These folks are such utter pathetic trolls. The grandchild hunter had a baby with was with a God damn stripper and he was paying her 20k a month in child support. The idea the child is scarred is a joke when you scumbags literally edit videos sexualizing poor innocent girls. To edit a video and destroy some innocent girls life over politics is such utter filth. It's the lowest of the lowest you can go and no surprise it's right wing scum who do it. I mean it when I say it that you MAGA folks especially @Commodore are the absolute filth of society. scumbags
I swear I can't get my head around to the fact that Republicans are literally editing innocent videos to sexualize a innocent poor girl who has her life ruined. What the **** is wrong with you people seriously? Our fourty million views over edited propoganda Our politics is so destroyed by the right wing scum. That's all you folks ever will be. Zero respect. Sick ****ers
Again my comment is towards MAGA. If you're not MAGA I'm obviously not talking to you. I'm only referring to the "ULTRA MAGA" crowd. Who seriously edits a innocent video where a girl meets the president to make it sexualize and edit bidens voice? Seriously who the **** does that ****? It's so disgusting I can't get my head around it. Then you post it on truth social and Instagram and have it go viral with over 30 million views? What the **** is wrong with our society seriously. We have no boundaries or limits no more. Now we know why folks like @Salvy are proud to be MAGA. Absolute filth
RFK Jr. denounces Biden’s plan to send cluster bombs to Ukraine: ‘Stop the ceaseless escalation!’ https://nypost.com/2023/07/08/rfk-jr-slams-biden-for-ukraine-cluster-bomb-decision/
Sunk cost fallacy I suppose. I'm more of a disinterested observer at this point, but while we're stuck in this duopoly I am interested in having both participants focused on stuff that actually matters. You're chasing a dead end. Someone else said it best, political masturbation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/opinion/cluster-munitions-ukraine-biden.html The Flawed Moral Logic of Sending Cluster Munitions to Ukraine July 10, 2023, 1:00 a.m. ET By The Editorial Board In the brutal logic of warfare, cluster munitions may appear to make solid sense for Ukraine’s slow-moving counteroffensive against well dug-in Russian troops. Delivered by artillery, a 155-milimeter shell packed with 72 armor-piercing, soldier-killing bomblets can strike from 20 miles away and scatter them over a vast area. On Friday, the Biden administration announced it would start delivering these weapons to Ukraine, over objections from, among others, human rights organizations and key allies. President Biden said the United States would supply cluster munitions from its large stockpile until suppliers could catch up with Ukraine’s shortage of conventional artillery shells, a key weapon in the static warfare in eastern and southern Ukraine. With Ukraine using up ordinary artillery shells at a huge rate (the United States alone has sent more than two million rounds to Ukraine), the cluster munitions, of which the United States has a bountiful supply, could give Ukrainian forces an advantage in prying the Russians from their trenches and fortifications along the 620-mile-long front. Besides, Russia has been using its own cluster munitions, as has Ukraine, from the outset of the war, and Ukraine’s leaders have been urgently asking for more. This is a flawed and troubling logic. In the face of the widespread global condemnation of cluster munitions and the danger they pose to civilians long after the fighting is over, this is not a weapon a nation with the power and influence of the United States should be spreading. However compelling it may be to use any available weapon to protect one’s homeland, nations in the rules-based international order have increasingly sought to draw a red line against use of weapons of mass destruction or weapons that pose a severe and lingering risk to noncombatants. Cluster munitions clearly fall into the second category. The reason is that not all bomblets explode as they’re meant to, and thousands of small, unexploded grenades can lie around for years, even decades, before somebody — often, a child spotting a brightly colored, battery-size doodad on the ground — accidentally sets it off. The weapons used today by Russia and Ukraine are said to leave as many as 40 percent unexploded duds lying around, and they will remain a threat to the people of Ukraine no matter what the outcome of this conflict. This danger prompted the adoption of a Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. The United Nations secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon, spoke of “not only the world’s collective revulsion at these abhorrent weapons, but also the power of collaboration among governments, civil society and the United Nations to change attitudes and policies on a threat faced by all humankind.” As of today, 123 nations — including many of America’s allies — have agreed never to