I've just fininshed watching the VP debate. Compared to the presidential debate I think it was reasuring, since both behaved presidentially - even like adults. The moderator was very good at keeping "law and order", probably a reaction to the Trump/Biden debate. The problem was she didn't as many follow-up questions and as a result she didn't didn't pressure the candidates enough.
In my opinion it was absolutely hillarious when Pence said more than once to Harris: "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. He is Donald Trumps' VP! ) ) )
It was also funny when he wanted Harris to promise she and Biden wouldn't "pack the Suppreme Court" with liberals. (I don't remember his precice words.) First the Republicans stopped Obama from filling a vacant seat after a supreme justice who died in Febrary because the voters should decide, then they placed a new judge in the Supreme Court who was ..... morally unsound, and now they are going to apoint a new judge in reccord time after RBG dieded in September because the president should decide! in short: The Republicans used the polar oposite arguments in 2016 and 2020 to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives.
But in spite of this the debate was far better than the Trump/Biden debate.
It seems as if you are not pro liberal in here you should not speak out. It says non argumentative and it’s not a democracy here, but I like the next guy like a back and forth.
Newer guy here, love coming and checking out the Bond news, just dipping my toe in after years of hiding in the shadows.
So let me say this
Last dude who spoke up for a Trump got labeled a racist and then the ban hammer. I saw the post and as an American I did not understand what was so bad. He called Germany out for allowing 9/11 terrorist Muhammad Atta to be radicalized and operating in Hamburg and then talked about the rioting and looting that has happened here.
Perhaps I’m insensitive or maybe since this is mainly euro based you guys thought Mohammed Atta was a general anti Islamic slur or something. It’s a name as a yank that we do not forget
Either way I’d like to participate to get another view but I do not want to make a stink nor be banned because of it.
Perhaps you can elucidate me on the ground rules regarding being a republican here?
This may sound sarcastic but is not meant to be, but I do think other views should be allowed.
I am willing to let some of my views public for debate or lively debate.
While I do not make the rules here I can say both left and right are welcome to post here. I belive it's healthy for people to talk to and debate people with different views, but sadly this thread has been largely boycoted by the more right-leaning members here since Trump became president. So thanks for posting.
I never saw the post that got the member mentioned above banned form the forum, so I can't really speak about that post. But I do know who Muhammed Atta was and it would surprise me if the moderators and the members who usally post here don't know that too.
Well I’ll just put one view out here.
Thanks for being civil about it in advance.
As an American in “flyover” country, I just don’t identify with Biden and Harris.
Trump is not my favorite but it’s kind of a Sophie’s choice here. He is strongly pro America and somewhat of an isolationist which our country was pre ww2. I can see how that can ruffle others feathers as and please do not take this as elitist or whatnot, a lot of other countries and our allies depend on the US for either protection or assistance or whatever. And Trump has decided to push back and ask for more back from these countries.
Biden was third choice last election, in his own party. If that’s what the democrats throw out it’s a little I dunno desperate.
I have never seen a politician who did not lie and for the opposite party Clinton being impeached, or Obama not standing up to Mds in Saudi Arabia or whatever conflict it’s just okay. But when a gop candidate does it there’s an uproar.
As for the Supreme Court
any political party that has an opportunity to appoint will. Kamala Harris’s history lesson about Abe Lincoln was debunked he did not wait for the people to decide he had issues in his party at the time. Trust me any party who can push thru a pick because they have the power will.
RGB also stated when there was a vacancy last time that it should be filled quickly that “nine is a good number,” but the republican senate blocked that. But she would have been okay if they hadn’t it does not go both ways. If Democratic Party had control they absolutely would fill the seat.
America is a democratic republic not just a democracy, there is a bit of a difference.
The media be it right wing, left wing, or fair and biased all shape a narrative. That’s just life here, but I digress.
Well I’ll just put one view out here.
Thanks for being civil about it in advance.
As an American in “flyover” country, I just don’t identify with Biden and Harris.
Trump is not my favorite but it’s kind of a Sophie’s choice here. He is strongly pro America and somewhat of an isolationist which our country was pre ww2. I can see how that can ruffle others feathers as and please do not take this as elitist or whatnot, a lot of other countries and our allies depend on the US for either protection or assistance or whatever. And Trump has decided to push back and ask for more back from these countries.
Biden was third choice last election, in his own party. If that’s what the democrats throw out it’s a little I dunno desperate.
I have never seen a politician who did not lie and for the opposite party Clinton being impeached, or Obama not standing up to Mds in Saudi Arabia or whatever conflict it’s just okay. But when a gop candidate does it there’s an uproar.
As for the Supreme Court
any political party that has an opportunity to appoint will. Kamala Harris’s history lesson about Abe Lincoln was debunked he did not wait for the people to decide he had issues in his party at the time. Trust me any party who can push thru a pick because they have the power will.
RGB also stated when there was a vacancy last time that it should be filled quickly that “nine is a good number,” but the republican senate blocked that. But she would have been okay if they hadn’t it does not go both ways. If Democratic Party had control they absolutely would fill the seat.
America is a democratic republic not just a democracy, there is a bit of a difference.
The media be it right wing, left wing, or fair and biased all shape a narrative. That’s just life here, but I digress.
