USA politics, recent events.

[Darkwood]

How does this affect pensions DW? Surley this is about shorting, if any pension funds held shares in Gamestop, which I doubt, then they were due to lose anyway if the shorters (is that a word?) were correct in their gamble in the first place. Don't forget the shorters borrowed shares hoping the value would drop, so not good for pension funds.

What is occurring with Gamestop is sending shockwaves through the whole market, just look at global stock markets over the last 2 weeks as this story developed, also those who bet on the shortfall are often using finance tied to bigger companies who are all in on this insider trading, ultimately the panic here for many is not the loss of personal wealth but the fact this could be the catalyst for a financial crash that makes the one in 2007 look like small change, it has exposed illegal activities and now there is an attempt to use illegal activity to stop it running away and effecting everyone.
If you have a private pension you are likely to have been affected already, I know some who have been knocked back 2yrs in the value which long term isn't a worry but this could escalate and if panic sets in we will be looking at another crash in the wake of Corvid 19 that has already put us in depression in the financial sense.

I believe I saw a report only yesterday that says 70billion has been wiped off Wall Street in the wake of this.

PS - those welling in the glee of seeing the big boys getting a piece of their own medicine may be short lived, it like rejoicing you have killed the mouse hiding in the closet but ignoring the realisation you just burnt your house down doing it.

 

[nicebutdim]

The Biden conspiracy theory has been widely debunked. He wanted the prosecutor fired, but not for the reasons you think. I can't find any reference, that supports the theory, apart from that Republican report, which doesn't seem to be worth paper its written on

IMO, after reading looking at all the reports videos, Trumps behaviour before his speech & during fed the crowd, which resulted in the invasion of the Capitol building. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

But on your last point, at least we agree on something.

I didn't post any conspiracy therory, but pointed out Biden's crassness in relating the story and the convenient coincidence that this prosecutor's firing also impacted on an investigation into his son. At the very least he should have stepped aside from this issue, due to conflict of interests, and let someone else deal with it as would be the generally accepted path. You wouldn't defend Trump in such circumstances, so why would you not expect Biden to be held to the same standards?


The Trump speech does, and will continue to, divide opinion. I'm not asking that you change your opinion, but highlighted the fact that you had been unaware of the words he had spoken, due to selective reporting. We are all perfectly entitled to our own opinions, but should be able to form those opinions on the basis of having considered all the facts in any situation and not some of the facts as selected by those who might like us to share their views. It would be outrageous for a new outlet to edit most of those words and focus exclusively on the 'peacefully and patriotically' part, so I don't consider it to be any less outrageous when news outlets do the opposite.

Chances are we agree on quite a lot - all I'm trying to do is point out the ease with which media bias can skew our perspective.

 

[Darkwood]

Somebody queried me when I suggested the US system is rigged from within all the way up to the FBI, CIA ...

Just reflect on 2 cases here

-FBI Lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, will be fined $100 for fraudulently editing an email to lie to a FISA court in order to spy on the Trump campaign.
( Given the seriousness of this as well had this been against Obama what do you think the outcome would have been, noted he got 400hrs community service too.. this should have been a lengthy sentence.)

-Meanwhile, the DOJ is trying to put a Trump-supporter behind bars for 10-years for a MEME he posted in 2016.
(Had this been against Trump and not Hillary Clinton would we be seeing this even in court?... PS it was copied and done to Trump using the same meme, so far no arrests.)

This is by no means isolated cases here, this is prevalent throughout the system how one side is treated very different to the other, look into Hunter Biden on going case and look into who Joe the President has just assigned to the case... this definitely wouldn't be tolerated here in the UK even though we cannot claim to have the perfect system either.

 

[Midwest]

I didn't post any conspiracy therory, but pointed out Biden's crassness in relating the story and the convenient coincidence that this prosecutor's firing also impacted on an investigation into his son. At the very least he should have stepped aside from this issue, due to conflict of interests, and let someone else deal with it as would be the generally accepted path. You wouldn't defend Trump in such circumstances, so why would you not expect Biden to be held to the same standards?