use, transfer, produce or stockpile cluster munitions. But not Russia or Ukraine, nor the United States, which used cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the United States actively opposed the treaty. This editorial board argued at the time that, “As the main holdout, the United States gives cover to countries like Russia and China, which also rejected the ban. The treaty is weaker for it: together, these three nations have more than a billion cluster munitions stockpiled, far more than the number of weapons expected to be destroyed.” Defending the decision to supply the weapons to Ukraine, President Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, argued that Ukraine would not be using the munitions in a foreign land, but on its own territory. “These are their citizens they’re protecting, and they are motivated to use any weapon system they have in a way that minimizes the risk to these citizens,” he said. In fact, there is considerable risk. Cluster munitions used by both Ukrainian and Russian forces have led to, reportedly, at leastdozens of civilian deaths and serious injuries, according to a Human Rights Watch report published Thursday. Specifically, the report said Ukrainian cluster-munition rocket attacks on Russian-controlled areas around the city of Izium in 2022 “caused many casualties among Ukrainian civilians.” (Ukraine denied that cluster munitions were used there.) While it is Ukraine’s decision to choose what weapons it uses in its defense, it is for America to decide which weapons to supply. At the outset of the conflict, the United States resisted sending advanced weapons for fear of encouraging a wider war and Russian retaliation. But as the fighting dragged on and Ukraine proved increasingly capable of standing up to Russia, line after line has been crossed, with Washington and its allies agreeing to provide sophisticated weapons like the Patriot air-defense system, the Himars long-range rocket launcher, the Abrams tank and soon the F-16 jet fighter. There is a legitimate debate about whether this amounts to the sort of mission creep that marked conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Sending cluster munitions to Ukraine amounts to a clear escalation of a conflict that has already become far too brutal and destructive. But the greater issue here is sharing a weapon that has been condemned by a majority of the world’s nations, including most of America’s close allies, as morally repugnant for the indiscriminate carnage it can cause long after the combatants have gone. The Pentagon’s central defense against such proscriptions is that the “dud rate” of the American weapons — the number of bomblets that do not explode and are left on the battlefield — is down to 2.35 percent, as compared to Russia’s alleged 40 percent. In 2008, the Pentagon set a limit of 1 percent on cluster munitions, and Congress has since banned the use, production or transfer of weapons over that rate. Even the 2.35 percent rate, an average, may be misleading. As John Ismay reported in the The Times on Saturday, the cluster munitions in question may include an older type known to have a failure rate of 14 percent or more. That could leave the land littered with unexploded duds. The White House bypassed Congress by invoking a provision of the Foreign Assistance Act that allows the president to disregard arms export restrictions if he deems the aid to be a vital national security interest. Several members of Congress have denounced the export of these weapons and will add a the amendment to the annual defense bill that would prohibit export of almost all cluster munitions. This board has consistently supported the supply of arms to Ukraine by the United States and its allies. Ukraine is battling an invader prepared to use all sorts of weapons, including indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets. It needs and deserves help. But providing weapons that much of the world justifiably condemns is wrong. The United States had wisely started to move away from the use of cluster munitions. To now disregard the long-term consequences of these weapons would undermine one of the fundamental reasons to support Ukraine — to defend the norms that secure peace and stability in Europe, norms that Russia violated so blatantly. Encouraging the use and proliferation of these weapons could weaken the support of allies who until this point have rallied behind American leadership. The rain of bomblets may give Ukraine a military advantage in the short term, but it would not be decisive, and it would not outweigh the damage in suffering to civilians in Ukraine, now and likely for generations to come.
This coming from a trump supporter. But I get it, when you can defend the guy you support, you invent things to criticize his opponent.
Hey Joey B cheerleaders….it does not bother you guys that your senile president just announced to our enemies that we are low on ammo?
I ain’t gonna lie. Ms Nancy got some nice hooters, she’s definitely was a hottie in her younger years.