I live in Norway, one of the countries that's in a high degree dependent on the US for protecton, and I'm thankful for this protection. But what needs to be remembered is that this protection isn't just to be kind. In the case of Norway I'm sure the US knows that control Norway is key to have control of the north Atlantic. One of the American generals who was SACLANT (the highest ranking officer in NATO) during the cold war was asked what he would do if the USSR gained control of Norway. He replied: "If we don't get Norway back in three days we would use the nuclear option". A smart use of US forces abroad is in the end an advantage for the US. The Marshall Plan may have looked like stupid handouts to other countries back in the day, but it's actually one of the smartest foreign policy moves the US ever did and very advantageous for both yours and mine country.
You mention the US isolationism before WWII. Do you remember how that turned out?
I do agree with Trump that other NATO members should contribute more to the defence of the NATO area, that's both smart and good for stability. But it seems like Trump believes other member states somehow owe the US money for not contributing more in the past (and present), but that's not how it works.
Concerning Biden: I don't think having a candidate with eight years of experience as VP sounds desperate.
I think any leader of state should stand up to the current regime in Saudi Arabia, but sadly that hasn't happened.
It's been years since I read "Team of Rivals", an excellent Lincoln biography, so I don't remember what happened with him and the Supreme Court (SC). Any party that's in power tries to pack the Supreme Court with judges with views they like, that's true. But Pence tried to get Harris to promise the Dems won't pack the SC with "their" judges if the Dems win the election, and that is rich knowing that's exactly what the Republicans have been doing aggressively for the last four years. I know of no other cases where the opposition has blocked a SC judge appointment for about nine months because the voters should decide in an election, but when they have the majority they try to push through a new judge in a couple of months (record time) because the sitting current majority decides. That's polar opposite positions.
Yes, I’d say that’s fair arguments, I won’t speak a lot regarding the nato issue because I am not as informed. I do agree that it’s beneficial for both sides.
The Supreme Court argument you may be misunderstanding. And please don’t take offense, what Pence is asking and has been proposed by members of the Democratic Party is that if the democratic majority takes control they will vote to add additional members to the court and then they can add more members of their views without having the “luck of the draw” of being in power when a court judge steps down or passes away. This is a threat to our checks and balances imo.
If you understood this I’m sorry to be explaining but it seems to get a solid answer on something that serious is an acceptable ask.
With Trump it seems to boil down to countries getting or giving money to the USA. And while it’s questionable I do think that the majority of “regular” Americans do agree with that stance.
The number of SC judges has been expanded before, but I agree the same president and senate expanding the SC and appointing the new judges would be problematic. I like Pete Buttigieg's proposal of expanding the SC, but the new judges have to be approved on by ALL the sitting judges. This way the SC would become less partisan than it has become.
About NATO and money: member countries contribute to NATO defences by increasing or decreasing their military spending through their defence budgets. I think some money goes directly to NATO (not the US) for central adminstration, large transport planes and UAVs the organisation shares and isn't owned by any single country etc). They don't pay money to the US, that's never been the case. Back in the cold war the US did choose to support other members by partly financing the building of bases, giving away equipment cheap (and for free?) etc). This was done because it was in the US long term interest and as far as I know there was no talk of paying the US back. In short: the other NATO members don't owe the US a dime for their low NATO spending, but they should contribute more to the NATO workload.
Last dude who spoke up for a Trump got labeled a racist and then the ban hammer. I saw the post and as an American I did not understand what was so bad. He called Germany out for allowing 9/11 terrorist Muhammad Atta to be radicalized and operating in Hamburg and then talked about the rioting and looting that has happened here.
Perhaps I’m insensitive or maybe since this is mainly euro based you guys thought Mohammed Atta was a general anti Islamic slur or something. It’s a name as a yank that we do not forget
You can say here anything you want (within certain limits) but don't expect that everybody agrees.
I am from Hamburg and I don't understand why anyone finds it ok "to call out" Germany for allowing Atta to be radicalized and operating in Hamburg.
If I remember correctly, the banned poster called Germany out "for letting them in".
Atta came as an Egypt citizen to Germany in 1990 and continued studying here for many years.
In 2000, he received a 5 year long USA Tourist- and Business Visa and he entered the US 2nd June 2000.
He learned to fly in Florida ( financed by a cousin of the Dubai Sheik (- have you called Dubai out for this?)) and came back to the EU late 4th January 2001.
As he extended the 6 months maximum stay he would have not been allowed to enter the US again but when he flew back to the US 10. January, US border patrol had no objections...
9th July 2001, he came back to Europe and 17th July he returned back to the US - unstopped.
So if anything, the US has "let him in" as well - twice - so this "call" is just ridiculous.
As for "allowing" him to radicalize and operate:
We don't "allow" radicalisation of any kind!
We don't allow "operating" a terror attack from here!
Atta in his last year was living in the US! (interrupted by 2 short stays in Europe)
He learnt to fly an airplane in Florida!
While nobody can exactly say, when he exactly radicalised himself and others, a large part of the planning, preparation and operation happened in the US.
So I advise thinking twice before blaming others ( in particular your allies) of such things.
As for Bin Laden: Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and the US have always been very close to them.
I have never seen someone from the US calling out Saudi Arabia out for having born and raised the most important terrorist of our time?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So, I have now spent 1 hour to research facts and post here against the allegations which concern Atta and Hamburg and Germany.
I won't do this with the rest of your allegations as I believe, that if you are criticizing others - you should get your facts straight in the first place.
Welcome to AJB! {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,923Chief of Staff
America is a democratic republic not just a democracy, there is a bit of a difference.
First off - forgive me for selecting just one part of your post...
As someone looking from the outside in (and with enough ‘issues’ from my own government)...it does rather go against this principle when Trump says that he will not necessarily accept defeat (should it happen) in the upcoming election.
