Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

We need your feedback on the new forum text editor switch.
Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Politics. The feel in your country.

1624625627629630635

Comments

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,118
    And if there are going to be jokes in this thread, they cannot be made at the expense of other forumites.

    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 580
    ThacoBell said:

    @TakisMegas Intentionally seeding false information into a discussion is not a "joke". It prevents good faith discussion.

    Yes of course, all of the political science majors in this thread must be enraged.

    WarChiefZeke
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718
    Number of protests for Trump-Putin Helsinki summit rises to 10
    According to the Helsinki Police, demonstrations are planned by Helsinki Calling, Amnesty International and the youth wings of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party, among others.

    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/number_of_protests_for_trump-putin_helsinki_summit_rises_to_10/10301976

    TakisMegasThacoBell
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 580

    Number of protests for Trump-Putin Helsinki summit rises to 10
    According to the Helsinki Police, demonstrations are planned by Helsinki Calling, Amnesty International and the youth wings of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party, among others.

    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/number_of_protests_for_trump-putin_helsinki_summit_rises_to_10/10301976

    Well at least there will be a "welcoming committee" for Trump.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,586
    Meanwhile in Canada:

    Something to keep an eye on:

    Canada's federal government has began talk with NunatuKavut, an Inuit group, to 'formally recognize' them.

    What does it mean to be formally recognized? Well this page explains it:

    Indigenous self-government is the formal structure through which Indigenous communities may control the administration of their people, land, resources and related programs and policies, through agreements with ​federal and provincial governments. Indigenous communities may control the administration of their people, land, resources and related programs and policies, through agreements with federal and provincial governments. The forms of self-government, where enacted, are diverse and self-government remains an evolving and contentious issue in Canadian law, policy and public life.


    Most of these claims are done at the provincial level and the last time it was done on the federal level, a new territory Nunavut was created.

    Even though neither side is calling it a land claim at the moment, other tribes in the south Labrador, such as the Innu Nation, are riled up because their claims to the same overlapping areas have been ignored and, they weren't consulted first prior to this announcement.

    The Innu Nation doesn't even consider the NunatuKavut indigenous:

    "There has never been a group that sprung out of nowhere, that suddenly became an Aboriginal group," Peter Penashue, Innu Nation land claim negotiator, said. "Now here we are in a very unusual circumstance: settlers becoming Métis, becoming Inuit and now are going to fight us over land."

    It's very early in the process but I wouldn't be surprised if Canada redraws its maps once again so the Liberal government looks like they care about Indigenous affairs.

    TakisMegasThacoBell
  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    edited July 13

    I thought NATO members agreed on 4% by 2024? Do they think they are all going to win the lottery by then. Or do they think the IMF is going to pardon their loans?

    Sorry but can you find a source here? I heard 2% by 2024. 4% of GDP spent in defence is mental. I think it's impossible, no one would have agreed on that. 2% considering the size of the alliance and its GDP is already enough to deter the rest of the world altogether.

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    edited July 13
    Grond0 said:

    Incidentally, one contributory factor to the high defense cost for the US is their nuclear program - something they would not want most NATO countries to emulate.

    NATO does not include nuclear spending in its calculation (neither pensions or external operations). That's one of the reason their numbers are different from both official and SIPRI numbers.

    - Nuclear dissuasion is a matter of sovereignty although its true the USA share their nuclear weapons with NATO members (F-16 and Tornadoes can dispense bombs) and UK uses a lot of US technologies (nuclear reactors for its SSBN, guidance systems, satellites and ballistic missiles) France is on the other hand the example as to why its not calculated.
    - Pensions are obviosly not defence spending even though in many countries they are attached to the defence budget
    - External operations are not always NATO sanctionned especially in the southern areas (think of the Falklands War, the 2003 Iraq War or France's intervention in Mali).

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 5,896
    edited July 13
    So Trump, while visiting the UK, apparently gave an interview with Rupert Murdock (fox news) owned newspaper The Sun.

    Trump trashed Theresa May, who is barely holding on to power, saying she ignored his advice on Brexit. So Trump literally tried to undermine the current UK government (the one that's invited him there), called for a more destructive, extreme Brexit deal and recommended a new prime minister.

