North Korea and US politics

[goatwack]

What are people thinking of the new Melania statue? Pretty good right?

 

[mack341]

What are people thinking of the new Melania statue? Pretty good right?

View attachment 110946

yeah you can tell they've gone to a lot of effort here, tried to capture her best features.... this indeed looks like the work of a first class piss artist

 

[Harry_BKK]

yeah you can tell they've gone to a lot of effort here, tried to capture her best features.... this indeed looks like the work of a first class piss artist

I think you are misjudging this one mack. These kind of statues are part of the Slavic folklore and have been around for a long time.

 

[Steviedoo]

Read this somewhere. I think they might have a point.

They didn’t call the trillion-dollar Wall St. bailouts “socialism”

They don’t call nearly $1 Trillion in oil & gas subsidies “socialism”

They don’t call the billions in farmer bailouts “socialism”

But health care, wages, food for poor people? “SOCIALISM.”

 

[Harry_BKK]

Had this on my YT feed and look a bit deeper into it. Mr. T running ads with stockvideos.

French, Turkish and Brazilian models are leading people to believe they are actually in the US but the videos were taken in the South of France, Izmir, Turkey and Brazil. And of course, all hail the "great president". There is still more than a year to go to the election, this is only the start of the disinformation Mr T will spread until then.

Plus, on Republican operative set up a Biden website spreading even more nonsense:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's gonna be fun watching how the braggard will try his best tricks to get a second term.

Here's the video












Be honest! Did you see the tiny disclaimer disappearing after a second or did you focus on the lady?

 

[mack341]

I think you are misjudging this one mack. These kind of statues are part of the Slavic folklore and have been around for a long time.

I'm 100 % happy to accept this Harry but equally I think you'd have to accept the pictures of this artwork haven't been published on the msm across the world to promote slavic folklore art but because it portrays melania in a unflattering light and so is useful to them as a further slight or two fingered salute to Trump.

 

[mack341]

Had this on my YT feed and look a bit deeper into it. Mr. T running ads with stockvideos.

French, Turkish and Brazilian models are leading people to believe they are actually in the US but the videos were taken in the South of France, Izmir, Turkey and Brazil. And of course, all hail the "great president". There is still more than a year to go to the election, this is only the start of the disinformation Mr T will spread until then.

Plus, on Republican operative set up a Biden website spreading even more nonsense:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's gonna be fun watching how the braggard will try his best tricks to get a second term.

Here's the video












Be honest! Did you see the tiny disclaimer disappearing after a second or did you focus on the lady?

Harry, out of the democratic debates so far which candidate would be your choice for the nomination and who [it maybe the same person] do you think has the best chance of winning the presidency off trump?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry, out of the democratic debates so far which candidate would be your choice for the nomination and who [it maybe the same person] do you think has the best chance of winning the presidency off trump?

Very clearly: Kamala Harris

Biden is so yesteryear but I can see people preferring a "safe option" which Biden should be. Buttegieg is about 10 years too early and the rest is just cannon fodder, IMO.

However, I do not think it matters much as IMO Mr T doesn't stand a chance to get re-elected. His nonsense and lies are annoying people so much that they will vote for anyone but him.

Holding the 3 swing states which went by a total of just 70,000 votes to him and got him to win the election in 2016 will be an uphill task.

The only poll site which was pretty accurate with his 2016 win and the 2018 losses sees him losing the EC with about 80 votes. That would be quite a landslide but these people have been pretty accurate in the past.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry, out of the democratic debates so far which candidate would be your choice for the nomination and who [it maybe the same person] do you think has the best chance of winning the presidency off trump?

Mack, you didn't answer the question at the bottom of the video?

 

[mack341]

Very clearly: Kamala Harris

Biden is so yesteryear but I can see people preferring a "save option" which Biden should be.

However, I do not think it matters much as IMO Mr T doesn't stand a chance to get re-elected. His nonsense and lies are annoying people so much that they will vote for anyone but him.

Holding the swing states which went by a total of just 70,000 votes to him in 2016 will be an uphill task.

Oh right Kamala, don't know much about her policies in terms of the spectrum, is she near to bernie or near to hillary, or neither?

Yeah joe is about twenty years too late, I don't understand why he doesn't just retire to spend more time with his family, at what point don't you pass the baton on to the next generation, maybe just do a bit of policy advising and discussion.