He’s also been VERY critical of the US postal vote system - calling it a free for all on cheating, forgery and theft and is threatening to scrap, not only the postal votes already cast, but also any postal votes not counted on the day of the election...how do you feel about this?
Fair enough, you guys seem to think that I agree 100% with all of Trumps views. I simply was stating I prefer that choice to the other.
As for Bin Ladin, he was known to be a threat, read “the looming tower,” and Jordan intelligence let Washington know where he was after an attack I’ll have to reread which, I believe the barracks bombing.
Who was in office? Oh yeah Clinton getting worried about his David Blowie in the White House. So rather than go and get him he fired cruise missiles late and missed.
This wouldn’t happen today.
But listen, you did an hour of research and maybe I misspoke when I said I didn’t understand what was so bad that the guy said. I guess you’re right he denigrated Germany’s honor. But that’s not a racist comment. That is why I was confused. But your answer proves why I didn’t want to post in the first place. You just bombarded me with a huge post and then said you would not address my “allegations “
Thanks for the welcome though! Sincerely
As for the Democratic republic comment that was meant to address the argument of the electoral college. I think Trump can say all he wants about mail in votes etc, we do have free speech, but unless he declares himself Chancellor or something it’s not as if he can act on those threats. But it has been seen previously whether it was gop or Democratic Party some mail in fraud had occurred. There have been instances of deceased people voting etc. Without going to the poll place and showing your identification and voting hypothetically this would be easier.
Like I said, fair enough on the other points, I didn’t want to get banned or labeled racist for something I truly didn’t and still don’t understand was racist. But I wanted to engage a bit since the other view seemed very strong here.
You don't agree with everything Trump says, that's fair. I've never found a party I agree with 100%. What I do is pick a part i agree with on the issues I think are most important and I also agree on their core values. That's why I think Sir Miles' question was so good (try not to faint, Sir Miles ) ). What can be more important than a candidate's allegiance to the democratic process?
Trump has said he may not resign if he loses the election - what can be more basic to democracy than that? Sure, Trump says it's because he believes the election will see major fraud. But remember 2016. He claimed the Democrats cheated by two million votes. If he really believed that and had the proof to back it up he would and should hand over the evidence and make sure it was handled as the extremely serious attack on democracy such an election fraud would have been. He didn't , he just talked about it in rallies, and that was when he won. So Trump has no qualms when it comes to claiming the other side cheated even when he wins and he has no evidence. Doesn't it scare you when he says the only way the Democrats can win is by cheating even though we all know the US electorate are split in two pretty much equally large groups?
I won't do this with the rest of your allegations ...
And my huge post was addressing what has been said before by the banned poster and has been repeated ( kind of) by yourself.
I thought that I should set it straight.
I find it remarkable that you‘ve avoided to criticize Saudi Arabia and Dubai and preferred to point fingers at the other political party - in that case Clinton instead.
After the first attack, Clinton gave order to kill Bin Laden by all means - while it has to be said that the legal background for fighting terror has been widened after the 9-11 attacks.
I don‘t recall exactly - but who was in charge when Bin Laden finished his plans (couldn‘t Bin Laden be chased right before 9/11?) and who failed to kill him in aftermath while putting large parts of the Near/ Middle East on fire with several unnecessary wars :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You said I should watch what I say about our allies. I acknowledge that Saudi Arabia but the western world is tied to that kingdom due to their natural resources that we depend upon.
Yes Bin Ladin was a Saudi and his family fortune comes from his father who imported caterpillar equipment from USA to build infrastructure.
But I blame Clinton and I’m allowed to, for not acting. Here’s an article that lays out some of that. The other party likes to expose faults of all others but does not like that light shone in them.
Arguably all the wars in the Middle East may not have happened if he had acted or allowed the CIA to work without having one hand tied behind their backs. He was too busy deflecting his own political career because he got caught with his (hand) cigar in cookie jar to deal with major threat in front of him. This is also detailed in “The Looming Tower”
As for Trump I don’t really care much regarding his comments on not stepping down etc, because our government has checks and balances and he really cannot realistically make that happen. I could be naive but I tend to think order will prevail. But due to Stacy Abrams and Al Gore I predict that no matter how this election comes either party is going to protest and it will be dragged out. It’s just annoying to be bombarded by elitist celebrities who our completely not in touch with a normal American and all the news media trying to steer the election one way. It’s obvious even right wing fox jumps on board occasionally.
As for Biden, I just don’t think he’s a strong candidate. The last Vice President to win an election is George Bush. The democratic answer is always let’s run the previous Vice President. Obama has been quoted as “do not forget Joe’s ability to totally f u c things up.” Not a huge vote of confidence and last election rather than get behind his vp he went with Hillary.
Like I said we have two choices and Trump has worked to rebuild our military and restore some of the things that perhaps our allies do not like but will be good for our country.
Cursory web search as well as “The Looming Tower” detail this about While living in Germany, Atta became increasingly radical in his embrace of Islam. He disappeared from Hamburg for several months in the late 1990s and likely traveled to Afghanistan during this time and formed links with al-Qaeda. He returned to Hamburg and completed a master’s degree, graduating with honours in 1999. Atta is also believed to have established an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Hamburg that included two of the other hijackers as members.
So that is why I may have repeated what the previous poster (kind of) said I guess. The fact that there were a lot of mosques and what not that promoted radical Islam in Germany and throughout the rest of Europe in the nineties.