    Dick move (at all but) especially while he is her guest.

    ---------

    Nobody mentioned it yet but there was a hearing with Peter Strzok, FBI agent who had featured for months in right wing conspiracy theories. So you know this was going to be a big day in right wing conspiracy theorists minds. It probably didn't play out the way they'd hoped for.

    Republican Trey Gowdy, a once and future prosecutor, used his alloted five minutes to be allowed by the chairman to spend 20 minutes yelling at Strzok and talking to himself while inventing all sorts of wild spin and finishing up with something like "and I don't give a damn what you say!". Things went downhill from there.

    It was clear Gowdy and House Republicans ulterior motive was trying to use the moment to interfere in the Mueller investigation. Strzok had written disparaging texts about Clinton and Trump but the agenda for Gowdy and House Republicans was to say he was biased so the whole Mueller investigation is biased and something something.

    But you know what people have opinions - Trey Gowdy certainly has some. It depends on how you act if you let it influence your work. Strozk did not let it affect his work while tools like Gowdy and Devin Nunez let it consume their every action.

    "I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity," Strzok told members of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees.
    "I have the utmost respect for Congress's oversight role, but I truly believe that today's hearing is just another victory notch in Putin's belt," he said.

    The FBI special agent's August 2016 text stating “we’ll stop” Donald Trump was in response to “horrible, disgusting” comments that then-candidate Trump made about the family of a fallen Muslim war hero. Strozk felt that when Trump "insulted the immigrant family of a fallen war hero and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be President of the United States.”

    He was right, the American population did not elect someone displaying that repulsive behavior - the Electoral college did. These Republicans are interfering in an investigation that has already nabbed several criminals. No patriot can support that.

    Stephen Colbert did a fantastic job with the highlights.

    Post edited by smeagolheart on
    Grond0semiticgodBallpointManThacoBell
  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    edited July 13
    So now Trump has replaced The Sun's sexy pages

    Oh, and The Sun is more a tabloid than a newspaper.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,645
    edited July 13
    Matthieu said:

    Grond0 said:

    Incidentally, one contributory factor to the high defense cost for the US is their nuclear program - something they would not want most NATO countries to emulate.

    NATO does not include nuclear spending in its calculation (neither pensions or external operations). That's one of the reason their numbers are different from both official and SIPRI numbers.

    - Nuclear dissuasion is a matter of sovereignty although its true the USA share their nuclear weapons with NATO members (F-16 and Tornadoes can dispense bombs) and UK uses a lot of US technologies (nuclear reactors for its SSBN, guidance systems, satellites and ballistic missiles) France is on the other hand the example as to why its not calculated.
    - Pensions are obviosly not defence spending even though in many countries they are attached to the defence budget
    - External operations are not always NATO sanctionned especially in the southern areas (think of the Falklands War, the 2003 Iraq War or France's intervention in Mali).
    @Matthieu do you have a source for this? I agree that external operations not involving NATO and outside NATO territory (defined as north of the Tropic of Cancer) are not included - hence the costs of the Falklands War would not have been counted. However, both the cost of nuclear weapons and the cost of pensions seem to me to be clearly part of defense costs - here is the latest NATO release of defense costs data if you want to check that.

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359

    Here is a concrete example of a father who crossed the border 100% legally and still had his child taken away from him. THIS. IS. KIDNAPPING:

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/43pd39/trump-administration-separated-a-3-year-old-from-his-father-who-crossed-the-border-legally

    And that's not just it:
    https://www.gq.com/story/immigration-dna-tests

    The Trump Administration Is Making Immigrant Parents Pay $800 for DNA Tests to Get Their Kids Back
    ....

    HHS replied by claiming that they provide DNA tests free of charge, but reports from both the director for the immigrant shelter where the women are staying and an immigration lawyer who works with the shelter contradict that. The women are reportedly being told to pay between $700 and $800.

    ....

    Grond0semiticgod
  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    I cannot find the methology used by NATO to calculate the defence budget of its members. I sure remember reading something in the line pensions and dissuasion are not included but maybe it was wrong. Since I'm doing other things too I'm giving up.