‘Idiots,’ ‘criminals’ and ‘scum’ – nasty politics highest in US since the Civil War Published: July 10, 2023 8.29am EDT by Thomas Zeitzoff, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, American University Joe Biden, “together with a band of his closest thugs, misfits and Marxists, tried to destroy American democracy.” This is what Donald Trump said to his supporters hours after pleading not guilty in federal court in June 2023 to his mishandling of classified documents. The indictment of a former president was shocking, but Trump’s words were not. Twenty years ago, his rhetoric would have been unusual coming from any member of Congress, let alone a party leader. Yet language like this from the leading Republican presidential candidate is becoming remarkably common in American politics. It’s not just Republicans. In 2019, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker appeared on a talk show bemoaning Trump’s rhetoric and the lack of civility in politics. But he then went on to call Trump a “physically weak specimen” and said that his own “testosterone makes me want to” punch Trump. How bad have things gotten? In my new book, I show that the level of nastiness in U.S. politics has increased dramatically. As an indication of that, I collected historical data from The New York Times on the relative frequency of stories involving Congress that contained keywords associated with nasty politics such as “smear,” “brawl” and “slander.” I found that nasty politics is more prevalent than at any time since the U.S. Civil War. Particularly following the Jan. 6. insurrection by Trump’s supporters, journalists and scholars have focused on the rise of the politics of menace. In May 2023, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger testified before Congress and said that one of the biggest challenges the U.S. Capitol Police face today “is dealing with the sheer increase in the number of threats against the members of Congress. It’s gone up over 400% over the last six years.” From insults to actual violence “Nasty politics” is an umbrella term for the aggressive rhetoric and occasional actual violence that politicians use against domestic political opponents and other domestic groups. Insults are the least threatening and most common form of nasty politics. These include politicians’ references to opponents as “idiots,” “criminals” or “scum.” Leveling accusations or using conspiracy theories to claim an opponent is engaging in something nefarious is also common in nasty politics. Less common – and more ominous – are threats to jail political opponents or encouraging one’s supporters to commit violence against those opponents. In 2021, Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona tweeted out an anime cartoon video of his likeness killing Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. The rarest and most extreme examples of nasty politics entail politicians actively engaging in violence themselves. For instance, in 2017, Republican U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte of Montana body-slammed a reporter from The Guardian. Gianforte would later win his 2018 election and is the current governor of Montana. But nasty politics is not just a U.S. phenomenon. Deadly words In 2016, then-candidate Rodrigo Duterte famously promised Philippine voters that when he was president he would kill 100,000 drug dealers and that “fish will grow fat” from all the bodies in Manila Bay. In 2017, in a speech on the one-year anniversary of the failed coup attempt against him, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan threatened to “chop off the heads of those traitors.” Before Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a far-right Jewish extremist in 1995, then-opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu railed against Rabin’s support for territorial compromise with Palestinians. In an op-ed in The New York Times, Netanyahu compared Rabin’s potential peace deal with Palestinians to Neville Chamberlain’sappeasement of the Nazis before World War II. In the lead-up to the assassination, Netanyahu spoke at several right-wing rallies at which his supporters held up posters of Rabin in a Nazi uniform, and Netanyahu himself even marched next to a coffin that said “Rabin kills Zionism.” In Ukraine before the 2022 Russian invasion, the Ukrainian parliament, known as the Rada, many times resembled a meeting of rival soccer hooligans rather than a functioning legislature. Fights among rivals regularly broke out, including the occasional egging and smoke bomb. In 2012, a full-blown legislative riot occurred in the Rada over the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, with rival lawmakers punching and choking one another. Voters don’t like it The conventional wisdom for the reason politicians go nasty is that while voters find mudslinging or political brawling distasteful, it’s actually effective. Or that although they won’t admit it, voters secretly like nasty politics. Yet polling consistently shows the opposite. Voters don’t like it when politicians go nasty, are worried it could lead to violence, and reduce their support for those who do use it. That’s what I found in countless surveys in the U.S., Ukraine and Israel, where I did research for my book. Other research in the U.S. finds that even ardent Trump supporters reduced their approval for him when he used uncivil language. more
conclusion So why do politicians use nasty politics? First, nasty politics grabs attention. Nasty rhetoric is more likely to get covered in the media, or to get likes, clicks or shares on social media than its civil counterpart. For Trump, some of his most-shared tweets were one labeling antifa a “terrorist” organization and a clip of him body-slamming a pro wrestler with CNN’s logo superimposed. Second, given their attention-grabbing nature, nasty politics can be a particularly important tool for opposition or outsider politicians. These politicians who don’t have the name recognition, or access to the same resources as party leaders, can use nasty politics to get noticed and build a following. Third, and perhaps most important, nasty politics can be used to signal toughness. This toughness is something that voters seek out when they feel threatened. This sentiment was best captured in a September 2018 tweet from the Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr., a Trump ally: Conservatives & Christians need to stop electing “nice guys”. They might make great Christian leaders but the US needs street fighters like @realDonaldTrump at every level of government b/c the liberal fascists Dems are playing for keeps & many Repub leaders are a bunch of wimps! From nasty words to worse Nasty politics has important implications for democracy. It can be a legitimate tool for opposition and outsider politicians to call attention to bad behavior. But it can also be used as a cynical, dangerous tool by incumbents to cling to power that can lead to violence. For example, in the lead-up to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump and his supporters concocted a baseless conspiracy that the 2020 election would be stolen. He implored his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6 as part of a rally to support the baseless conspiracy and “Stop the Steal,” and urged followers to “Be There. Will Be Wild!” foreshadowing the violence that was to come. Perhaps most ominously for the near future of U.S. democracy, the growing Trump legal troubles have escalated to violent rhetoric. After Trump’s indictment in June, Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona tweeted: “We have now reached a war phase. Eye for an eye.” The uptick in nasty politics in the U.S. is both a symptom of the country’s deeply divided politics and a harbinger of future threats to democracy.