From the article and why I somewhat agreed with the comments about Hamburg -- and Germany as a whole -- was an almost risk-free environment for Islamic radicals. German officials, mindful of the country's Nazi past, say now that they were reluctant to target mosques and risk allegations of racism or religious persecution. Such reservations meant that while authorities were aware of the calls to arms that fired up the members of the Hamburg cell, they saw no cause to intervene.
I disagree with your statement, that it's Clinton's fault that the Near/Middle East is on fire because he failed to kill Bin Laden.
That's exactly the over-simplification from the populists that disregard history and science.
The wars in Iraq and Lybia where on Bush's agenda for quite some time and it was not about bringing democracy to the Arab world (another simplification btw).
As for the terror cell and the WP article.
I respect the paper but disagree with their 2002 article and maybe they wouldn't write it again like they've done back then.
After the horror of WWII and with the help from our friends from the US, we chose having a liberal and free society.
Freedom of opinion, press and religion are the pillars and we don't compromise on that easily.
I'd say that many liberal societies had radical islamic cells (btw the Wahbism is state religion in Saudi Arabia and they sponsor spreading out that worldwide among muslims and that leads to Islamism in some cases) and that includes most of the European Countries and the US.
But I guess that most open societies learnt after 9-11 that they must have a closer look at what is happening in their countries and it has nothing to do alone with Germany's role before and during the wars.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I’ve edited my post above to show multiple sources over many years about the continued belief of Hamburg being a known “hotspot” for radical Islam. It’s ironic that one of the articles deals with Atta hating the western world because of “Jews” and other common anti Semitic sentiments. Perhaps not ironic, just coincidence.
Anyway we are allowed to disagree, I just don’t think that having doubts of how Germany handled or handles radical Islam is a racist view.
The Clinton view is a simplification but it’s also a possibility but it does show how America did not handle the threats and the Democratic Party was at fault at that time.
And the Clinton view was a copy paste of a quote from a previous cia official but I do agree partly that it is possible with hindsight of course.
From the 2020 article...
“The threat was real,” Martin said. “And if President Clinton had taken action and killed Osama bin Laden, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, and if there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, and if there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, there probably wouldn’t have been an Iraq. What would the world be like?”
It’s just annoying to be bombarded by elitist celebrities who our completely not in touch with a normal American and all the news media trying to steer the election one way. It’s obvious even right wing fox jumps on board occasionally.
So, you are saying that they are not allowed to voice their opinion just because they are?
I‘d rather be worried why so many scientists and really smart people (smart peole = intelligent, educated and wise) testify against voting for Trump
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It’s just annoying to be bombarded by elitist celebrities who our completely not in touch with a normal American and all the news media trying to steer the election one way. It’s obvious even right wing fox jumps on board occasionally.
So, you are saying that they are not allowed to voice their opinion just because they are?
I‘d rather be worried why so many scientists and really smart people (smart peole = intelligent, educated and wise) testify against voting for Trump
No they are able to voice their opinions. But it’s not apples to apples and some people do not think and allow a celebrity to influence them even though their situation is nothing alike. A hugely famous rich movie star is not going to be very effected by the election, their charmed life will continue. The average American will be and I do not agree with the liberal view of more government interference or that the people need to be “taken care” of by the government. Plus a journalist is supposed to be impartial but the bias shown since Trump was the GOP candidate is painfully obvious. That just gets on my nerves.
This coupled with the Democratic Party expressing problems with the electoral college and touting the popular vote. If we go by the popular vote only a few states determine our election and surprise they typically lean democrat. Both parties play political games but since 2000 there has been much more partisan politics and not much bi partisan cooperation.
Obama made certain parts of the population have doubts, so the pendulum swung another way. Now it seems as if you do not agree with a liberal view you are basically a pariah.
So perhaps many “smart” people don’t voice against this left leaning view as it’s bad for reputation or even could hurt their livelihoods.
Here is an article regarding Germany and another threat, in my mind it shows that sometimes the pendulum swings back another way.
Our ways of life are different in America than yours so our views will be different. It’s just these are the kind of things I tend to read regarding Germany and it’s alarming to me.
you should be more concerned about your populist president who will not accept a democratic vote against himself and openly supports White Supremacists - backed by 35% of voters.
I haven‘t seen Mrs. Merkel behaving like this and we have 15% of voters for the right Populist Party AfD as a contrast.
Populism from the right wing - unfortunately is a common desease among all democratic societies - for a perspective look who governs in Hungary and Poland and how many votes the FN the 5 Stars in Italy and UKIP have gotten in elections recently.
That should put your mind at ease about Germany.
And the author of the linked article replies to his question in the headline with „Not necessarily“. So, it‘s kind of clickbait and I hope that you‘ve read the entire article
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I did read it, but you insist on saying Trump openly supports white nationalism where he has numerously stated he does not. The media just takes that little bit and it’s been debunked more than once.
Btw more about Hamburg. We do not have to agree but you never seem to even want to concede to an agree to disagree consensus about how I as an American can be alarmed by the ultra liberal handling of any extremist views in Germany.
From a UK article regarding
But the question remains: why Hamburg? I got one answer from a Hamburg policeman, who showed me the city through his eyes. He took me to the seedy sections (even the seediest of which are unbelievably clean) and complained about the city’s ultra-liberal justice system which “ties my hands and doesn’t allow me to deal effectively with even the most obvious of suspects, especially if they are foreigners.” He spewed statistics proving that this city has the highest crime rate in Germany, and the highest influx of dangerous drug dealers. The policeman, a social democrat and a native of Hamburg, believes the city’s kid-glove attitude to crime makes it an ideal haven for both terrorists and criminals.