    On the subject rofl:

  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 580
    edited July 13
    Matthieu said:

    Here is a concrete example of a father who crossed the border 100% legally and still had his child taken away from him. THIS. IS. KIDNAPPING:

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/43pd39/trump-administration-separated-a-3-year-old-from-his-father-who-crossed-the-border-legally

    And that's not just it:
    https://www.gq.com/story/immigration-dna-tests

    The Trump Administration Is Making Immigrant Parents Pay $800 for DNA Tests to Get Their Kids Back
    ....

    HHS replied by claiming that they provide DNA tests free of charge, but reports from both the director for the immigrant shelter where the women are staying and an immigration lawyer who works with the shelter contradict that. The women are reportedly being told to pay between $700 and $800.

    ....

    GQ? Talk about tabloid news.

    Also this is all according to the Daily Beast. Tabloid much.

    Every News Channel (CNN, Fox) and Daily Paper has become a Smut Tabloid since Trump became President. This is Fake news. Unsourced.

    "Garcia said that the tests likely cost money that many immigrants entering the country with little more than the clothes on their backs don’t have. Iliana Holguin, an immigration attorney in El Paso who works with Annunciation House, said the government made some of her clients pay between $700 to $800 to prove their relationship to a relative as part of their citizenship cases."

    I thought the tests did cost money? Why is it likely?

    "The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website focusing on politics and pop culture. The Daily Beast has been accused of biased reporting favoring Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. The Daily Beast tends to sensationalize headlines, but they do typically source the info in their reports"

    You don't say. Hmmm

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    edited July 13
    I'd take GQ over The Sun anytime about seriousness... I mean no one takes the Sun seriously.

    Either ways, if the source doesn't suit you one of Murdoch's report the same thing:
    https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/trump-admin-reportedly-told-migrant-moms-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to-be-reunited-with-kids/

    ....
    “The government wants the parents to foot the bill for the DNA testing when they’re the ones that caused the need for DNA testing,” said Iliana Holguin, an immigration attorney in El Paso who works with Annunciation House. “It’s incredible.”

    According to Holguin, the Trump administration has made some women fork up more than $500 to prove they are a relative. She said some of her clients have paid between $700 to $800.
    ....

    smeagolheart
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 580
    Matthieu said:

    I'd take GQ over The Sun anytime about seriousness... I mean no one takes the Sun seriously.

    Either ways, if the source doesn't suit you one of Murdoch's report the same thing:
    https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/trump-admin-reportedly-told-migrant-moms-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to-be-reunited-with-kids/

    ....
    “The government wants the parents to foot the bill for the DNA testing when they’re the ones that caused the need for DNA testing,” said Iliana Holguin, an immigration attorney in El Paso who works with Annunciation House. “It’s incredible.”

    According to Holguin, the Trump administration has made some women fork up more than $500 to prove they are a relative. She said some of her clients have paid between $700 to $800.
    ....

    Yes Ilianna Holquin is an Immigration Attorney and is talking about her clients, not families trapped at the border right now. Huge difference. As I stated above this is all coming from The Daily Beast.

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    edited July 13
    Yeah, as your quote said


    "The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website focusing on politics and pop culture. The Daily Beast has been accused of biased reporting favoring Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. The Daily Beast tends to sensationalize headlines, but they do typically source the info in their reports"

    ...typically source the info in their reports...

    Don't know much about this newspaper actually otherwise. I know the Sun is a joke though.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 609
    Matthieu said:

    Here is a concrete example of a father who crossed the border 100% legally and still had his child taken away from him. THIS. IS. KIDNAPPING:

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/43pd39/trump-administration-separated-a-3-year-old-from-his-father-who-crossed-the-border-legally

    And that's not just it:
    https://www.gq.com/story/immigration-dna-tests

    The Trump Administration Is Making Immigrant Parents Pay $800 for DNA Tests to Get Their Kids Back
    ....

    HHS replied by claiming that they provide DNA tests free of charge, but reports from both the director for the immigrant shelter where the women are staying and an immigration lawyer who works with the shelter contradict that. The women are reportedly being told to pay between $700 and $800.