The Trump speech does, and will continue to, divide opinion. I'm not asking that you change your opinion, but highlighted the fact that you had been unaware of the words he had spoken, due to selective reporting. We are all perfectly entitled to our own opinions, but should be able to form those opinions on the basis of having considered all the facts in any situation and not some of the facts as selected by those who might like us to share their views. It would be outrageous for a new outlet to edit most of those words and focus exclusively on the 'peacefully and patriotically' part, so I don't consider it to be any less outrageous when news outlets do the opposite.

Chances are we agree on quite a lot - all I'm trying to do is point out the ease with which media bias can skew our perspective.

If you have a read through the link I posted, you'll see his involvement was correct, as per his position as VP;


When Biden had his now-famous showdown with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in 2015, he was delivering a message not only from the United States, but from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. All three entities were focused on curtailing corruption in Ukraine, and all three were deeply suspicious that Poroshenko’s prosecutor was playing a familiar game of tamping down investigations as a form of political favoritism.

By all credible accounts, the prosecutor had slow-walked the investigation of the energy company that hired Biden’s son; so, if anything, the prosecutor was doing the Bidens a favor. Getting rid of him would do the opposite.

By contrast, Trump sought a public announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating the Bidens. Trump was pressing for something that fell outside the recommendations of federal agencies.

PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: Does a video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery? No

There are many other web sites with similar interpretation of this event. Interpretation I say, because us mere mortals would find it difficult to understand such a complex event. For my part, I don't consider Biden having any wrong doing here.

 

[Darkwood]

If you have a read through the link I posted, you'll see his involvement was correct, as per his position as VP;


When Biden had his now-famous showdown with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in 2015, he was delivering a message not only from the United States, but from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. All three entities were focused on curtailing corruption in Ukraine, and all three were deeply suspicious that Poroshenko’s prosecutor was playing a familiar game of tamping down investigations as a form of political favoritism.

By all credible accounts, the prosecutor had slow-walked the investigation of the energy company that hired Biden’s son; so, if anything, the prosecutor was doing the Bidens a favor. Getting rid of him would do the opposite.

By contrast, Trump sought a public announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating the Bidens. Trump was pressing for something that fell outside the recommendations of federal agencies.

PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: Does a video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery? No

There are many other web sites with similar interpretation of this event. Interpretation I say, because us mere mortals would find it difficult to understand such a complex event. For my part, I don't consider Biden having any wrong doing here.

This demonstrates the game of ping pong of opinions that are surrounding this case but let's look at this above the perspective of bias..

Burismo was already under multiple investigations at the time including from the UK before Hunter joined the Board, the USA were also following the progress of these investigations too, when Hunter joined the Board it put a conflict of interest for the US government into the mix and Joe Biden was 100% aware, even if we remove and ignore what Joe Biden is did and boasted about it is still an intolerable situation for the Vice President to be linked directly to Burismo through his son, especially when evidence produced in trial shows Hunter receiving 66,000 per month if I recall the exact figures and Joe Biden receiving large sums.
This is not just about Sons involvement on the board of a corrupt firm here but more so bribery and corruption throughout, if you were to read up on the case itself you will realise that you can omit the actions of Joe Biden in getting the prosecutor fired and we still see Hunter and Joe biden tied into bribery and corruption of a foreign nation.
Recent affidavit from the case has acknowledged both Hunter and Joe Biden were receiving money which can be shown in financial transaction data.

What we are seeing here from the left is damage control, what is't been put into question at all is whether Joe Biden was taking bribes, what is in question is the amount, that is where the trial is at now, not the validity of the allegations but the actually amount in question.

 

[Midwest]

This demonstrates the game of ping pong of opinions that are surrounding this case but let's look at this above the perspective of bias..

Burismo was already under multiple investigations at the time including from the UK before Hunter joined the Board, the USA were also following the progress of these investigations too, when Hunter joined the Board it put a conflict of interest for the US government into the mix and Joe Biden was 100% aware, even if we remove and ignore what Joe Biden is did and boasted about it is still an intolerable situation for the Vice President to be linked directly to Burismo through his son, especially when evidence produced in trial shows Hunter receiving 66,000 per month if I recall the exact figures and Joe Biden receiving large sums.
This is not just about Sons involvement on the board of a corrupt firm here but more so bribery and corruption throughout, if you were to read up on the case itself you will realise that you can omit the actions of Joe Biden in getting the prosecutor fired and we still see Hunter and Joe biden tied into bribery and corruption of a foreign nation.
Recent affidavit from the case has acknowledged both Hunter and Joe Biden were receiving money which can be shown in financial transaction data.