Left wing leaning folk make me feel like it’s bad to have pride in our own nation or heritage yet expect everyone to have pride in everyone. ie I am proud to be a white man, I’m not racist but I am proud of where or what I am from, I also love America with all its faults, is that a populist view?
What you say about Hamburg makes me proud to live there because everything that the policeman has said are „faults“ of a relaxed and liberal society.
You will hear the same tune from a policeman in London, Madrid, Paris and San Francisco and fwiw in Houston/TX.
You will never root those „faults“ out entirely unless you take away the people‘s freedom.
I am proud of things that I have achieved by work and being smart or being good to others.
Being white, male, German, European is a coincidence to me - by sheer luck you and I are not black, not born in the slums of Namibia - so why be proud of being incredibly privileged by sheer luck?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It is luck, but I’m still proud. I’m sure it’s just a difference of society. We pledge allegiance to our flag as children , stand for our national anthem and I love my country. I do not hate Germany or have Ill will towards it. I feel like with you like a lot of left leaning folks that instead of agreeing to a consensus that you can see how I could come to a conclusion, that you (in general not personally) want to show me that I’m wrong in my beliefs. Instead of saying “oh I don’t look at it that way” or putting yourself in the others shoes.
I agree of freedom but it seems as if that’s all well and good until something happens to the individual, then the cry for law enforcement or police to be more vigilant are heard.
I completely understand how you being raised in a city that has beliefs like that, I just didn’t grow up in that environment so when I read and re read about how super “tolerant” societies like yours have a rise of extremism on both sides but do just “live and let live,” it’s a totally different view that I just don’t comprehend.
I’m glad you can live that way, I’m just more cynical in my beliefs.
Like I said we have two choices and Trump has worked to rebuild our military and restore some of the things that perhaps our allies do not like but will be good for our country.
What is this talk about "rebuilding" the military I keep hearing from Republicans? The US military has since the end of the cold war spent more on the armed forces than the next ten countries on the list combined. Since WWII it has been the only country with the ability to invade any country in the world. It's like talking about rebuilding microsoft - it's been huge for decades and it dominates. Pretending the US military was in ruins four years ago and needed rebuilding is simply ridicolous.
The rebuilding the military which I guess is the world’s mightiest deals with keeping it there. Previous administrations have decreased troop numbers and the like and slashed the budgets so they could have their own political means met. Even though it’s still the top you can’t just let it lie, it’s the “keeping up with the Jones” mentality. And since it’s the smallest it’s been since WW2 and if another axis of power arose it would be pretty hard to defend on all fronts. So if actual states decided to start wars instead of stateless terrorism those that live in free and super liberal states would have a harder time keeping that precious freedom afforded.
Comments
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a34078539/patagonia-vote-the-assholes-out-shorts-tag-meaning/
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
In my opinion it was absolutely hillarious when Pence said more than once to Harris: "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. He is Donald Trumps' VP!
It was also funny when he wanted Harris to promise she and Biden wouldn't "pack the Suppreme Court" with liberals. (I don't remember his precice words.) First the Republicans stopped Obama from filling a vacant seat after a supreme justice who died in Febrary because the voters should decide, then they placed a new judge in the Supreme Court who was ..... morally unsound, and now they are going to apoint a new judge in reccord time after RBG dieded in September because the president should decide! in short: The Republicans used the polar oposite arguments in 2016 and 2020 to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives.
But in spite of this the debate was far better than the Trump/Biden debate.
Newer guy here, love coming and checking out the Bond news, just dipping my toe in after years of hiding in the shadows.
So let me say this
Last dude who spoke up for a Trump got labeled a racist and then the ban hammer. I saw the post and as an American I did not understand what was so bad. He called Germany out for allowing 9/11 terrorist Muhammad Atta to be radicalized and operating in Hamburg and then talked about the rioting and looting that has happened here.
Perhaps I’m insensitive or maybe since this is mainly euro based you guys thought Mohammed Atta was a general anti Islamic slur or something. It’s a name as a yank that we do not forget
Either way I’d like to participate to get another view but I do not want to make a stink nor be banned because of it.
Perhaps you can elucidate me on the ground rules regarding being a republican here?
This may sound sarcastic but is not meant to be, but I do think other views should be allowed.
I am willing to let some of my views public for debate or lively debate.
I never saw the post that got the member mentioned above banned form the forum, so I can't really speak about that post. But I do know who Muhammed Atta was and it would surprise me if the moderators and the members who usally post here don't know that too.
Thanks for being civil about it in advance.
As an American in “flyover” country, I just don’t identify with Biden and Harris.
Trump is not my favorite but it’s kind of a Sophie’s choice here. He is strongly pro America and somewhat of an isolationist which our country was pre ww2. I can see how that can ruffle others feathers as and please do not take this as elitist or whatnot, a lot of other countries and our allies depend on the US for either protection or assistance or whatever. And Trump has decided to push back and ask for more back from these countries.
Biden was third choice last election, in his own party. If that’s what the democrats throw out it’s a little I dunno desperate.
I have never seen a politician who did not lie and for the opposite party Clinton being impeached, or Obama not standing up to Mds in Saudi Arabia or whatever conflict it’s just okay. But when a gop candidate does it there’s an uproar.
As for the Supreme Court
any political party that has an opportunity to appoint will. Kamala Harris’s history lesson about Abe Lincoln was debunked he did not wait for the people to decide he had issues in his party at the time. Trust me any party who can push thru a pick because they have the power will.
RGB also stated when there was a vacancy last time that it should be filled quickly that “nine is a good number,” but the republican senate blocked that. But she would have been okay if they hadn’t it does not go both ways. If Democratic Party had control they absolutely would fill the seat.
