US Politics

[Stirlingsays]

How on earth do you think you know what I watch? What completely arrogant nonsense. That’s a new low, even for you and it has serious competition.

If that's a new low, then you have terrible flexibility.

So you aren’t interested in what Fiona Hill has to say? That says a great deal about you! It marks you out as a self righteous fool!

Thankfully both hers and your politics are getting the boot it most deservedly deserves.

You are of the past Grandad.....and all you did was make things more crap.

Even those who fundamentally disagree with her assessments are interested to know what they are, because she is an informed insider.

She's another with TDS and has been described as 'russophobic' so forgive me if I give it a pass.....like the rest of you lot who have led us down this path.

Bunch of whining losers.

Fiona Hill (presidential advisor) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’ll ignore your personal insults. All they do is add further evidence in support of my assertions of your ignorance.

Well, you are obviously quite the disaster.

 

[Stirlingsays]

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If that's a new low, then you have terrible flexibility.

You are so completely unaware of how ridiculous you are that it’s really amusing to see.

Thankfully both hers and your politics is getting the boot it most deservedly deserves.

You are of the past Grandad.....and all you did was make things more crap.

My politics are simple. I support democratic principles and the rule of law. What Fiona Hill’s are is unknown to me. She doesn’t talk about politics. She talks about policies and situations she is familiar with. She has worked both for Trump and the current British government.

You using childish epithets as intended insults again demonstrates how totally unaware you are. Adults don’t do such things.

She's another with TDS and has been described as 'russophobic' so forgive me if I give it a pass.....like the rest of you lot who have led us down this path.

Bunch of whining losers.

That she sees how dangerous Trump is, is obvious. If that means she has this pejorative disease known to the wilfully ignorant as TDS then I hope she passes it on to millions during her interviews. As a student of Russia, who studied in Russia and witnessed high level events there first hand I would trust her judgement over yours every time on Putin. She knows. You just think you know.

Well, you are obviously quite the disaster.

That makes even less sense than your usual posts.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You are so completely unaware of how ridiculous you are that it’s really amusing to see.

Ok boomer.

My politics are simple. I support democratic principles and the rule of law. What Fiona Hill’s are is unknown to me. She doesn’t talk about politics. She talks about policies and situations she is familiar with. She has worked both for Trump and the current British government.

I call bullshit on how 'democratic' you are.

You support the EU method of governance, which isn't in the least bit democratic and you are quite the authoritarian when you think it's in your interest to be.....as Covid showed all of us on here.

You using childish epithets as intended insults again demonstrates how totally unaware you are. Adults don’t do such things.

Atheist adults don't join Catholic forums to annoy believers.

If I listed all your faults just during your time on Hol I'd be here to next week.

That she sees how dangerous Trump is, is obvious. If that means she has this pejorative disease known to the wilfully ignorant as TDS then I hope she passes it on to millions during her interviews. As a student of Russia, who studied in Russia and witnessed high level events there first hand I would trust her judgement over yours every time on Putin. She knows. You just think you know.

That makes even less sense than your usual posts.

You contradict yourself.

You say in your first paragraph that 'What Fiona Hill’s (politics) are is unknown to me. She doesn’t talk about politics.'.

Then in this paragraph you profess to knowing that she is anti Trump and anti Russia.

That's political Grandad.

Then you make another really weak point saying that because she studied Russia, that this means that her views are to be trusted and valued, while people not agreeing aren't.

Well, aside from the stupidity of thinking that everyone who studies Russia agrees with her there is the rather obvious example of Jeffery Sachs.....Who you praised on the forum because he's anti Trump, and has spent decades in advisory roles in governments and high institutions far longer and at higher levels than this women....including literally working with the Ukrainian government who has very different opinions to her on Russia.

So when it comes to making yourself look ridiculous.....You really have no better.

 

[silvertop]

So the Dambusters of WW2, and the nuclear strikes on Japan were war crimes. /

I suspect much of the day and night bombing by us and the US would be a war crime.