What we are seeing here from the left is damage control, what is't been put into question at all is whether Joe Biden was taking bribes, what is in question is the amount, that is where the trial is at now, not the validity of the allegations but the actually amount in question.

Yes yes, that’s what the Republicans report tried to show. But that didn’t have much evidence to back the accusations up.

 

[nicebutdim]

If you have a read through the link I posted, you'll see his involvement was correct, as per his position as VP;


When Biden had his now-famous showdown with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in 2015, he was delivering a message not only from the United States, but from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. All three entities were focused on curtailing corruption in Ukraine, and all three were deeply suspicious that Poroshenko’s prosecutor was playing a familiar game of tamping down investigations as a form of political favoritism.

By all credible accounts, the prosecutor had slow-walked the investigation of the energy company that hired Biden’s son; so, if anything, the prosecutor was doing the Bidens a favor. Getting rid of him would do the opposite.

By contrast, Trump sought a public announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating the Bidens. Trump was pressing for something that fell outside the recommendations of federal agencies.

PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: Does a video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery? No

There are many other web sites with similar interpretation of this event. Interpretation I say, because us mere mortals would find it difficult to understand such a complex event. For my part, I don't consider Biden having any wrong doing here.

Whether or not the removal of this prosecutor was in the Biden family's interest or of little consequense is a matter of opinion on which both of our positions have been made clear. The second issue I highlighted was how Biden recounted the story and that I considered it a wholly unacceptable manner for anyone in his position to behave.

I might be misunderstanding your position from comments posted in this thread, but it appears to be that particular actions may be considered acceptable/unacceptable based solely upon the individual responsible.

Crass behaviour by Trump is bad.

Crass behaviour by Biden should be defended.


What I've noted in this thread is that everyone has acknowledged that at least certain aspects of Trump's behaviour were not becomming of a US President. Conversely only some posters have made the same acknowledgement about Biden. I'm not sure that, as Vice President, the current US President should discuss foreign affairs in the sort of manner one might expect to hear in a bar. It is not unreasonable for people to support particular policies of either Trump or Biden, but I can not understand the logic that leads anyone to refute all criticism of a politician.

 

[electric al]

It seems that for some the villain has already been cast and fairness has been willingly overlooked. By acknowledging that Biden may not be the angel of light somehow makes it more difficult to retain the intensity of
antipathy they want to feel towards Trump. It's all become very tribal and I cant see an end
to these entrenched positions

 

[Midwest]

Crass behaviour by Trump is bad.

Crass behaviour by Biden should be defended.

Think Trumps won the medal on that one ?

 

[MDJ]

A very good debate here, I am really enjoying it, even you Fellas I disagree with are still posting some good stuff, nothing wrong with healthy debate, keep it going, when it's too Friendly or quiet in here I will jump in again and kick start it off again ?

 

[andyb]

The disabled mocking fully explained.

12minutes long.

Please try to be open minded as you'll see his action was habitual and, though optically awful, was not directed against the reporter, was not indicative of his disability and Trump didn't even know who the guy was.


As for the misogyny and racism these are banded about far to liberally and the issues much too complex to discuss in any reasonable time frame here but all I'll say is that women and people of colour that Trump agreed with and showed competence did very well in his organisations and Government. Those he didn't agree with or he thought incompetent did not, its only these people calling him racist and misogynistic, whodathunkit?

Finally I didn't call you personally anything and never will you chose to align yourself with a group I ridiculed, deservedly for being oversensitive attention ------.

I am not the only one who thinks this way, maybe the modern left has an optics problem, you know, their appearance doesn't reflect their intention, rather reminiscent of a great former president.?

There's none more open minded than me here GB, I told you what I saw and you've just posted a video from some right wing christian nutters explaining why what I saw was not what I saw. The video is for people who want to believe and need something to help them overcome their cognitive dissonance. And it obviously works.