America is a democratic republic not just a democracy, there is a bit of a difference.
The media be it right wing, left wing, or fair and biased all shape a narrative. That’s just life here, but I digress.
I live in Norway, one of the countries that's in a high degree dependent on the US for protecton, and I'm thankful for this protection. But what needs to be remembered is that this protection isn't just to be kind. In the case of Norway I'm sure the US knows that control Norway is key to have control of the north Atlantic. One of the American generals who was SACLANT (the highest ranking officer in NATO) during the cold war was asked what he would do if the USSR gained control of Norway. He replied: "If we don't get Norway back in three days we would use the nuclear option". A smart use of US forces abroad is in the end an advantage for the US. The Marshall Plan may have looked like stupid handouts to other countries back in the day, but it's actually one of the smartest foreign policy moves the US ever did and very advantageous for both yours and mine country.
You mention the US isolationism before WWII. Do you remember how that turned out?
I do agree with Trump that other NATO members should contribute more to the defence of the NATO area, that's both smart and good for stability. But it seems like Trump believes other member states somehow owe the US money for not contributing more in the past (and present), but that's not how it works.
Concerning Biden: I don't think having a candidate with eight years of experience as VP sounds desperate.
I think any leader of state should stand up to the current regime in Saudi Arabia, but sadly that hasn't happened.
It's been years since I read "Team of Rivals", an excellent Lincoln biography, so I don't remember what happened with him and the Supreme Court (SC). Any party that's in power tries to pack the Supreme Court with judges with views they like, that's true. But Pence tried to get Harris to promise the Dems won't pack the SC with "their" judges if the Dems win the election, and that is rich knowing that's exactly what the Republicans have been doing aggressively for the last four years. I know of no other cases where the opposition has blocked a SC judge appointment for about nine months because the voters should decide in an election, but when they have the majority they try to push through a new judge in a couple of months (record time) because the sitting current majority decides. That's polar opposite positions.
The Supreme Court argument you may be misunderstanding. And please don’t take offense, what Pence is asking and has been proposed by members of the Democratic Party is that if the democratic majority takes control they will vote to add additional members to the court and then they can add more members of their views without having the “luck of the draw” of being in power when a court judge steps down or passes away. This is a threat to our checks and balances imo.
If you understood this I’m sorry to be explaining but it seems to get a solid answer on something that serious is an acceptable ask.
With Trump it seems to boil down to countries getting or giving money to the USA. And while it’s questionable I do think that the majority of “regular” Americans do agree with that stance.
About NATO and money: member countries contribute to NATO defences by increasing or decreasing their military spending through their defence budgets. I think some money goes directly to NATO (not the US) for central adminstration, large transport planes and UAVs the organisation shares and isn't owned by any single country etc). They don't pay money to the US, that's never been the case. Back in the cold war the US did choose to support other members by partly financing the building of bases, giving away equipment cheap (and for free?) etc). This was done because it was in the US long term interest and as far as I know there was no talk of paying the US back. In short: the other NATO members don't owe the US a dime for their low NATO spending, but they should contribute more to the NATO workload.
You can say here anything you want (within certain limits) but don't expect that everybody agrees.
I am from Hamburg and I don't understand why anyone finds it ok "to call out" Germany for allowing Atta to be radicalized and operating in Hamburg.
If I remember correctly, the banned poster called Germany out "for letting them in".
Atta came as an Egypt citizen to Germany in 1990 and continued studying here for many years.
In 2000, he received a 5 year long USA Tourist- and Business Visa and he entered the US 2nd June 2000.
He learned to fly in Florida ( financed by a cousin of the Dubai Sheik (- have you called Dubai out for this?)) and came back to the EU late 4th January 2001.
As he extended the 6 months maximum stay he would have not been allowed to enter the US again but when he flew back to the US 10. January, US border patrol had no objections...
9th July 2001, he came back to Europe and 17th July he returned back to the US - unstopped.
So if anything, the US has "let him in" as well - twice - so this "call" is just ridiculous.
As for "allowing" him to radicalize and operate:
We don't "allow" radicalisation of any kind!
We don't allow "operating" a terror attack from here!
Atta in his last year was living in the US! (interrupted by 2 short stays in Europe)
He learnt to fly an airplane in Florida!
While nobody can exactly say, when he exactly radicalised himself and others, a large part of the planning, preparation and operation happened in the US.
So I advise thinking twice before blaming others ( in particular your allies) of such things.
As for Bin Laden: Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and the US have always been very close to them.
I have never seen someone from the US calling out Saudi Arabia out for having born and raised the most important terrorist of our time?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I won't do this with the rest of your allegations as I believe, that if you are criticizing others - you should get your facts straight in the first place.
Welcome to AJB! {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
First off - forgive me for selecting just one part of your post...
As someone looking from the outside in (and with enough ‘issues’ from my own government)...it does rather go against this principle when Trump says that he will not necessarily accept defeat (should it happen) in the upcoming election.
He’s also been VERY critical of the US postal vote system - calling it a free for all on cheating, forgery and theft and is threatening to scrap, not only the postal votes already cast, but also any postal votes not counted on the day of the election...how do you feel about this?
As for Bin Ladin, he was known to be a threat, read “the looming tower,” and Jordan intelligence let Washington know where he was after an attack I’ll have to reread which, I believe the barracks bombing.
Who was in office? Oh yeah Clinton getting worried about his David Blowie in the White House. So rather than go and get him he fired cruise missiles late and missed.
