Jump to content

President Biden


Happy Face
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just meant in terms of their ideologies. And also dwindling circulations. Have to say mind, I'm surprised the daily mail was kept out...

I think Mrs Trump is suing the mail for alleging she used to be a whore. He doesn't get a good press in the mail because of it. Apart from his mate Piers of course, who gets a raging stiffy from being mates with the powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mrs Trump is suing the mail for alleging she used to be a whore. He doesn't get a good press in the mail because of it. Apart from his mate Piers of course, who gets a raging stiffy from being mates with the powerful.

'Champ'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mrs Trump is suing the mail for alleging she used to be a whore. He doesn't get a good press in the mail because of it. Apart from his mate Piers of course, who gets a raging stiffy from being mates with the powerful.

Ahhh yes. That makes total sense actually. Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a paper that went along with WMD claims that had no evidence and recategorised torture as "enhanced interrogation" you'd think they'd be a bit more.... I don't know... less self righteous.

 

Edit: and they also used Snowden as a source, printed the stories from documents he revealed, and then said he should be prosecuted as someone that revealed too much truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a paper that went along with WMD claims that had no evidence and recategorised torture as "enhanced interrogation" you'd think they'd be a bit more.... I don't know... less self righteous.

 

Edit: and they also used Snowden as a source, printed the stories from documents he revealed, and then said he should be prosecuted as someone that revealed too much truth.

I never forget how complicit the BBC were over Orgreave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's over for the nyt, and any other media that used to be quaintly printed on paper.....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

That article suggests otherwise. Brilliant reporting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They do good, deep reporting too.

 

The lines from Wigmore in the Guardian piece were extraordinary. Not quite time to sound the death knell for the legacy media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article suggests otherwise. Brilliant reporting

Thing is the people reading that in the guardian are pretty much marginalised due to what the article is talking about. Liberal media is an echo chamber as much as any other, and they're not setting the agenda now due to how the likes of Mercer and Bannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do good, deep reporting too.

 

The lines from Wigmore in the Guardian piece were extraordinary. Not quite time to sound the death knell for the legacy media. 

 

No doubt, it's an excellent & well researched piece.  Found the angles taken interesting though.  Intercept portraying him as a "mark" who all those he's contributed to have used and abused as a money tap to prop up ill thought out campaigns that normally flounder.

 

Guardian portray him more as the genius provider of money and knowledge which has led to a global conservative uprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stimulus to the economy if nothing else. Also a statement to the rest of the world. The concern here is that it triggers an arms race. Presumably this is in aid of bolstering the US nuke totals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stimulus to the economy if nothing else. Also a statement to the rest of the world. The concern here is that it triggers an arms race. Presumably this is in aid of bolstering the US nuke totals?

 

If the US halved their existing military budget it would still be larger than the next 2 closest nations. The next 3 with this additional funding.  

 

The 10 nations after the US combined could not match US spending in total after this increase.

 

I can't see any nation seeing any value in chasing their spend.

 

China will just keep lending them money until they bankrupt themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, at least he isn't Hillary.

 

There's a parallel with Labour/Corbyn.  

 

An unpopular choice forced on the parties by a small number of insiders and lost vast swathes of voters as a result.  

 

All the polls showed Sanders would do better against Trump.  The DNC made a huge cock up.  

 

With Perez getting the DNC chair over the weekend they seem to be doubling down on the error.  The Obama and Clinton contingent stood him up solely as a response to Ellison, the muslim left winger, because the biggest single funder of the democratic party (Haim Saban) is a 1 issue guy, he bankrolls them on their Israel position.  He demands strong support on that and would walk if Ellison got in.

 

Whether they stick with centrist leaders or shift to the left, the progressive parties are struggling to bring together the splintering factions on either side of the Atlantic.

 

Even with the splintering, I can't comprehend what it would take to make more people walk away from Tory/Trump rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US halved their existing military budget it would still be larger than the next 2 closest nations. The next 3 with this additional funding.  

 

The 10 nations after the US combined could not match US spending in total after this increase.

 

I can't see any nation seeing any value in chasing their spend.

 

China will just keep lending them money until they bankrupt themselves.

 

Kinda hope that doesn't happen as we'll just end up with an aggressive, insanely armed state with an interest in upsetting the established order of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda hope that doesn't happen as we'll just end up with an aggressive, insanely armed state with an interest in upsetting the established order of the world.

 

I'm not sure if Trump's ever said he would cut the military or stop the interventionist policy.  Happy to be corrected, but all I've heard is that he wouldn't keep doing it for free.

 

"Aid" to Israel basically comes in the form of handing them £3bn of cuttting edge military tech.  $4.5Bn to Afghanistan.  $1.5bn to Egypt etc.

 

Moving the aid bill to the military and making supposed allies foot the bill would be the smart money saving business decision that Mike Ashley would make.

 

Whether allies remain allies long when you aren't paying them for digs I can't envisage though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Andrew changed the title to President Biden

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.