Also night time RAF bombing was accurate to within 300m but deliberately targeted factories and the immediate surrounding infrastructure of shops homes people etc. We intended to kill the labour and their family.

The USAF were crap and even though they had the advantage of daylight bombing their accuracy was within 1200m! Thus - if they even hit the right town - they described their attacks as "precision" ostensibly to avoid civilian deaths but that was always bollox. Their incompetence meant they killed as many civilians as us.

Either way criminal but critical.

Dresden and Hamburg were unforgivable but given the nation targeted and the crimes they were committing on the ground one can forgive that piece of the narrative being in the gift of the victors.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Ok boomer.

That’s at least accurate, even if pointless and childish.

I call bullshit on how 'democratic' you are.

You support the EU method of governance, which isn't in the least bit democratic and you are quite the authoritarian when you think it's in your interest to be.....as Covid showed all of us on here.

You calling anything is about as informed as Trump calling criticism fake news. I support the EU, whose system has been agreed between democratic states and involves them delegating certain responsibilities to a central authority. The final decision on whether to do this rests entirely with each state. As your beloved Brexit demonstrated and our forthcoming rejoining will confirm. We elect governments to take decisions on our behalf. Covid was judged by them, rightly in my view, to require collective action from everyone. That’s democracy in action, not authoritarianism. The latter exists when democracy is suspended or replaced and the checks and balances ignored. We are witnessing an attempt to do this in the USA but it hasn’t happened here. Yet.

Atheist adults don't join Catholic forums to annoy believers.

I didn’t. I joined to learn through discussion. There were things I could not rationalise and needed to understand. Many participants were happy to explain and debate with friendly exchanges without rancour. Some of the hard liners, with fixed minds and positions got annoyed. Much like here.

If I listed all your faults just during your time on Hol I'd be here to next week.

You have no need to do that. My wife provides an entirely adequate service on a daily basis. You are here every day anyway so being here until next week isn’t such a big deal.

You contradict yourself.

You say in your first paragraph that 'What Fiona Hill’s (politics) are is unknown to me. She doesn’t talk about politics.'.

Then in this paragraph you profess to knowing that she is anti Trump and anti Russia.

That's political Grandad.

It’s stating opinions about a man who is opposed by people from all political backgrounds and none, and about a country generally regarded as an adversary. Whether she votes Republican or Democrat isn’t known. Which is the point I made.

That’s not political Kiddo.

Then you make another really weak point saying that because she studied Russia, that this means that her views are to be trusted and valued, while people not agreeing aren't.

Experience matters. That’s a basic fact of life in every sphere. It’s especially valuable in specialised situations, which knowing how to handle Putin certainly is. That’s not to say she will always be right. Only that she ought to be listened to. Which you won’t.

Well, aside from the stupidity of thinking that everyone who studies Russia agrees with her there is the rather obvious example of Jeffery Sachs.....Who you praised on the forum because he's anti Trump, and has spent decades in advisory roles in governments and high institutions far longer and at higher levels than this women....including literally working with the Ukrainian government who has very different opinions to her on Russia.

So when it comes to making yourself look ridiculous.....You really have no better.

Sachs is also worth listening to because of his experience and not because he is “anti-Trump”. He is another with a genuinely valuable contribution to make. Their views are not as far apart as you seem to imagine. They are identical on Trump and whilst they may differ on the best way to handle Putin both see him as untrustworthy.

 

[ASCPFC]

Two US service members missing after military exercises in Morocco

Search and rescue operation launched after service members reported missing near south-western city of Tan Tan

www.theguardian.com

 

[steeleye20]

Nobody said being old was easy.....

Getting your poll up in particular.......

Very funny clip.

🙂🙂

 

[Common Sense Club]

Trump’s previous ‘unusual’ request that Canada joins the USA has an interesting development north of the border.
Oil rich Alberta is in the process of going for independence as it sees the Canadian government repeatedly hampering its economy due to climate change policies. Alberta seems very much aligned with Trump’s views.
It has historically been Quebec that has pushed for independence (but for different reasons), and I am sure they will be emboldened by Alberta’s actions and may see a weakness in the Canadian government’s position.
Look out for Trump offering to buy Alberta (the USA bought Alaska from Russia) to stir up a bit of ‘entertainment’ in that region…

 

[Stirlingsays]

Nobody said being old was easy.....