This wouldn’t happen today.
But listen, you did an hour of research and maybe I misspoke when I said I didn’t understand what was so bad that the guy said. I guess you’re right he denigrated Germany’s honor. But that’s not a racist comment. That is why I was confused. But your answer proves why I didn’t want to post in the first place. You just bombarded me with a huge post and then said you would not address my “allegations “
Thanks for the welcome though! Sincerely
As for the Democratic republic comment that was meant to address the argument of the electoral college. I think Trump can say all he wants about mail in votes etc, we do have free speech, but unless he declares himself Chancellor or something it’s not as if he can act on those threats. But it has been seen previously whether it was gop or Democratic Party some mail in fraud had occurred. There have been instances of deceased people voting etc. Without going to the poll place and showing your identification and voting hypothetically this would be easier.
Like I said, fair enough on the other points, I didn’t want to get banned or labeled racist for something I truly didn’t and still don’t understand was racist. But I wanted to engage a bit since the other view seemed very strong here.
Trump has said he may not resign if he loses the election - what can be more basic to democracy than that? Sure, Trump says it's because he believes the election will see major fraud. But remember 2016. He claimed the Democrats cheated by two million votes. If he really believed that and had the proof to back it up he would and should hand over the evidence and make sure it was handled as the extremely serious attack on democracy such an election fraud would have been. He didn't , he just talked about it in rallies, and that was when he won. So Trump has no qualms when it comes to claiming the other side cheated even when he wins and he has no evidence. Doesn't it scare you when he says the only way the Democrats can win is by cheating even though we all know the US electorate are split in two pretty much equally large groups?
No, I haven‘t!
And my huge post was addressing what has been said before by the banned poster and has been repeated ( kind of) by yourself.
I thought that I should set it straight.
I find it remarkable that you‘ve avoided to criticize Saudi Arabia and Dubai and preferred to point fingers at the other political party - in that case Clinton instead.
After the first attack, Clinton gave order to kill Bin Laden by all means - while it has to be said that the legal background for fighting terror has been widened after the 9-11 attacks.
I don‘t recall exactly - but who was in charge when Bin Laden finished his plans (couldn‘t Bin Laden be chased right before 9/11?) and who failed to kill him in aftermath while putting large parts of the Near/ Middle East on fire with several unnecessary wars :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes Bin Ladin was a Saudi and his family fortune comes from his father who imported caterpillar equipment from USA to build infrastructure.
But I blame Clinton and I’m allowed to, for not acting. Here’s an article that lays out some of that. The other party likes to expose faults of all others but does not like that light shone in them.
Arguably all the wars in the Middle East may not have happened if he had acted or allowed the CIA to work without having one hand tied behind their backs. He was too busy deflecting his own political career because he got caught with his (hand) cigar in cookie jar to deal with major threat in front of him. This is also detailed in “The Looming Tower”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/bill-clinton-blocked-the-cia-from-killing-osama-bin-laden-former-cia-station-chief-says/wcm/6ec00535-402d-40ac-b07c-6ed45e0a77cc/amp/
As for Trump I don’t really care much regarding his comments on not stepping down etc, because our government has checks and balances and he really cannot realistically make that happen. I could be naive but I tend to think order will prevail. But due to Stacy Abrams and Al Gore I predict that no matter how this election comes either party is going to protest and it will be dragged out. It’s just annoying to be bombarded by elitist celebrities who our completely not in touch with a normal American and all the news media trying to steer the election one way. It’s obvious even right wing fox jumps on board occasionally.
Like I said we have two choices and Trump has worked to rebuild our military and restore some of the things that perhaps our allies do not like but will be good for our country.
So that is why I may have repeated what the previous poster (kind of) said I guess. The fact that there were a lot of mosques and what not that promoted radical Islam in Germany and throughout the rest of Europe in the nineties.
This article also detailed how Hamburg was a hot spot for radical https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/09/11/hamburgs-cauldron-of-terror/023bbd01-88f1-4b97-9f6f-598a0ff05ffa/
From the article and why I somewhat agreed with the comments about Hamburg -- and Germany as a whole -- was an almost risk-free environment for Islamic radicals. German officials, mindful of the country's Nazi past, say now that they were reluctant to target mosques and risk allegations of racism or religious persecution. Such reservations meant that while authorities were aware of the calls to arms that fired up the members of the Hamburg cell, they saw no cause to intervene.
More info regarding Hamburg and radical Islam http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/04/europe.terror.plot/index.html
https://medium.com/@adamfitzgerald_5924/ground-zero-of-terrorism-al-quds-mosque-the-hamburg-cell-b41455b17e4d
Now even if you do not agree can you see how someone from my country would say Germany “let Mohammed Atta” be radicalized and the like?
That's exactly the over-simplification from the populists that disregard history and science.
The wars in Iraq and Lybia where on Bush's agenda for quite some time and it was not about bringing democracy to the Arab world (another simplification btw).
As for the terror cell and the WP article.
I respect the paper but disagree with their 2002 article and maybe they wouldn't write it again like they've done back then.
After the horror of WWII and with the help from our friends from the US, we chose having a liberal and free society.
Freedom of opinion, press and religion are the pillars and we don't compromise on that easily.
I'd say that many liberal societies had radical islamic cells (btw the Wahbism is state religion in Saudi Arabia and they sponsor spreading out that worldwide among muslims and that leads to Islamism in some cases) and that includes most of the European Countries and the US.
