Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Let me know when Gosar, Biggs, and Boebert get this
Something weird going on in the Carolinas. We just lost power, and according to Duke Energies website their are about half a million people now without power, all at about the same time. After the recent attack on the NC power substation I am a little worried.
Probably the weather mate.
I hope so. Just got their website to load and they are performing rolling blackouts as well. Never dealt with this shit in WI, those feckers knew how to weatherproof an electrical grid.
Exactly. Up north it only goes bad when you get a lot of ice but I'd imagine relatively severe cold and snow will cause havoc as you get further south.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A binary choice is too reductive. The motivations behind the votes couldn’t be more different.
Yes, different reasons for voting but identical desired outcome.
But saying ideology is a circle is nonsense.
It’s one bill, they both have totally different motivations for it.
If you had someone voting against capital punishment because they believe it’s wrong for anyone to kill anyone for any reason and someone else voting against capital punishment because all their friends are murderous psychopaths who are facing the death penalty you wouldn’t point at them and go “ha, same ideology”.
I don't know if that's a suitable analogy given that the issue of supporting Ukraine is something a vast majority of people agree on. Those voting against it are usually fringe politicians who believe they either have to vote no because their nutjob voters would reject them if they didn't, or for the left, as a means of political expediency to appear principled before their constituents. Both cases advance the same end state.
Wouldn’t this be classified as an example of the horseshoe theory?
The horseshoe theory is bullshit in that
1. It elevates the middle as the "principled" stance (which is nonsense in many cases)
2. In drawing "parallels" between the extreme left and extreme right it glosses over a lot of structural differences
3. It's been debunked by many mainstream political scientists
I don’t know if it’s helpful to apply it to this to be honest. Both fringes voted against this for different reasons. I’d take AOC’s position on this over those of the MAGA grifters every day of the week.
I've not been keeping up recently. Could someone point me to somewhere where AOC explains why she voted like that?
She voted no on the latest Ukraine support bill out of protest that it would fund DoD efforts over immigration reform.
It was the lone Dem no vote alongside the right wing nut job caucus who also voted no for different reasons.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Hmmm. I've been against the use of civil asset forfeiture to penalize petty criminals and their families too but russian oligarchs is a strange place to take a stand regardless. (That's what I took from that twitter thread as being her point). Also if it's because of disproportionate DoD spending I agree with her too in theory... but even worse timing to make a point right now, especially when there's some vote or other on some part of DoD spending every other month anyway.
She’s probably sterilizing her voting record for progressives in preparation for an eventual run for the Senate.
Seriously, it's just stupid to even try to justify voting against seizure of assets that belong to Russian oligarchs; it's not as if they are about to live on welfare although they deserve it for having financed the murderous machine in Russia. Not only the timing of her vote is poor, but she also shows a blatant lack of political pragmatism that won't help her political career beyond the House.
Agreed.
One side - maybe we shouldn’t cripple a country’s economy for decades for the choices of its despot leader.
Another side - feck Ukraine
But yeah…they’re all the same
These same people voted against Ukraine in other cases too. It is a pattern. Perhaps they like Russia and Putin.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/597770-rep-bush-explains-vote-against-russian-oil-ban/
Rep. Bush explains vote against Russian oil ban
BY SARAKSHI RAI - 03/10/22 5:58 PM ET
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ight-explain-no-votes-on-russia-ukraine-bill/
Lawmakers on left, right explain ‘no’ votes on Russia-Ukraine bill
BY MYCHAEL SCHNELL - 04/28/22 6:05 PM ET
Last edited:
Sounds to me they have forgotten that the US did exactly the same to Yugoslavia in the very late 1990s until Milosevic was extradited to The Hague as part of the conditions for ending that forced economic and political isolation following the Kosovo War.
Just like I said before, it's a stark lack of political pragmatism that will lead them (The Squad) to nowhere in their political careers.
Really a 'before-life' party. Once born they don't give a feck.
Don't you mean the anti sex party? Unless it's sexual assault, they are with that.
And when it’s used to increase the domestic supply of babies.
Pro birth and nothing else. Need poor teenagers willing to sign-up to the military, get PTSD, come back home and end up homeless.
All part of the service to their nation!
All part of the service to their nation!
New York congressman-elect admits lying about college and work history
Apparently completely made up his work history, and education.
Refusing to resign.
Apparently completely made up his work history, and education.
Refusing to resign.
That's only the basic lies. The bigger question from the reporting is how was he evicted for not paying rent then suddenly a few years later he has 750k to loan to his campaign. No college degree but he's a "seasoned financial professional". Despite not actually working at the firms he said he did. He admitted he worked at a Dish network call center in the past decade and "came from nothing". Well what magic tree did he shake to find so much money?
McCarthy has to back him and make sure he is seated he cannot afford to lose any votes for the Speaker. GOP aren't going to police him themselves so someone else should be looking into where he got the money from and what has or hasn't been reported there.
Last edited:
And there’s some reporting that he was married to a woman a few years ago.
Bumped by Glenn "the ghoul" Greenwald as a great appointment for the GOP. Just another scammer who says the right thing and gets appointed.
Imagine you could trace the money back to a Peter Thiel pet project.
Madness to think someone can file to run for political office without anyone doing some sort of background research to vouch. I wonder if falsifying any records could violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and/or violate 18 USC 1001, 1038, or other statute.
I think what needs to happen is a voter to file a civil suit along the lines of "being duped" or whatever, unless there is a violation above that a US Attorney can look into, but I'm no law expert by any stretch.
I think what needs to happen is a voter to file a civil suit along the lines of "being duped" or whatever, unless there is a violation above that a US Attorney can look into, but I'm no law expert by any stretch.
Greenwald is unbearable.
Just lying won't be enough for anything to happen. What will get him is if something is off about his funds and reporting it. Taxes, fraud of that sort. Even if hes seated I don't see how he can possibly get clearance on background checks to be on committees etc. He has fraud charges in Brazil reportedly not closed out too.
There's no way a background check would come out clean with this amount of lies. I was a reference by an ex coworker who wanted a government contractor job that required security clearance checks. I had to do an interview and was questioned on his character, what projects we worked on together. Do I consider him trustworthy with government secrets etc. I mean without someone waiving that like Trump did for all those appointees he had that couldn't pass the checks...
There's no way a background check would come out clean with this amount of lies. I was a reference by an ex coworker who wanted a government contractor job that required security clearance checks. I had to do an interview and was questioned on his character, what projects we worked on together. Do I consider him trustworthy with government secrets etc. I mean without someone waiving that like Trump did for all those appointees he had that couldn't pass the checks...
Once you find out he apparently used to run a shady gay tourism business for rich westerners to pick up young dudes in Brazil, you start to question the ethics of the man. Combined with his behaviour online and allegiance with the far right, shilling legitimacy on Tucker Carlson, you realize he's all round shit.