13
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
snood
 
  4  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 03:03 am
Imagine if all the history books read like this: “In 1492, Native Americans discovered Christopher Columbus lost at sea.”
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 05:52 am
@snood,
And here's yet another take on this historical event...
Quote:
Laura Ingraham says Democrats are criticizing Columbus Day because they see Italians “as likely Republicans”
LINK
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 10:59 am
You'll want to read this...
Quote:
Elon Musk Spoke to Putin Before Tweeting Ukraine Peace Plan: Report
LINK
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 02:31 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

The Government library of medicine?

Aren't you cute?



As opposed to the 'builder library of medical quackery'?
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 05:27 pm

https://iili.io/QyUGf9.jpg
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 04:47 am
@Builder,
JUST IN: After Musk’s Denial, Ian Bremmer Claims Musk Did Indeed Say He Spoke to Putin

Quote:
Political scientist Ian Bremmer hit back at billionaire Elon Musk Tuesday, who claimed Bremmer’s report that Musk directly spoke with Vladimir Putin recently was not true.

Bremmer’s Eurasia Group newsletter sent to subscribers Tuesday reported that Musk spoke “directly” to Putin last week before the Tesla billionaire offered a peace plan to end Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine on Twitter – one which could result in Ukraine giving up a large portion of its territory.

Musk denied the report shortly after the initial story was published.

A Twitter user asked if the report was true and Musk replied, “No, it is not. I have spoken to Putin only once and that was about 18 months ago. The subject matter was space.”

No, it is not. I have spoken to Putin only once and that was about 18 months ago. The subject matter was space.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2022


Bremmer commented on Twitter a few hours later, “elon musk told me he had spoken with putin and the kremlin directly about ukraine. he also told me what the kremlin’s red lines were.”

Bremmer added, “i have been writing my weekly newsletter on geopolitics for 24 yrs. i write honestly without fear or favor and this week’s update was no different.”

i have been writing my weekly newsletter on geopolitics for 24 yrs.

i write honestly without fear or favor and this week’s update was no different.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) October 11, 2022


Musk replied, “Nobody should trust Bremmer.”

Nobody should trust Bremmer

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2022


Vice’s Mathew Champion first reported on Tuesday that Bremmer’s mailout claimed Musk spoke “directly” to Putin who assured him Russia was “prepared to negotiate” as long as Crimea remained apart of Russia. Championed added that Putin also demanded that “Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.”

Musk then took to Twitter and took a poll offering exactly that:

– Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
– Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
– Water supply to Crimea assured.
– Ukraine remains neutral.


The final result on the Twitter poll, which had over 2.7 million votes, was 59% against Musk’s proposal, 41% in favor.

Bremmer added that Putin raised the spectre of nuclear war with Russia, Champion writes:

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

The Kremlin praised Musk for his peace proposal, which was blasted by Ukrainian officials including Andrik Melnyk, Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, who replied, “**** off is my very diplomatic reply to you.”

**** off is my very diplomatic reply to you @elonmusk

— Andrij Melnyk (@MelnykAndrij) October 3, 2022

mediaite
Builder
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 05:15 am
@hightor,
Ask yourself two questions about this; what does Musk have to gain by lying?

What does Bremmer have to gain by lying?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 05:33 am
@Builder,
A more pertinent question would be, what does anyone have to gain by jumping through hoops for Builder?

Good night.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 05:34 am
Quote:
Last Thursday, October 6, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee tweeted: “Kanye. Elon. Trump.”

On Sunday, October 10, after his Instagram account was restricted for antisemitism, rapper Kanye West, now known as “Ye,” returned to Twitter from a hiatus that had lasted since the 2020 elections to tweet that he was “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.” This was an apparent reference to the U.S. military’s “DEFCON 3,” an increase in force readiness.

Today, Ian Bremmer of the political consulting firm the Eurasia Group reported that billionaire Elon Musk spoke directly with Russian president Vladimir Putin before Musk last week proposed ending Russia’s attack on Ukraine by essentially starting from a point that gave Putin everything he wanted, including Crimea and Russian annexation of the four regions of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, as well as Ukraine’s permanent neutrality. This afternoon, Musk denied the story; Bremmer stood by it.

On Sunday, at a rally in Arizona, Trump claimed that President George H.W. Bush had taken “millions and millions” of documents from his presidency “to a former bowling alley pieced together with what was then an old and broken Chinese restaurant…. There was no security.” (In fact, the National Archives and Records Administration put documents in secure temporary storage at a facility that had been rebuilt, according to NARA, with “strict archival and security standards, and…managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees.”)

Then Trump went on to accuse NARA of planting documents—his lawyers have refused to make that accusation in court—and, considering his habit of frontloading confessions, made an interesting accusation: “[The Archives] lose documents, they plant documents. ‘Let’s see, is there a book on nuclear destruction or the building of a nuclear weapon cheaply? Let’s put that book in with Trump.’ No, they plant documents.”

Antisemitism, Putin’s demands in Ukraine, and stolen documents seem like an odd collection of things for the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the administration of justice in the United States, to endorse before November’s midterm elections.

But in these last few weeks before the midterms, the Republican Party is demonstrating that it has fallen under the sway of its extremist wing, exemplified by those like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who tweeted last week that “Biden is Hitler.”

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) this weekend told an audience that Democrats are in favor of “reparation” because they are “pro-crime.” “They want crime,” Tuberville said. “They want crime because they want to take over what you got. They want to control what you have,” Tuberville told the cheering crowd in an echo of the argument of white supremacists during Reconstruction. “They want reparation because they think the people that do the crime are owed that. Bullsh*t. They are not owed that.”