    ....

    I'm not sure I get how this is supposed to work. If you start with the position that a person has to prove first they are the parent by means of a DNA test, and the child is in US custody, whom do you contact to agree for the testing? Because the child being a minor cannot consent. Or does the US law require no consent for genetic testing?

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 359
    This is a complicated case I see, there should have been a viable database in the first place.

    Anyway, this is not politics but aerospace but it will have an impact on the global stage. Mass production of the Su-57 is cancelled:
    https://www.businessinsider.nl/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7/?international=true&r=US

  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,421

    But you know what people have opinions - Trey Gowdy certainly has some. It depends on how you act if you let it influence your work. Strozk did not let it affect his work while tools like Gowdy and Devin Nunez let it consume their every action.

    The assertion that Strzok did not let his political opinions influence his work at the FBI cannot be proven. The age of people putting aside their political opinions when they go to work ended a long time ago, so Strzok should have been reassigned to some non-political investigation. I also know that FBI agents are human beings, but couldn't the affair with Page make him vulnerable to blackmail?

    All things considered, bringing Strzok before Congress was pretty much a waste of time.

    smeagolheartBalrog99Zaghoul
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,118
    The attorney general of Washington state has gotten seven major fast food franchises to stop using "no-poach" agreements to keep their employees' wages low. Attorneys general from 10 other states are trying to do the same thing.

    A no-poach agreement is a secret deal made between two companies in the same industry, in which they agree not to hire workers from each other's companies, no matter how qualified the applicant may be. Why do corporations do this?

    Because if you keep your employees from finding better jobs, then you don't have to pay them as much. If you sabotage the careers of your own workers, you can keep their wages low because they don't have other options.

    It's shocking that this is legal to begin with. It's completely against the basic premise of capitalism--it intentionally limits wage competition.

    We wouldn't tolerate a secret agreement between major corporation designed specifically to keep prices high. Why should we tolerate secret agreements between major corporations designed specifically to keep wages low?

    Grond0Balrog99ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 5,896
    image

    Wow look that the crowd size of protestors in the UK against Donald Trump. He's always interested in crowd size? Never fear Donnie boy you'll be back to your safe space of lying in a rally somewhere in The South in no time.

    Scottish newspaper the Scotsman has this to say in an editorial that is running during his visit:

    "Donald Trump, due to arrive in the UK later today, is a racist, a serial liar, and either a sex abuser or someone who falsely brags about being one in the apparent belief that this will impress other men in a metaphorical 'locker room.'"

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,586

    But you know what people have opinions - Trey Gowdy certainly has some. It depends on how you act if you let it influence your work. Strozk did not let it affect his work while tools like Gowdy and Devin Nunez let it consume their every action.

    The assertion that Strzok did not let his political opinions influence his work at the FBI cannot be proven. The age of people putting aside their political opinions when they go to work ended a long time ago, so Strzok should have been reassigned to some non-political investigation. I also know that FBI agents are human beings, but couldn't the affair with Page make him vulnerable to blackmail?

    All things considered, bringing Strzok before Congress was pretty much a waste of time.
    It can’t be proven that it did influence his work either. Innocent until proven guilty and what not.

    The lines “I don’t believe you,” and “you’re lying” don’t really work when the person is under oath and you have no proof to back up the claim the person is lying.

    The investigators did do the right thing and remove him from it as soon as these details were known to remove the perception of partisan, but dragging him in front of a committee like that was a huge farce and that is how history will review it.

    semiticgodsmeagolheartThacoBell
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,118
    The hearing was really just designed to make the accusation that Strzok and by extension the entire Mueller investigation was a politically motivated hit job on Trump. After all, Strzok is not even part of that investigation anymore--if you wanted to look for evidence of wrongdoing, you'd at least look at active investigators instead of former ones. The hearing wasn't there to discover anything; it was just there to generate sound bytes to fuel the anti-FBI narrative.