I paid you the respect of watching as much as I could, even the 9/11 garbage. Then when Trump was shown talking about the reporter his words were 'you gotta see this guy' he then goes on to copy his actions. I'm sorry GB but that's mocking him. I'm sorry you can't see that, you should try to be more open minded.

Finally, I didn't really think you meant me, but why the insults anyway? I probably would align myself with who you call oversensitive attention ------, and I don't know what you mean by appearance, I don't think everyone on the left all look the same or are one homogenous group for that matter.

You have some reasonable and fair arguments, no need to pick on people with different views who are not even on this forum.

 

[GBDamo]

There's none more open minded than me here GB,......

......you've just posted a video from some right wing christian nutters...

......no need to pick on people with different views who are not even on this forum.

See what you did there? Its a trap all to easy to fall into when online debating.


The facts of an argument are not affected by those presenting them other than for those looking to not hear the facts.

The video clearly explains Trumps gestures, his history of using the same gestures. It also explains why its highly unlikely he knew the reporter was disabled and his actions didn't even mimic the reporter's disability.

Typical left wing hysteria that they continue reporting as fact long after its been proven false.

Look at also,

Jussie Smollet.
The Covington kid.
Bubba Wallace.
Fentanyl Floyd.

 

[Midwest]

See what you did there? Its a trap all to easy to fall into when online debating.


The facts of an argument are not affected by those presenting them other than for those looking to not hear the facts.

The video clearly explains Trumps gestures, his history of using the same gestures. It also explains why its highly unlikely he knew the reporter was disabled and his actions didn't even mimic the reporter's disability.

Typical left wing hysteria that they continue reporting as fact long after its been proven false.

Look at also,

Jussie Smollet.
The Covington kid.
Bubba Wallace.
Fentanyl Floyd.

Perhaps if he was advised a bit more, he would of active differently in that particular video. Or would he?

 

[GBDamo]

Perhaps if he was advised a bit more, he would of active differently in that particular video. Or would he?

I doubt he'd have listened.

He is obviously a highly intelligent person but with that comes ego and hubris.

 

[andyb]

I doubt he'd have listened.

He is obviously a highly intelligent person but with that comes ego and hubris.

Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.

Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character.

I don’t see it as a flaw.

 

[GBDamo]

Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.

Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character.

I don’t see it as a flaw.

Technically, I didn't say it was a flaw the dictionary definition did. ?

 

[nicebutdim]

P. S. I don, t or won't be getting involved in politics myself. I took that decision some time ago. My purpose in commenting on this thread (this will be my final comment on the matter) is because it has in my view crossed a line. It promotes idea, s which are simply not to anyone's advantage. Idea, s that are divisive. It would be a terribly pity if these type of thread was to become acceptable. This forum I have come to value. Its worth fighting for. Have a good day everyone?

Unreleated to this thread, but I'd been wondering where you'd disappeard to and searched several times for posts under your previous user name.

We might disagree on the subject of this thread, but I'm pleased to have realised the name change and that you're still here ?

 

[LastManOnline]

Unreleated to this thread, but I'd been wondering where you'd disappeard to and searched several times for posts under your previous user name.

We might disagree on the subject of this thread, but I'm pleased to have realised the name change and that you're still here ?

?. Name change was a reflection on my historical dislike of IT, social media etc and my battle to avoid its influence on my life. You can guess who won?

 

[Baddegg]

?. Name change was a reflection on my historical dislike of IT, social media etc and my battle to avoid its influence on my life. You can guess who won?

I’m intrigued..,.who were ya??

 

[Midwest]

I learnt about the Hubris Theory some time ago with some of my bosses. I think Trump excels in this area. In fact he could teach a few leaders, a point or too. Makes Putin look like a -----. (Midwest ?)

Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.

Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character.

I don’t see it as a flaw.

Dr David Owen first raised (I believe) the concept 'A common thread tying these elements together is hubris, or exaggerated pride, overwhelming self-confidence and contempt for others (Owen, 2006)'.

And whilst not widely accepted, he has begun a useful discussion on this subject;

140 140..150 (lorddavidowen.co.uk)