Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Politics and General Debates Thread

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
16,233
Points
113
Look, no matter what you say Trump and his supporters have been saying for many weeks there has been no "quid pro quo". Look it up. It means to give something for something. Now, it would seem, they are having to pivot once again as this no longer passes the smell test. You think that going to a foreign country and asking about corruption from ten years ago about a now political rival is proper use of his office? It is absolutely illegal and the Justice Department knows that. That is the reason they immediately said they were unaware of this arrangement. This is not strength, it is absolute corruption. As the lies Trump has told continue to pile up, his chickens will come home to roost, so to speak.

It is also noteworthy that Trump has setup the next G7 meeting at his Doral property in Florida. This place has been showing a loss of over 69% since he took office. This is totally an abuse of the domestic and the foreign emoluments clause. Trump's supporters are trying to say that he won't make a profit off this, but millions of dollars will pour into his pockets from holding this event there. Even if it doesn't bring him above what he was getting before he was elected, it is a major win for Trump financially. It will most likely be another article of impeachment in the end.
 
Last edited:



RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,216
Points
113
Trump should not have used the word " favor " but that small mistake is not going to put him out of office, as for the summit that's already been cleared but hasn't happened yet, so if there's a genuine problem then now's the time, and they likely will, to contest the decision.
 

Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,795
Points
83
I hope they do add emoluments to the impeachment Paul. That's what I've been saying they should do from the get go. I think it has the best chance of landing against trump, and the Republican counter to it... well there isnt one. Not one that will resonate with anyone who is intellectually honest anyway. I still think they should focus on the FOREIGN money going to his hotels and not just the self dealing as you described. Make the arguement that he is ok with the genocide in Yemen because he has been bought by the crown prince. He ignored their brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Obviously the counter arguement to the Ukraine scandal is landing with many voters. I could be wrong though. Plenty of Always-Trumpers.

Well red I dont see Ilhan calling out the harm Isreal and their lobby is doing as particularly anti semitic despite her appeal to Allah to help others see it. Poor word choice sure but switch Allah with God, and ask yourself if that makes it any more antisemitic. Her other actions show that she is not. Bernie has called into question our foreign aid to Isreal and he IS a jew. Would anyone accuse him of antisemitism? Actually never mind some probably would but good luck landing that arguement. If Ilhan was antisemitic, doesnt make much sense to endorse a jew for president. believe me, I'm no fan of Islam (the religion) if you have seen any of my posts in the religion thread that is apperant.

Tulsi has strongly criticized trump's abandonment of the Kurds though. I bet you could get her on board with impeachment with different arguements for it other than Ukraine. She may be just making a political move to try to get more support from the right which I understand but does kind of annoy me. As much as I like her she does have some faults. Again, I could be wrong. She does seem for the most part to be real. I wonder what criticism she was going to land on Warren before they cut her off at the last debate. She didnt get to clean anyone's clock like she did previously with Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,216
Points
113
You really think we should have thrown away a 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia with 350 billion more over 10 years because of the Khashoggi murder ?

I think it's awful the way they killed him but it's Saudi Arabia and he was hounding the Saudi gov. and had been warned, it doesn't make it right, not al all but should we really kill nearly a half trillion dollar deal that means a lot of American jobs ? Do you think any other President would have ?

What's the solution to the petrodollar ? Electric cars and digital currency ? That's coming anyway as other countries don't trade in only US dollars anymore.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
16,233
Points
113
@ Shakenawke
Allah IS the Arabic word for god, so the use of that word is a nonstarter. It may have other connotations for ignorant voters, but it is no worse than calling god Jehova or Yehweh.

I find Trump's removing several dozen troops from Northern Syria, apparently to try to show he kept some campaign promise, with no consultation with State Department or our own military has become a horrible nightmare as it has displaced many of our allies, gives Assad a new lease on life, will likely lead to the resurgence of ISIS, and makes Putin the only factor left in the entire Middle East. It is likely the single most stupid thing Trump has done to date. He gave away everything and what did he get for it? NOTHING!
 

Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,795
Points
83
Yes Paul I am aware that Allah is the Arabic word for God, and that the Abrahamic religions share the same god. That was my point.

As against regime change war as I am and as much of a cluster **** that Syria is, trump could have handled that much better. Could have had UN troops move in to prevent the Turkish army from invading. And all those ISIS prisoners the Kurds had... so much for fighting ISIS. Way to go trump. Bet the Kurds are tired of being thrown under the bus. Good way to make enemies out of them.

Yes red, I value human life and not supporting wahhabism and other Islamic terror over weapon contracts. I have a big problem with the size and influence of the military industrial complex. I dont have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who made a career out of building bombs and other weapons that all too often end up taking innocent lives. I support defending our country. Like Tulsi, I think we should honor our troops willingness to die for our country and only put their lives at risk where it's really needed to preserve our safety and not just the profits of... well fill in the blank. Yes I realize this makes me quite the idealist
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,216
Points
113
I listened to Obama say " I want to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. " .............That's insane ! That's dangerously insane.
I do not agree with limiting of our nuclear deterrent because as anti missile technology gets better an overwhelming offensive ability is needed and the idea that getting rid of the worlds nukes would make us all safer might sound good but it will never work, we can't even stop N.Korea from making nukes but we can guarantee them complete destruction if they ever use one against us.

Also our nuclear deterrent protects us from biological attack which as nations industrialize and advance is a real threat that can't be met with conventional means unless we possess the will to get in early and control everything which we don't have and we shouldn't do, so guaranteed punishment for offence is the way to be safe.
 
Last edited:

Napalm

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
29
Points
8
Breaking News up on the BREXIT

Brexit, stop at Johnson
The Letwin amendment passes which requires a postponement of the approval of the agreement until the associated legislation for Brexit is passed.

Boris Johnson defeated in Parliament. The amendment by Letwin passes with 322 votes against 306, postponing the full approval of the Brexit agreement until all the associated legislation is approved.

The premier's reaction is immediate: he refuses to ask for a postponement of Brexit beyond October 31, despite the anti-no-deal law approved by the opposition in Parliament. And he announces after the ok to today's amendment that he wants to move the deal to his deal next week, attached to the related legislation. In this way he would comply with Letwin's requests, taking the deal home. But the knot of majorities remains.

Brussels response: "We take note of the vote. London tell us about the next steps "

"The European Commission takes note of the House of Commons vote on the so-called Letwin amendment. The amendment indicates that the withdrawal agreement itself was not put to the vote today. It will be up to the UK government to inform us about the next steps as soon as possible, "said Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva. No comments from the EU Council. Council sources consulted by the AGI have indicated that at the moment they do not intend to comment on the decision of the House of Commons.

Dup supports Letwin

The Northern Ireland unionists of the Democratic Unionist Party will support the Letwin amendment. This was reported by Sky News, while voting on the proposed amendment is underway in the House of Commons, which envisages postponement of the approval of the Brexit agreement by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The Dup, before the start of the voting, had not yet dissolved the reservation on the amendment.

Corbyn's no to the BoJo deal: "We will not be fooled". And after the vote: "Johnson respects the law, ask for postponement"

"This government cannot be believed and we will not be fooled." Thus the leader of the British Labor opposition Jeremy Corbyn responding to the municipalities to the conservative premier Boris Johnson in the debate on the Brexit agreement. Agreement that Corbyn has denounced as harmful "for the economy" of the country, for "workers' rights and the environment", inviting Parliament to reject it. And advancing the suspicion that he cannot even guarantee with certainty that he will ultimately prevent a possible no deal.

After the vote on the Letwin amendment, the Labor party welcomed the postponement of Boris Johnson's vote on his Brexit deal and warned him to "respect the anti-no-deal" law and now ask for an extension of the exit from the 'EU after October 31st. The Parliament "will not be blackmailed," he added. The same warning is given by LibDem Jo Swinson and Scottish independentist Ian Blackford, according to whom Johnson "is not above the law" and "will be taken to court" if he does not request an extension.

