Popular Comments

Discussion: The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

GoSlugs said:

Hopefully that will change some votes.

As for me, I am definitely voting against Trump (as opposed to for Biden).  Biden's actions have killed thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians.  I could never think of  him as anything but the lesser of two very evil Evils. His murderous policy is a stain that will never be erased.

So you're saying that without America's support, Netanyahu wouldn't have killed all of those Palestinians?

ridiculous. and so wrong.

don't get me wrong - I think our attitude towards Bibi should be far harsher. But to blame Biden for something he has zero control over is just dumb.

Like  4 Likes

Discussion: Twitter is a Private Company

Similarly, I thought of this thread when I saw this.

[image or embed]

— Bodega Cats (@bodegacats.bsky.social) Jun 10, 2024 at 12:51 PM

Like  3 Likes

Discussion: Inconsequential Chat

:(

Like  3 Likes

Discussion: The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

it really gets tiresome arguing with people here who continue to insist the Trump campaign Russia investigation was a "hoax." It was not, and it never was, and the Mueller report made that clear.

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong

Here's one example:

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

and another:

Myth: The investigation began with the Steele dossier.

Response: According the Mueller report, the investigation began in July 2016 after Wikileaks had released materials stolen from the computers of the Democratic National Committee. The FBI received information from a foreign government that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had told one of its representatives that “the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” Mueller’s report states, “That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.” Mueller makes no statement to indicate that the investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, a series of reports that were compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who was hired by a research company that was working for a law firm paid first by a conservative website and later by the Clinton campaign.

I guess some people think by sheer repetition the myths will become true. Or maybe they are just trying to wear out anyone who will try to argue with them.

Like  3 Likes

Discussion: Hot with Thunderstorms & Air Quality Alert Today 6/14/24

Friday June 14th

Happy Flag Day

Today, hot and sunny with thunderstorms this afternoon

Air Quality Alert for excessive ozone today, sensitive individuals should take precautions

Temps in the low 90⁰s. Thunderstorms possible after 2pm and likely from 5 - 8. Slight chance that a storm might be severe, with heavy rain and wind. Clearing after 8pm

Weekend will be clear dry and warm with Temps in the 80⁰s

By the middle of next week we could be looking at the first heatwave of the season, with Temps in the 90⁰s likely every day from Tuesday through Saturday

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...AIR QUALITY ALERT IN EFFECT FROM 11 AM THIS MORNING TO 11 PM EDT

THIS EVENING...

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has issued an

Air Quality Action Day for the following counties:

Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, and Union,

from 11 AM to 11 PM EDT Friday.

An Air Quality Action Day means that Ground Level Ozone within the

region may approach or exceed unhealthy standards.

For additional information, please visit the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection Web site at http://www.njaqinow.net

Like  3 Likes

Discussion: What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nan said:

It was a good name and I said that.  

You are practicing character assassinations here instead of providing actual examples.  Naeim's background is important because she has a brother who until yesterday was working in the Ukraine government.  That raises a red flag, in addition to what she is saying which ignores much history, facts and genuine issues.  

I had two major issues with the article.  I have not seen you debate either.  Instead you are doing what you did with the last article you posted which was so bad even you could not defend it.  

we often point out where your sources state things that are clearly incorrect, or where they are outright lying and clearly trying to deceive.

For some reason, those things don't seem to raise any red flags with you.

Like  2 Likes

Discussion: What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

I'm just catching up to your many incendiary posts!  I watched this video and I'd put it in the same category as the one your brother posted about how Russians drink too much vodka.  These are social problems in Russia. As I said before-- Many countries have social problems and a f-d up justice system.  The free speech thing in Russia is hard to judge because some of the people who get arrested there (like Nalvalny) are actually working for NGOs and trying to start color revolutions which is treason.  Free speech does not protect treason in any country.  But, even if they are just kids who are influenced by the West and get covered by tattoos and say Bucha was not a false flag on social media it's really not our problem to solve.  We don't want to get rid of Putin because of these problems. 

We have lots of social problems here.  It does not mean some other country can take us over and impose their values.  It does not give NATO a free pass to surround Russia and to try to create instability and chaos. 

Has anyone spoken out against the Russian government that you have not labelled as working for an NGO?  Please provide this list.  Who is you prime example of someone able to freely speak within Russia who is completely independent?  Has there ever been one?  And as always - what is your "go to" independent press from within Russia?

I did think of someone!  Mark Sleboda.  He was an American but he now lives in Russia and is a Russian citizen (he married a Russian/Ukrainian).  I post his videos here sometimes. I like him.  Anyway, I watched a video recently where he was talking about how Putin keeps saying that Zelensky is no longer president because his term expired and according to the Ukrainian constitution, his term would not be extended, even under Martial law.  Putin went into detail about this so it was a big deal.