On October 6, New Hampshire Senate nominee Don Bolduc defended the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent loss of recognition of the constitutional right to abortion. The issue of abortion “belongs to the state,” he said. “It belongs to these gentlemen right here, who are state legislators representing you. That is the best way I think, as a man, that women get the best voice.” Republican super PACs are pouring money behind Bolduc.

Even those party members still trying to govern rather than play to racism, sexism, and antisemitism are pushing their hard-right agenda.

Senate Republicans have introduced a bill to get rid of the drug pricing reforms the Democrats passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. That law, which received no Republican votes, permits Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and caps annual drug costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000. It also caps insulin for Medicare patients at $35 a month. (Insulin is ten times more expensive in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries: a 2018 Rand Corporation study found average prices per vial of $98.70 in the U.S., $12 in Canada, and $6.94 in Australia.) Republicans say that these price caps will kill innovation and that government should not oversee the price of drugs.

The measure will not stand a chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but that Republicans felt comfortable introducing it is strong signaling for their intentions going forward. It is, after all, in line with Senator Rick Scott’s (R-FL) plan to sunset all laws automatically every five years, repassing them piecemeal if Congress is so inclined.

David Montgomery of the Washington Post has written a roundup of what 21 experts “in the presidency, political science, public administration, the military, intelligence, foreign affairs, economics and civil rights” say would happen should Trump be reelected in 2024.

They argue that upon taking office, Trump would install super loyalists to do his bidding and would ignore the Senate if it tried to stop him, as he largely did in his term. He has, after all, already outlined a plan to fire career civil servants and has explored a rigorous system for guaranteeing loyalists for those posts. Next, the experts suggest, he would deploy the military at home against his enemies while disengaging internationally and turning things over to Putin and other authoritarians. America’s global leadership would end, not least because no other nations would trust our intelligence services. Political violence would become the norm, giving Trump an excuse to declare martial law, and our democracy would fall.

We ignore this at our peril. After all, more than half the Republican nominees for office in November are election deniers, and on Saturday, October 8, Republican nominee for Nevada secretary of state Jim Marchant told a rally, “We’re gonna fix the whole country and President Trump is gonna be president again.”

But there is an interesting dynamic afoot. In some cases, Republican lawmakers, especially Representatives Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY), have urged voters to back Democrats rather than election-denying extremist Republicans. And, as historical essayist Sarah Vowell noted on October 6, in deep red states like Montana and Utah where voters will not consider voting for a Democrat, Democrats have teamed up with never-Trump Republicans to back Independents who are now running strong against the radical extremists.

Scholars who study how to defeat rising authoritarianism agree that such cross-party cooperation is vital. And we have an illustration of just how that has worked here before. In the 1864 U.S. elections, in the midst of the Civil War, Republican Abraham Lincoln and party leaders knew that Lincoln could not win reelection without support from Democrats, who would never vote for a Republican after spending a decade attacking them on grounds of racism.

So Lincoln rebranded his coalition the “National Union Party” and crossed his fingers that it would work to attract moderate Democrats, a hope encouraged when the extremist Democrats split into angry factions at their own convention. Still, by summer, no one knew if the coalition would hold or not, and Lincoln himself thought he would lose unless something major happened on the battlefields. It did: Atlanta fell on September 2. And in November, Lincoln won the election at the head of the National Union Party.

The next year, Congress ended the policy that had thrown the country into war in the first place, passing the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished enslavement except as punishment for crime, and sending it off to the states for ratification.

hcr
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 07:46 am
I don't know about the rest of you but this has turned my world upside down and shaken me to my very core.

Tulsi Gabbard has announced that she is leaving the Democratic Party and invites other Dems to do the same.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 07:48 am
@blatham,
Yeah. It’s been a real blow.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 07:52 am
@hightor,
I just love these articles, so I checked out your link. Later, I might look into subscribing.

Interesting history of how Abraham Lincoln won his reelection campaign. I might have to rethink some things.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 07:57 am
DOJ's 'Compelling' Response to Trump SCOTUS Appeal Hailed by Legal Experts
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 08:53 am
@blatham,
I thought she left a long time ago. Funny how formerly "dedicated Democrats" end up on Fox news when they switch parties. It's like all the racist Southerns in the 70's who became Republicans when they couldn't push their BS to the Democrats.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 10:51 am
@revelette1,
Glad you like them, rev. I like the way, as a real historian, she often interjects relevant facts from our past. I like posting them because they are well-sourced, well-presented, often make great openers for the day's discussion. You can subscribe for free.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 02:44 pm
@revelette1,
She's a treasure. Go ahead and subscribe.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 02:59 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you but this has turned my world upside down and shaken me to my very core.

Tulsi Gabbard has announced that she is leaving the Democratic Party and invites other Dems to do the same.



I believe the word you're grasping for is "¯\_(ツ)_/".
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 03:11 pm
@engineer,
Fox's Greg Gutfeld says Gabbard will be Trump's VP choice. Trump would be delighted, if the future sees him run again. But as I said a couple of years ago, I think she's going for the big bucks of prime time hosting on Fox.

She's perfect for Fox, of course, being physically attractive and previously a Dem. This carries on the pattern seen with Hannity and Coombs where a "leftie" is brought on (preferably a very weak leftie) to demonstrate their commitment to "fair and balanced". Like Fox, she's running a con.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 04:19:49