Re Trump really? His odds are 11/10 atm on the odds checker site, shouldn't you have a 'lay against bet' or whatever they call them, or just a bet on him to be not re-elected? You could win thousands if you're right.

I suppose a final debate between trump and kamala could be tricky for trump as there is not as much to go on for him to use as there would be against hillary, biden or bernie; harris would seem to have less baggage than any of them.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Oh right Kamala, don't know much about her policies in terms of the spectrum, is she near to bernie or near to hillary, or neither?

Yeah joe is about twenty years too late, I don't understand why he doesn't just retire to spend more time with his family, at what point don't you pass the baton on to the next generation, maybe just do a bit of policy advising and discussion.

Re Trump really? His odds are 11/10 atm on the odds checker site, shouldn't you have a 'lay against bet' or whatever they call them, or just a bet on him to be not re-elected? You could win thousands if you're right.

I suppose a final debate between trump and kamala could be tricky for trump as there is not as much to go on for him to use as there would be against hillary, biden or bernie; harris would seem to have less baggage than any of them.

I thought she was the more moderate candidate which would appeal more to swing voters. And as you said, less baggage. Mr T hasn't had the guts to tweet a "belittling" denigrating nickname for her. That should tell you something.

Re Trump: He lost the popular vote by about 3million and won because of the three swing states where 70K votes got him over the line. The way the system works in the US is that if you win by just one vote you get the entire Electoral College votes for that state. That also explains the relative large margin he won the EC. However, many states passed legislation to take the popular vote as the deciding factor, not the best for Mr T.

He has a base of about 30 - 35% Americans who support him, so he's got that but he's not reaching out at all to others. Plus, 2016 was quite a surprise to many, the Democrats won't take it so lightly again as they mistakenly thought in 2016 that they have a clear winner with Hillary.

 

[mack341]

Mack, you didn't answer the question at the bottom of the video?

no the disclaimer was difficult to notice especially on a tv screen two metres away, and it makes the whole thing pointless in terms of credibility.

I think if Steve bannon's advice and guidance [whether you loathe him or not] was crucial for trump's win last time, it could be trump's current policy advisors and those running his campaign cock things up this time, I can't exactly see that glossy type of video appealing to trump's 2016 base, so I suspect as I posted a while back, donald has been advised to soften his image and broaden his appeal beyond his old base.

 

[mack341]

I thought she was the more moderate candidate which would appeal more to swing voters. And as you said, less baggage. Mr T hasn't had the guts to tweet a "belittling" denigrating nickname for her. That should tell you something.

Re Trump: He lost the popular vote by about 3million and won because of the three swing states where 70K votes got him over the line. He has a base of about 30 - 35% Americans who support him, so he's got that but he's not reaching out at all to others. Plus, 2016 was quite a surprise to many, the Democrats won't take it so lightly again as they mistakenly thought in 2016 that they have a clear winner with Hillary.

But I think Harry it's similar to the uk where in areas of dense high population like london the majority of votes are cast for labour, the US has many more large cities where large populations of ethnic people/ recent arrivals etc.. [for want of a better word] will vote democrat, seeing them as more likely to represent their interests/ or be fairer etc.. than the republicans, however this doesn't equal more seats... is it the electoral college or something?

Edit: A switch from 'first past the post' to proportional representation would mean a democratic majority...don't know if that would ever be possible in terms of the constitution, and whether they even made a rule regarding election systems.

 

[Harry_BKK]

no the disclaimer was difficult to notice especially on a tv screen two metres away, and it makes the whole thing pointless in terms of credibility.

I think if Steve bannon's advice and guidance [whether you loathe him or not] was crucial for trump's win last time, it could be trump's current policy advisors and those running his campaign cock things up this time, I can't exactly see that glossy type of video appealing to trump's 2016 base, so I suspect as I posted a while back, donald has been advised to soften his image and broaden his appeal beyond his old base.

LOOL thought so!

All the ads sound like they are hailing a mighty emperor! They just sounded really creepy and would surely not appeal to me. To the contrary, if someone needs people to shout around how great he is than odds are that someone is not that great.

It had the same sound like a few weeks ago when his sycophants ....erm ...aids were lauding him in that press conference as a stable genius and mighty saviour of America.

 

[Harry_BKK]

But I think Harry it's similar to the uk where in areas of dense high population like london the majority of votes are cast for labour, the US has many more large cities where large populations of ethnic people/ recent arrivals etc.. [for want of a better word] will vote democrat, seeing them as more likely to represent their interests/ or be fairer etc.. than the republicans, however this doesn't equal more seats... is it the electoral college or something?

