space Jews.

KB has its moments. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Jewish space lasers, :rofl: Space Jews.

KB has its moments. :D

 

It's not funny. :(

 

 

image.png.126b8bc0b533eb08e833861d7463f215.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

The US is a deeply flawed and troubled society. Hyperpartisan politics, the Republicans will oppose anything proposed by the Dems no matter how beneficial to the entire nation that proposal may be. Nor how damaging to the nation blocking a proposal may be.

That alone should make them unelectable by rational people before even adding in the current insanity of the entire Republican party. Perhaps as classic an example as you could get of the lunatics taking over the asylum.

Conspiracy nuts, absurd stolen election claims the entire world far less the entire country knows are completely baseless. Where do you start or finish with their madness? A party who have convinced large numbers of the indoctrinated to refuse vaccination during a historic global pandemic featuring a novel new virus.

Is that as crazy as it gets? Hardly, we're not even into the Jewish space lasers yet. Imagine this were either of the big two in the UK. Would the crazy half be remotely electable? I would say absolutely no chance and I expect the same thing would be true of Canada if they were faced with such bizarre rambling from people who want to control the nation.

And given that, like it nor not, a normally functioning US is absolutely essential to global stability the madness is more than troubling. People talk about leaving a nation if/when specific individuals are elected.

Johnny Depp among others said they would leave the country if Bush the 2nd were elected, and to give Depp some due he actually followed up and decamped to France during the Dubya years.

But, imagine the unimaginable, Trump and the entire gang of misfits, QAnon crazies etc. win the next election. Unless Elon Musk has a surprise up his sleeve we're all caught in a developing nightmare.

You can escape a nation but there is no way to escape the planet. And I fear Trump would be even crazier if he got another stab at establishing dictatorship. Which he would be scheming to do from day one.

I currently see no way back from the brink of total meltdown in the US.  

 

I fear that the Trump Presidency has managed to open the preverbal pandora's box and all manner of the lunatic fringe has been unleashed, they have had a taste of power and they liked it and they want more.

 

Most people, me included, thought that sanity would return with the election of Biden, but that doesn't appear to be happening, and it seems to me that it's the loony's who seem to be driving the narrative and sanity is playing catch up.

 

If Trump or one of his acolytes get back in, then be warned, as the title of the wonderful song goes 'you ain't seen nothing yet', they will have learnt where they went wrong and this time they won't relinquish power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
54 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I fear that the Trump Presidency has managed to open the preverbal pandora's box and all manner of the lunatic fringe has been unleashed, they have had a taste of power and they liked it and they want more.

 

Most people, me included, thought that sanity would return with the election of Biden, but that doesn't appear to be happening, and it seems to me that it's the loony's who seem to be driving the narrative and sanity is playing catch up.

 

If Trump or one of his acolytes get back in, then be warned, as the title of the wonderful song goes 'you ain't seen nothing yet', they will have learnt where they went wrong and this time they won't relinquish power.

:spoton:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I fear that the Trump Presidency has managed to open the preverbal pandora's box and all manner of the lunatic fringe has been unleashed, they have had a taste of power and they liked it and they want more.

 

Most people, me included, thought that sanity would return with the election of Biden, but that doesn't appear to be happening, and it seems to me that it's the loony's who seem to be driving the narrative and sanity is playing catch up.

 

If Trump or one of his acolytes get back in, then be warned, as the title of the wonderful song goes 'you ain't seen nothing yet', they will have learnt where they went wrong and this time they won't relinquish power.

 

Exactly.

Just the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, the forces of darkness will learn what they did wrong, come back better organised and actually achieve their terrible plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/08/2021 at 07:23, Mysterion said:

 

Sky News Australia makes Sky News UK look positively pulitzer prize standard. 

Trying to work out why the Ozzy Sky News are doing a hatchet job on Biden (pretty sure not for the first time) - is this a Murdoch thing?

 

I've watched it all and it's really weakly argued nonsense.

 

The clips they've lined up - 

Clip 1 - Biden with the Israel PM - was cut to make it look like he was dozing when he wasn't. 

Genuinely had no idea that Sky News Australia was a black hole for journalism. 

 

Been like that for a long time, they're not a news channel they're a propaganda, (fake news) outlet. And I too find it somewhat puzzling since UK sky is a reputable professional news source. But then the puzzle becomes clearer when you discover Murdoch is no longer affiliated with Sky UK, but is with Sky Australia.

It might be said that Murdoch is an even bigger problem than Trump is. If Trump were to be usurped by someone even crazier but more importantly smarter than Trump, which wouldn't be difficult, Murdoch would fuel up that crazy train too. All the way to the buffers at high speed.

This is an evaluation of Sky News UK from the media bias fact check site. 
 

Quote

Overall, we rate Sky News UK Least Biased based on balanced news coverage and a reasonably balanced op-ed page. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a reasonable fact check record.

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (35/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Sky News is owned by Comcast as of November 2018 and is funded through advertising. Rupert Murdoch is no longer affiliated with Sky News UK, however, Newscorp still has a share of Sky News Australia, which reports with a right-leaning bias.


Now an evaluation of Sky News Australia.
 

Quote

Overall, we rate Sky News Australia Right-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that mostly favor the right. We also rate them borderline Questionable and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks, unproven claims, and the promotion of conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Australia (25/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Overall, we rate Sky News Australia Right-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that mostly favor the right. We also rate them borderline Questionable and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks, unproven claims, and the promotion of conspiracy theories and misinformation.


Murdoch is the problem. Even his own son James has said he's destroying the US. Which is exactly why James Murdoch is no longer involved with the Murdoch empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

I see on Twitter today that whilst Biden, Obama & Clinton are all in New York paying their respects, Trump is commentating on a PPV boxing match that his laddie Don Jr is hawking on Twitter with the promise that his old man will be telling everyone about area 51.

 

On 9/11.

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The orange buffon has just spoken whilst visiting NY police dept on 9/11, as usual his words were pure wisdom.

 

Rigged election, stolen election, I told the Taliban straight, rigged election, jobs, jobs, stock market, numbers nobody ever though possible, rigged election, Taliban were eating out my hand.

 

P.S. Did I mention rigged election.

 

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...