    Hence the large amounts of highly televised yelling.

    smeagolheartThacoBellNimran
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,188
    edited July 13
    At least Strzok has the balls to actually show up and testify under oath, where the penalty for lying is going to jail (actually, the Republicans yesterday were threatening him with that no matter what he said). This is more than we can say for the man sitting in the Oval Office, who is still running like a coward from an interview with Mueller's team. Trump has no credibility questioning someone who has went under oath when he has refused to do so himself. Are we supposed to believe that Strzok is so invested in taking Donald Trump down that he values it more than his own freedom??

    semiticgodThacoBell
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,118
    I do find it significant that when these Congressional hearings start up, they have a habit of targeting only a certain kind of people: the people who are viewed as Trump's opponents. People in the Trump administration don't generally get trotted out to testify publicly--the Mueller team hasn't been publicizing their findings or tweeting out sound bytes. I don't think it's a coincidence that the GOP controls both houses of Congress.

    And I do find it significant that Trump, so far, has not been asked to publicly testify on any subject under oath, much less has he been grilled as heavily, as intensively, and at such length as major figures like Comey or Clinton, or even tiny figures like Strzok.

    Trump's enemies have a habit of being forced to testify for hours while their political opponents attack them on live television. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the GOP has opposed any such scrutiny for Trump himself.

    deltagoThacoBellNimran
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,188

    I do find it significant that when these Congressional hearings start up, they have a habit of targeting only a certain kind of people: the people who are viewed as Trump's opponents. People in the Trump administration don't generally get trotted out to testify publicly--the Mueller team hasn't been publicizing their findings or tweeting out sound bytes. I don't think it's a coincidence that the GOP controls both houses of Congress.

    And I do find it significant that Trump, so far, has not been asked to publicly testify on any subject under oath, much less has he been grilled as heavily, as intensively, and at such length as major figures like Comey or Clinton, or even tiny figures like Strzok.

    Trump's enemies have a habit of being forced to testify for hours while their political opponents attack them on live television. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the GOP has opposed any such scrutiny for Trump himself.

    For hours at a time, on national TV, in every case. Hillary sat before the Benghazi Committee for 11 hours. Bill Clinton's questioning was broadcast on a loop for days on CNN in the '90s.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,188
    edited July 13
    More Mueller indictments today, but the big news (the VERY big news) is that we now know without a shadow of a doubt that the Russian Government hacked state election boards and stole the data of over half a million voters. Never let it be forgotten that the "national security" party has been trying to shut down this investigation for a year. All on the eve of Trump going to have his performance review with Putin.

    Moreover, remember that July 26th, 2016 Press Conference when Trump asked Russia on national television to hack Hillary's campaign?? According to the indictments, on July 27th, the next day, they did EXACTLY that.

    Trump's meeting with Putin tomorrow is a betrayal of this country given this news.

    ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 5,896

    At least Strzok has the balls to actually show up and testify under oath, where the penalty for lying is going to jail (actually, the Republicans yesterday were threatening him with that no matter what he said). This is more than we can say for the man sitting in the Oval Office, who is still running like a coward from an interview with Mueller's team. Trump has no credibility questioning someone who has went under oath when he has refused to do so himself. Are we supposed to believe that Strzok is so invested in taking Donald Trump down that he values it more than his own freedom??

    They were threatening to jail Strzok because he wouldn't answer the questions he was not allowed to answer pertaining to the ongoing Mueller investigation.

    Dems turned the tables and said as long as we're threatening people for not answering questions let's get Steve Bannon (and Donald Trump Jr here.)

    Bannon had previously defied a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee, declining to answer questions claiming he was under instruction from the White House. Republicans threatened to hold him in contempt, but never followed through. Their newfound outrage was quickly exposed by this tactic.

    semiticgodThacoBell
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,118
    edited July 13


    Moreover, remember that July 26th, 2016 Press Conference when Trump asked Russia on national television to hack Hillary's campaign?? According to the indictments, on July 27th, the next day, they did EXACTLY that.

    Is there a source for the July 27th thing?

    EDIT: I found the source. The official indictment says that "on or around July 27th," Russian agents began spearphishing on a particular set of email addresses used by Clinton's office. They had been spearphishing since before then, but apparently not on those particular targets.

    jjstraka34deltagoTakisMegasThacoBell
This discussion has been closed.