Edit: A switch from 'first past the post' to proportional representation would mean a democratic majority...don't know if that would ever be possible in terms of the constitution, and whether they even made a rule regarding election systems.

Each state as a number of votes in the Electoral College which is based on the number of people living in a state. That is why you don't need to win the popular vote to actually become president.

 

[mack341]

LOOL thought so!

All the ads sound like they are hailing a mighty emperor! They just sounded really creepy and would surely not appeal to me. To the contrary, if someone needs people to shout around how great he is than odds are that someone is not that great.

It had the same sound like a few weeks ago when his sycophants ....erm ...aids were lauding him in that press conference as a stable genius and mighty saviour of America.

I can see his faults and some of the downsides, his last interview with tucker carlson was a bit painful to watch but maybe there were reasons for that e.g tiredness, long travelling etc..

But do you give donald any credit for cancelling the recent air and missile strikes against Iran, the democrats and msm seem to criticise him for this which seems odd to me for so called left leaning, 'do gooder' type people?

 

[Harry_BKK]

I can see his faults and some of the downsides, his last interview with tucker carlson was a bit painful to watch but maybe there were reasons for that e.g tiredness, long travelling etc..

But do you give donald any credit for cancelling the recent air and missile strikes against Iran, the democrats and msm seem to criticise him for this which seems odd to me for so called left leaning, do gooders type people?

Oh mack, sorry but are you really that naive to fall for his "I cancelled it because of 150 possible casualties" trick?

So he creates a crisis (by leaving the treaty and sanctioning Iran unilaterally to death for no apparent extra reason), he's doing everything to increase pressure, blames Iran for everything that happens in the Straight of Hormuz without any proof whatsoever (the UN security council is still waiting for the evidence, he and Pompano promised so bigly for the ship attacks weeks before the drone was downed), sends drones and a P8 superclose to Iranian airspace and is then surprised when they shoot it down if it crosses the line by just one inch?

And then designates himself as the saviour of the world, expecting adulation and applause. Give me a break mack!

Did you ever ask yourself why the US packed over 30 people into a P8 when usually only 8 or 9 fit into the plane and let it fly very close to the drone? IMO, Pompano and Bolton (and most certainly Mr T so he can show off his beautiful planes and tanks) wanted to have a reason for going to war and send over 30 unaware soldiers into the danger zone in the hope the Iranians would shoot it down. The perfect reason to unleash the US war machine. Just that the Iranians were too smart to fall into the trap.

Iranians gave 8 warnings before they shot the drone down. Why did the US commanders not change the flight path, just to be 100% sure not to provoke the Iranians? And again, why the P8 so close to the drone. Both have far-reaching radars, there is no need whatsoever to be so close.

IMO, the US knows that the drone might have touched Iranian airspace (the Iranians collected the wreckage, so it must have been close to their shores) and Cadet Bonespurs would have had no legal argument to start a war, isolating the US from most countries on the planet, except a few nutters who would follow him blindly. (Your minister - can't remember his name - being one of them). The supposedly cancelled attack was just a show as everything with Mr T. In one interview he said the planes were in the air, in the next he said: "they were not but would have been soon". So which was it? Clearly, there was nothing of the sort planned. They might have the strike plans ready as any army would have but there was nothing even close that night.

Oh please mack, open your eyes because you are falling for this hilarious reality-TV show, there is nothing of substance coming from Mr T.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I can see his faults and some of the downsides, his last interview with tucker carlson was a bit painful to watch but maybe there were reasons for that e.g tiredness, long travelling etc..

But do you give donald any credit for cancelling the recent air and missile strikes against Iran, the democrats and msm seem to criticise him for this which seems odd to me for so called left leaning, 'do gooder' type people?

Had a good laugh this week as it shows the hypocrisy of Mr T and his administration.

They squandered the JPCOA and never trusted the reports of the IAEA that Iran was adhering to the deal.

A few days ago the US asked for an IAEA meeting regarding Iran after the country announced that it would surpass the 3.67% enrichment threshold. So, suddenly, the US wants to talk to an entity Mr T and his people for years didn't give a toss about.

 

[mack341]

Oh mack, sorry but are you really that naive to fall for his "I cancelled it because of 150 possible casualties" trick?