But I guess that most open societies learnt after 9-11 that they must have a closer look at what is happening in their countries and it has nothing to do alone with Germany's role before and during the wars.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Anyway we are allowed to disagree, I just don’t think that having doubts of how Germany handled or handles radical Islam is a racist view.
The Clinton view is a simplification but it’s also a possibility but it does show how America did not handle the threats and the Democratic Party was at fault at that time.
From the 2020 article...
“The threat was real,” Martin said. “And if President Clinton had taken action and killed Osama bin Laden, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, and if there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, and if there wouldn’t have been an Afghanistan, there probably wouldn’t have been an Iraq. What would the world be like?”
So, you are saying that they are not allowed to voice their opinion just because they are?
I‘d rather be worried why so many scientists and really smart people (smart peole = intelligent, educated and wise) testify against voting for Trump
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
No they are able to voice their opinions. But it’s not apples to apples and some people do not think and allow a celebrity to influence them even though their situation is nothing alike. A hugely famous rich movie star is not going to be very effected by the election, their charmed life will continue. The average American will be and I do not agree with the liberal view of more government interference or that the people need to be “taken care” of by the government. Plus a journalist is supposed to be impartial but the bias shown since Trump was the GOP candidate is painfully obvious. That just gets on my nerves.
This coupled with the Democratic Party expressing problems with the electoral college and touting the popular vote. If we go by the popular vote only a few states determine our election and surprise they typically lean democrat. Both parties play political games but since 2000 there has been much more partisan politics and not much bi partisan cooperation.
Obama made certain parts of the population have doubts, so the pendulum swung another way. Now it seems as if you do not agree with a liberal view you are basically a pariah.
So perhaps many “smart” people don’t voice against this left leaning view as it’s bad for reputation or even could hurt their livelihoods.
Here is an article regarding Germany and another threat, in my mind it shows that sometimes the pendulum swings back another way.
Our ways of life are different in America than yours so our views will be different. It’s just these are the kind of things I tend to read regarding Germany and it’s alarming to me.
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/counterterrorism/perspective-did-germany-drop-the-ball-on-right-wing-extremism/
I haven‘t seen Mrs. Merkel behaving like this and we have 15% of voters for the right Populist Party AfD as a contrast.
Populism from the right wing - unfortunately is a common desease among all democratic societies - for a perspective look who governs in Hungary and Poland and how many votes the FN the 5 Stars in Italy and UKIP have gotten in elections recently.
That should put your mind at ease about Germany.
And the author of the linked article replies to his question in the headline with „Not necessarily“. So, it‘s kind of clickbait and I hope that you‘ve read the entire article
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Btw more about Hamburg. We do not have to agree but you never seem to even want to concede to an agree to disagree consensus about how I as an American can be alarmed by the ultra liberal handling of any extremist views in Germany.
From a UK article regarding
But the question remains: why Hamburg? I got one answer from a Hamburg policeman, who showed me the city through his eyes. He took me to the seedy sections (even the seediest of which are unbelievably clean) and complained about the city’s ultra-liberal justice system which “ties my hands and doesn’t allow me to deal effectively with even the most obvious of suspects, especially if they are foreigners.” He spewed statistics proving that this city has the highest crime rate in Germany, and the highest influx of dangerous drug dealers. The policeman, a social democrat and a native of Hamburg, believes the city’s kid-glove attitude to crime makes it an ideal haven for both terrorists and criminals.
Left wing leaning folk make me feel like it’s bad to have pride in our own nation or heritage yet expect everyone to have pride in everyone. ie I am proud to be a white man, I’m not racist but I am proud of where or what I am from, I also love America with all its faults, is that a populist view?
You will hear the same tune from a policeman in London, Madrid, Paris and San Francisco and fwiw in Houston/TX.
You will never root those „faults“ out entirely unless you take away the people‘s freedom.
I am proud of things that I have achieved by work and being smart or being good to others.
Being white, male, German, European is a coincidence to me - by sheer luck you and I are not black, not born in the slums of Namibia - so why be proud of being incredibly privileged by sheer luck?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree of freedom but it seems as if that’s all well and good until something happens to the individual, then the cry for law enforcement or police to be more vigilant are heard.
I completely understand how you being raised in a city that has beliefs like that, I just didn’t grow up in that environment so when I read and re read about how super “tolerant” societies like yours have a rise of extremism on both sides but do just “live and let live,” it’s a totally different view that I just don’t comprehend.
I’m glad you can live that way, I’m just more cynical in my beliefs.
https://www.allianzdirect.de/hausratversicherung/gefaehrlichste-staedte-deutschland-ratgeber/
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What is this talk about "rebuilding" the military I keep hearing from Republicans? The US military has since the end of the cold war spent more on the armed forces than the next ten countries on the list combined. Since WWII it has been the only country with the ability to invade any country in the world. It's like talking about rebuilding microsoft - it's been huge for decades and it dominates. Pretending the US military was in ruins four years ago and needed rebuilding is simply ridicolous.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mohamed-atta-hamburg-cell
The rebuilding the military which I guess is the world’s mightiest deals with keeping it there. Previous administrations have decreased troop numbers and the like and slashed the budgets so they could have their own political means met. Even though it’s still the top you can’t just let it lie, it’s the “keeping up with the Jones” mentality. And since it’s the smallest it’s been since WW2 and if another axis of power arose it would be pretty hard to defend on all fronts. So if actual states decided to start wars instead of stateless terrorism those that live in free and super liberal states would have a harder time keeping that precious freedom afforded.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-obama-shrank-the-military-1438551147
[/https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/yes-obama-era-cuts-left-us-too-weak-deal-multiple-global-menaces