Getting your poll up in particular.......

Very funny clip.

🙂🙂

Not bad......but Kimmel should apologise for that joke to the first lady.

He shouldn't be banned because of it, (bad jokes are still jokes) but talking about her becoming a widow was too far when there have been multiple assassination attempts.

This sketch, on the other hand....quite good.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Trump’s previous ‘unusual’ request that Canada joins the USA has an interesting development north of the border.
Oil rich Alberta is in the process of going for independence as it sees the Canadian government repeatedly hampering its economy due to climate change policies. Alberta seems very much aligned with Trump’s views.
It has historically been Quebec that has pushed for independence (but for different reasons), and I am sure they will be emboldened by Alberta’s actions and may see a weakness in the Canadian government’s position.
Look out for Trump offering to buy Alberta (the USA bought Alaska from Russia) to stir up a bit of ‘entertainment’ in that region…

God help common sense if this succeeds.

Climate change and the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels ought to be something every country is signed up to. The idea that a region can detach itself for selfish, short term expediency is beyond stupid.

 

[cryrst]

God help common sense if this succeeds.

Climate change and the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels ought to be something every country is signed up to. The idea that a region can detach itself for selfish, short term expediency is beyond stupid.

Didn’t think you did religion 💁

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Didn’t think you did religion 💁

I don’t but as others do it’s worth asking just in case I am wrong.

 

[Stirlingsays]

That’s at least accurate, even if pointless and childish.

Tips hat.

You calling anything is about as informed as Trump calling criticism fake news. I support the EU, whose system has been agreed between democratic states and involves them delegating certain responsibilities to a central authority. The final decision on whether to do this rests entirely with each state. As your beloved Brexit demonstrated and our forthcoming rejoining will confirm. We elect governments to take decisions on our behalf. Covid was judged by them, rightly in my view, to require collective action from everyone. That’s democracy in action, not authoritarianism. The latter exists when democracy is suspended or replaced and the checks and balances ignored. We are witnessing an attempt to do this in the USA but it hasn’t happened here. Yet.

The EU is not democratic in any real sense of the word that the common man on the street would agree with.....δημοκρατία, the Ancient Greek word is where democracy comes from....literal meaning: 'rule by the people' or 'people-power', which in the modern sense is populism....the very thing you appear to detest.

The EU is about institutions and satisfying what they think, whether populations agree or not.

Its chief decision makers can't be elected nor disbanded by the people.....Not democratic in any real sense.......It's centralised power above the national and should be opposed by any democrat....at least in its ability to over-ride national interest.

I didn’t. I joined to learn through discussion. There were things I could not rationalise and needed to understand. Many participants were happy to explain and debate with friendly exchanges without rancour. Some of the hard liners, with fixed minds and positions got annoyed. Much like here.

I call nonsense on your rationalisation and put it to you that....like here....you were there to troll and irritate, because that appears to be what you like.....Taking advantage of people with a better moral compass than you with a higher degree of freedom of speech than the left.

And trolling them.

I think it's a hobby you have.

You have no need to do that. My wife provides an entirely adequate service on a daily basis. You are here every day anyway so being here until next week isn’t such a big deal.

Thus is life.

It’s stating opinions about a man who is opposed by people from all political backgrounds and none, and about a country generally regarded as an adversary. Whether she votes Republican or Democrat isn’t known. Which is the point I made.

That’s not political Kiddo.

Disagree, it's obviously political.

Experience matters. That’s a basic fact of life in every sphere. It’s especially valuable in specialised situations, which knowing how to handle Putin certainly is. That’s not to say she will always be right. Only that she ought to be listened to. Which you won’t.