So he creates a crisis (by leaving the treaty and sanctioning Iran unilaterally to death for no apparent extra reason), he's doing everything to increase pressure, blames Iran for everything that happens in the Straight of Hormuz without any proof whatsoever (the UN security council is still waiting for the evidence, he and Pompano promised so bigly for the ship attacks weeks before the drone was downed), sends drones and a P8 superclose to Iranian airspace and is then surprised when they shoot it down if it crosses the line by just one inch?

And then designates himself as the saviour of the world, expecting adulation and applause. Give me a break mack!

Did you ever ask yourself why the US packed over 30 people into a P8 when usually only 8 or 9 fit into the plane and let it fly very close to the drone? IMO, Pompano and Bolton (and most certainly Mr T so he can show off his beautiful planes and tanks) wanted to have a reason for going to war and send over 30 unaware soldiers into the danger zone in the hope the Iranians would shoot it down. The perfect reason to unleash the US war machine. Just that the Iranians were too smart to fall into the trap.

Iranians gave 8 warnings before they shot the drone down. Why did the US commanders not change the flight path, just to be 100% sure not to provoke the Iranians? And again, why the P8 so close to the drone. Both have far-reaching radars, there is no need whatsoever to be so close.

IMO, the US knows that the drone might have touched Iranian airspace (the Iranians collected the wreckage, so it must have been close to their shores) and Cadet Bonespurs would have had no legal argument to start a war, isolating the US from most countries on the planet, except a few nutters who would follow him blindly. (Your minister - can't remember his name - being one of them). The supposedly cancelled attack was just a show as everything with Mr T. In one interview he said the planes were in the air, in the next he said: "they were not but would have been soon". So which was it? Clearly, there was nothing of the sort planned. They might have the strike plans ready as any army would have but there was nothing even close that night.

Oh please mack, open your eyes because you are falling for this hilarious reality-TV show, there is nothing of substance coming from Mr T.

I take this as a 'no' then Harry ...I thought he was being honest about the cost of 150 lives for a shot down drone wasn't proportionate, but my point about the democrats, and more especially the msm talking heads and anchors, remains in my mind, they are very pro war even after all the other wars suffered since 2001...

Edit: Interestingly I haven't seen john bolton surface to discuss this recent climbdown situation, he must be majorly pissed as he's been preaching and begging for an attack on Iran for decades.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I take this as a 'no' then Harry ...I thought he was being honest about the cost of 150 lives for a shot down drone wasn't proportionate, but my point about the democrats, and more especially the msm talking heads and anchors, remains in my mind, they are very pro war even after all the other wars suffered since 2001...

Edit: Interestingly I haven't seen john bolton surface to discuss this recent climbdown situation, he must be majorly pissed as he's been preaching and begging for an attack on Iran for decades.

TBH, I followed the news as I do every day in multiple channels, left and right-leaning or whatever you want to call them. None sounded pro-war.

What some rightly said is that Mr T issues threats left and right (NK, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Mexico, etc etc - take your pick) and never or only half-heartedly follows through, which weakens the position of the US because nobody will have to fear that Cadet Bonespurs will actually have the guts and resolve once in his life to see something through to the end. A "very nice" letter and he will fall in love with anyone!

Bolton is in hiding because he is now like a marathon runner who broke down one yard before the finish line. Pompano will still push it everywhere but he's been to countless countries and none issued a statement condemning Iran. Hence, they must not have been very impressed by what Pompano had to show as "bigly" evidence!

 

[mack341]

Did you ever ask yourself why the US packed over 30 people into a P8 when usually only 8 or 9 fit into the plane and let it fly very close to the drone?

I must admit I never heard or read about this, this is something new to me and wasn't mentioned on the tv news here in the uk or on sites like the daily mail's, that definitely puts things into a more worrying perspective...was this reported on the US msm [cable channels etc..] or in a newspaper?

TBH, I followed the news as I do every day in multiple channels, left and right-leaning or whatever you want to call them. None sounded pro-war.

What some rightly said is that Mr T issues threats left and right (NK, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Mexico, etc etc - take your pick) and never or only half-heartedly follows through, which weakens the position of the US

However if you [the msm] parrot and echo a convenient narrative [i.e. the oil tanker attacks and drone shot down in international airspace or going back, iraq's wmds ] rather than examine it, and then combine it with that sentiment about how a president should see through issued threats, then inevitably you end up beating the drum for war.