BUT, Mark Sleboda said Putin was just baiting Zelensky to rattle him and that Zelensky could still be President under Martial law.  OMG!!!!!  And Mark Seleboda still walks among us and makes videos!!!!  He's not in jail!!!!  How can that be?????  He went against Putin!!!!!  

"And I would argue instead that, well, Zelensky was never legitimate. The entire regime isn't legitimate, that they seized power in a push against the last legitimate democratically elected president of Ukraine back in 2014. Their sham elections have no legitimacy. They've banned every non-Maidan opposition party in the country, which is over 20 of them by my count."

https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/is-zelensky-still-the-legitimate (from the transcript)

Yeah, really speaking truth to power and confronting Russian propaganda there.

So Jamie, looks like your question is still open. 

Like  2 Likes

Discussion: The NYT Spelling Bee Thread

Me too! First in a while. 

Like  2 Likes

Discussion: Impeach corrupt Justices

It is very hard to understand how anyone in America could oppose completely backing Ukraine. Russia invaded the country for Heaven's sake! So many thinks are like they were in the 1930s just before World War 2 started! Including all the Nazi's in the U.S. Very scary times! But nothing as bas as re-electing Trump would be. Can you imagine how short a time it would take for WW 3 when the US pulls out of NATO? More like hours than months.

Like  2 Likes

Discussion: What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

Not after they saw the agreement.  They did do some sanctions (not like cutting off SWIFT).  But, in general they were OK with Ukraine joining the EU (even NATO stated that), but they did not like that agreement--it caused some alarm.  They talked to Ukraine and explained why they did not like the offer and what it might mean for Ukraine and they offered a better counterdeal than previous.  

They offered a deal, with the threat of further sanctions if they didn't agree. And when Ukrainians took to the streets, Russia prepared a military response.

This line -- "they did not like that agreement" -- gives the game away. WTF does it matter if Russia liked the deal or not? Oh, right -- because Russia believes itself entitled to control Ukraine. That's what this is about. It's always been what this is about.

Where is the evidence of a military response? Russia was fine with Ukraine joining the EU--but this agreement was not even offering EU membership--it was just going to strain the good relations between Russia and Ukraine.   Russia was right to be concerned about this agreement because they could see down the road that it could lead to huge problems. Better to deal with them right from the get go.  They had meetings about this--because they had good relations and they could deal diplomatically.  If Russia was working with Mexico on an agreement that would interfere with our relations with Mexico we would be all over that.  We would be saying, "I would not do that if I were you" and we would sanction the hell out of them because if we don't issue 1000 sanctions a day we feel like we have not done our job. 

I guess you're on the record now for supporting the U.S. sanctioning countries for making diplomatic agreements they dislike. Afraid I can't get on that boat with you.

Then you really agree with me.  Ha!

No, I don't -- you are saying Russia had a right to tell Ukraine what kinds of trade agreements it could engage it. I disagree with such a colonial attitude.

Russia let Ukraine make their decision--they had strong opinions and they made sure Ukraine heard these opinions loud and clear.  Very loud and clear. They also upped their offering as people do in reasonable negotiations. 

It was the US who felt they had a right to tell Ukraine about what kind of trade agreements it could engage with when they overthrew their government.  

You keep saying "the U.S." Did the U.S. install Ukraine's legislators? No. Did the U.S. send armed men to hold legislators hostage? No. This is where your theory falls apart -- you can't explain how a vote in parliament is an act by the U.S.

Sure, you can allege pressure if you like, but here in this very post you are saying that pressure is just a legitimate way for a big country to express its opinions -- if Russia can play good cop/bad cop by threatening crippling sanctions or offering money, then what is your basis for saying that Victoria Nuland providing sandwiches and being able to name members of the Rada is a coup? Ukraine's legislators voted, Russia's gunmen attacked. Only one of these fits the normal person's definition of a coup.

After the coup, the US put together the government. They have held sway over every government since, even if elected.  

There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, even a strong opinion.  Russia was not threatening crippling sanctions--they were just annoying the crap out of them.  Of course they can offer money--that's what people do in negotiations.  When you are bidding on a house you sometimes get into a bidding war.  This is normal. 

Not normal to overthrow a government and install a new one.  The coup was backed by the US and carried out by the far-right. You can deny it but it's right there to see.  The far-right was shooting people.  They are the ones who pushed it over the edge. Russia was not involved.   

Again, the "overthrow" was a vote in the legislature. You keep ignoring this. How, exactly, did the U.S. force the legislature to vote a certain way?

Like  2 Likes