Sachs is also worth listening to because of his experience and not because he is “anti-Trump”. He is another with a genuinely valuable contribution to make. Their views are not as far apart as you seem to imagine. They are identical on Trump and whilst they may differ on the best way to handle Putin both see him as untrustworthy.

Sachs is far more experienced and is someone on the left I respect because he is a pragmatist......The decline in pragmatism in the west has significantly damaged us both economically and socially.

Sachs speaks out about that and as I sense it comes from a genuine desire to improve the west in a real sense.....not in the utopian (which leads to a pile of skulls) which is the direction of travel....I respect him. I would agree with some of his criticisms of Trump as well.

 

[Stirlingsays]

God help common sense if this succeeds.

Climate change and the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels ought to be something every country is signed up to. The idea that a region can detach itself for selfish, short term expediency is beyond stupid.

I say stop believing the fantasy that the use of fossil fuels will decline through choice. It won't decline and any student of human nature would understand that.

Some first worlder seriously thinking that we are going to stop using cheap solutions is living a lie in that regard.

Britain may be part pursuing a green agenda, but it won't make a dot of impact on climate change.....As to the sense of the policy....I think it's nuts, but I'm open to be proved incorrect.

But I haven't seen that yet.....Britain has some of the highest household electricity prices in the world.

Energy usage is only going to increase, especially with AI and automation....which is currently a race involving the largest economies.

 

[silvertop]

I say stop believing the fantasy that the use of fossil fuels will decline through choice. It won't decline and any student of human nature would understand that.

Some first worlder seriously thinking that we are going to stop using cheap solutions is living a lie in that regard.

Britain may be part pursuing a green agenda, but it won't make a dot of impact on climate change.....As to the sense of the policy....I think it's nuts, but I'm open to be proved incorrect.

But I haven't seen that yet.....Britain has some of the highest household electricity prices in the world.

Energy usage is only going to increase, especially with AI and automation....which is currently a race involving the largest economies.

I think recent events have pushed the green agenda, not to save the polar bear but toward energy security.

Just imagine our attitude to recent world events, if our vehicles were all electric and we were running on 100% renewables with plenty of spare capacity.

Of course, we would still need fossils for military, shipping, domestic aircraft etc. However, the reliance would be small and manageable by judicious stockpiling, domestic supplies etc.

The smug look my neighbour gave me when I discussed fuel prices and then remembered they are driving a Tesla. That would be our look to the world.

 

[chris123]

I think recent events have pushed the green agenda, not to save the polar bear but toward energy security.

Just imagine our attitude to recent world events, if our vehicles were all electric and we were running on 100% renewables with plenty of spare capacity.

Of course, we would still need fossils for military, shipping, domestic aircraft etc. However, the reliance would be small and manageable by judicious stockpiling, domestic supplies etc.

The smug look my neighbour gave me when I discussed fuel prices and then remembered they are driving a Tesla. That would be our look to the world.

Our grid is not set up to take wind or sun inputs. And we need hydrocarbon byproducts in a million examples. Shame we didn't build more nuclear.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Our grid is not set up to take wind or sun inputs. And we need hydrocarbon byproducts in a million examples. Shame we didn't build more nuclear.

Exactly, the grid cannot cope with the supposed generation from wind and solar at the levels required for the UK to function.
In addition, China has control of most of the raw materials needed to power the electric vehicles; hence moving reliance from fossil fuels from the Middle East to China instead.
Also, be prepared to ‘book’ a charging bay on any long journey. In future the days of pulling over to ‘refuel’ will need a pre-booked appointment. Hopefully the guy using your bay before you won’t still be using it when you turn up.
It all looks great from an ideological point of view, but practically…nah!

 

[silvertop]

Our grid is not set up to take wind or sun inputs. And we need hydrocarbon byproducts in a million examples. Shame we didn't build more nuclear.

I think within the term "just imagine" you would need to assume a grid that is so equipped.

France are an example of effective nuclear.

 

[chris123]

I think within the term "just imagine" you would need to assume a grid that is so equipped.

France are an example of effective nuclear.

Granted, although I think French nuclear is quite old, and we are dependent on oil byproducts.