Considering the time and emphasis/focus the msm spent on the lead up to the climb down, I believe that is exactly what they were doing, angling and persuading the general public of the need for a military confrontation/solution. It's not unique to the usa but happens all the time in the uk too, we had it with libya and syria recently, the calls to military action on humanitarian grounds is normally the favoured ruse as it appeals to the public, and specifically left's conscience who may otherwise object to pre-emptive military action.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I must admit I never heard or read about this, this is something new to me and wasn't mentioned on the tv news here in the uk or on sites like the daily mail's, that definitely puts things into a more worrying perspective...was this reported on the US msm [cable channels etc..] or in a newspaper?

However if you [the msm] parrot and echo a convenient narrative [i.e. the oil tanker attacks and drone shot down in international airspace or going back, iraq's wmds ] rather than examine it, and then combine it with that sentiment about how a president should see through issued threats, then inevitably you end up beating the drum for war.

Considering the time and emphasis/focus the msm spent on the lead up to the climb down, I believe that is exactly what they were doing, angling and persuading the general public of the need for a military confrontation/solution. It's not unique to the usa but happens all the time in the uk too, we had it with libya and syria recently, the calls to military action on humanitarian grounds is normally the favoured ruse as it appeals to the public, and specifically left's conscience who may otherwise object to pre-emptive military action.

It was reported in both but nobody actually asked clear questions. Don't know why this was not brought up more often. The Pentagon confirmed the P8 was in the vicinity with I think 32 people or something like that. The Iranians said 35, so it pretty much tallies up.

Here's a pic of the inside of a P8 with the normal crew count. Why would you suddenly put over 30 in there on what the Pentagon said was a routine mission??? And then track the flight path of the drone?




Can you please show some examples where anyone in the media was angling for war? Geez mack, no one, absolutely no one said the US should go to war with Iran (well, except the usual culprits like Pompano, Bolton and a few others nutheads). But the absolute majority said that Cadet Bonespurs is constantly ratcheting things up with so many countries, and then stands down like a dog with the tail between his legs. In essence, they questioned his strategies because one day he might get just the answer Mr T is angling for and he will surely not like it.

Please show me one "left" person saying the US should go to war with Iran after the incidents? What is your paranoia with the "left" because you're trying very hard to pin stuff on them all the time? As long as I can think back, the US wars were all started by the "right", none by the "left".

Where they were right to say is that on the world stage you lose credibility very quickly when you keep making empty threats and/or scrap willy-nilly signed treaties. Governments, presidents etc. are laughing their heads off about Mr T because they know a "love letter" (metaphorically speaking) is enough to get him on their side.

Mr T could have stayed in the JPCOA and further build on that one. But by unilaterally leaving it, the US has completely lost the credibility that they can be taken seriously and that they will adhere to a signed treaty, especially when no one is violating it in the first place.

The Iranians published clear radar data of the drone with points marked where they warned the US to change course, plus a clear video of the drone hit. All the US did was showing a map of the Strait of Hormuz with a dot and the line for the Iranian airspace, showing it just off the line in international waters but inside Iranian FIR, no radar data, nothing that would allow an independent source to verify. So who are you inclined to believe?

Here's the Iranian pic. The Pentagon or the US never showed anything like it or denied the graphs. They simply said,..... "The drone was not in Iranian waters" ...... right! And no other country (who have satellite capabilities to track these things) showed anything else either.

Plus the US has a massive amount of assets in the Strait of Hormuz and the Navy is known to be very quick on recovering stuff like a downed drone. I am sure helicopters could have reached the point of impact within minutes but they didn't because it happened in Iranian waters, leaving them no choice but to letting the Iranians collect the wreckage.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I must admit I never heard or read about this, this is something new to me and wasn't mentioned on the tv news here in the uk or on sites like the daily mail's, that definitely puts things into a more worrying perspective...was this reported on the US msm [cable channels etc..] or in a newspaper?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Just read these tweets from the US president on a Sunday morning. Does it not sound to you like he lost all his marbles? ....And this guy has the nuclear codes in his pocket! ...I wouldn't trust him with my cigarette lighter, let alone some weaponry.

And all because Fox had some Democrats in some of the news shows.

 

[Harry_BKK]

For some reason, I kept this pic when it turned up on my feed a few weeks ago. It pretty much explains a lot of things.

FYI, the red dots are US military bases. Now imagine what the US would do if the Iran would open just a single base in Mexico or Canada?