May supports Johnson's agreement: "Vote for no deal"

The former British premier, Theresa May, supports the agreement reached between the current prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the EU for Brexit. In his speech at Westminster he urged parliamentarians to do the same. "All those who want to avoid a Brexit without agreement must vote in favor," he said.


The former prime minister, who resigned after Parliament rejected three times the agreement she reached with Brussels, stressed that British citizens and businesses must end the uncertainty of the "Brexit" process. Investors want to be able to invest in the UK, they want to know that this country is moving forward, "said May, who stressed the need to meet the results of the June 2016 referendum, in which 51.9% of voters has chosen to leave the EU

The pros remain in the square: march for a second referendum. The exultation after the defeat of Boris

The anti-Brexit people in London are back on the streets, with a flood of people - one million according to the organizers - marching to the heart of the British capital for Peoplès Vote March: it is the third major mass demonstration organized in recent months to invoke a second referendum on leaving the EU.


The gathering, supported by a clear day, appears colored, including slogans, signs, British and EU flags and party flags. People of all ages and varied backgrounds gathered in Park Lane, near Hyde Park, and then moved in procession to Parliament Square, where the event will end in front of Westminster simultaneously with the uncertain debate underway at the House of Commons on the agreement reached by conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson with Brussels to complete the divorce of the Kingdom from the EU on October 31st.
Rallies of various pro Remain politicians are expected in conclusions: Labor, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Independents, Centrists and Tory dissidents.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
16,233
Points
113
The problem with nuclear deterrents no mater how silly, like Reagan's Star Wars, is it causes others to increase their stock pile until there are enough of these to destroy the whole world several times over.

I would hope no one is insane enough to use nuclear weapons again against anyone period. Especially as a solution to some problem in the world where we would rather not send troops. That could start the end of our existence.
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,216
Points
113
The point of having them is so we don't have to fight, if we didn't have nukes and the bad guys do then you know what will happen.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
16,233
Points
113
Also our nuclear deterrent protects us from biological attack which as nations industrialize and advance is a real threat that can't be met with conventional means unless we possess the will to get in early and control everything which we don't have and we shouldn't do, so guaranteed punishment for offence is the way to be safe.
It was this statement that prompted to say that USING nuclear weapons is a stupid idea. That is guaranteed world destruction. It was a different story when we were the only ones who had them, but I still think they should have never been used. I've heard all the arguments...... keeping Russia out of Japan and saving American lives, but the long term aftermath was unconscionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap

Hap

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
8,568
Points
113
Not to keep this going off topic but I’d like to bring in my opinion :)

We as a species should not have access to the sort of weaponry such as nuclear arsenals. The fact that we even considered putting nuclear isotopes into a weapon capable of destroying thousands of lives should be proof enough that we aren’t developed enough.

-Alex
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,216
Points
113
Not to keep this going off topic but I’d like to bring in my opinion :)

We as a species should not have access to the sort of weaponry such as nuclear arsenals. The fact that we even considered putting nuclear isotopes into a weapon capable of destroying thousands of lives should be proof enough that we aren’t developed enough.

-Alex
Lets acknowledge that what's been done is done, there are nuclear weapons.

So I have 2 questions for you.

( 1 ) Do you think that we should only have anti ICBM missiles, proton accelerators, lasers and other defensive only weapons to shoot down incoming nuclear weapons but not possess any nuclear weapons ourselves to be used as a standing deterrent and never offensively ?

( 2 ) If we are hit with nuclear weapons should we not retaliate with the same ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was this statement that prompted to say that USING nuclear weapons is a stupid idea. That is guaranteed world destruction. It was a different story when we were the only ones who had them, but I still think they should have never been used. I've heard all the arguments...... keeping Russia out of Japan and saving American lives, but the long term aftermath was unconscionable.
You said using nuclear weapons ( IS ) a stupid idea.

Three questions.

( 1 ) Do you mean stupid to be detonating them in war today ?

( 2 ) Do you mean stupid to be using them as a standing deterrent but never offensively ?

( 3 ) If we are hit with nuclear weapons should we retaliate with the same ?
 




Top