Progressive success in November elections in the U.S.

[Moses]

13 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Yeah, as if you really care about dead non-white children. 🙄 We already know your vile racist views from other posts. 

Stop acting like you're concerned about any of the dead children in the Middle East. Your clownishness drumpfs your pious accusations. 

Looks like you can't deny Biden's votes for wars?

[Marc in Calif]

10 hours ago, Moses said:

Looks like you can't deny Biden's votes for wars?

Why would I deny facts? I never did deny that. 

But Drumpf was a warmonger. He escalated existing wars and military actions. He brought the US perilously close to new wars. And he didn't try to end some of the "endless" wars. 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/

... Trump did escalate conflict in theatres of war he inherited, repeatedly brought the country to the brink of new wars, and recklessly threw around U.S. power with no regard for the many lives it would cost. The “anti-war” candidate, like those before him, was a pro-war president.

Escalating Inherited Wars — Despite repeated PR stunts, Trump did not “bring the troops home” or “end endless wars.” In fact, Trump consistently added fuel to the fire, increasing troop levels, deepening reliance on private contractors, and dramatically scaling up aerial warfare. Where an end to endless war requires repealing the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, Trump expanded conflicts under both. His term saw four consecutive years of growth of an already out-of-control Pentagon budget. And loosening even the minimal restrictions that were already in place, he expanded the United States’ deadly and unaccountable drone wars.

Not only did Trump not end the wars he promised to, he worsened them, dropping more bombs, stoking further conflict, undermining the prospects of peace, and massively increasing the rate of civilian deaths.

All in on Yemen — U.S. support for the Saudi- and UAE-led intervention in the war in Yemen is one of the most egregious examples of destructive militarist foreign policymaking in years. Not only did Trump do nothing to end U.S. complicity himself, he repeatedly used his veto power to override bipartisan majorities in Congress that tried to stop U.S. military involvement and block the flow of arms to the conflict....

[EmmetK]

2 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Why would I deny facts? I never did deny that. 

But Drumpf was a warmonger. He escalated existing wars and military actions. He brought the US perilously close to new wars. And he didn't try to end some of the "endless" wars. 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/

... Trump did escalate conflict in theatres of war he inherited, repeatedly brought the country to the brink of new wars, and recklessly threw around U.S. power with no regard for the many lives it would cost. The “anti-war” candidate, like those before him, was a pro-war president.

Escalating Inherited Wars — Despite repeated PR stunts, Trump did not “bring the troops home” or “end endless wars.” In fact, Trump consistently added fuel to the fire, increasing troop levels, deepening reliance on private contractors, and dramatically scaling up aerial warfare. Where an end to endless war requires repealing the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, Trump expanded conflicts under both. His term saw four consecutive years of growth of an already out-of-control Pentagon budget. And loosening even the minimal restrictions that were already in place, he expanded the United States’ deadly and unaccountable drone wars.

Not only did Trump not end the wars he promised to, he worsened them, dropping more bombs, stoking further conflict, undermining the prospects of peace, and massively increasing the rate of civilian deaths.

All in on Yemen — U.S. support for the Saudi- and UAE-led intervention in the war in Yemen is one of the most egregious examples of destructive militarist foreign policymaking in years. Not only did Trump do nothing to end U.S. complicity himself, he repeatedly used his veto power to override bipartisan majorities in Congress that tried to stop U.S. military involvement and block the flow of arms to the conflict....

There is nothing original in this post. It is simply a copy and paste from responsiblestatecraft.org. lol.   Circulation of about 12?
I guess you think red highlighting to excerpts from an unknown, little read website makes your point any stronger. Au contraire.
Not one specific. Merely platitudes and generalizations. 

The fact is that when Trump was President, Russian troops stayed within their borders, there were no Hamas massacres and terrorism in the middle east, the southern border was not out of control, Also Trump was the midwife to the Abraham Accords.
The world is unquestionably far more dangerous under Dementia Joe Biden, who is an absolute disaster.

[Marc in Calif]

8 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Not one specific. Merely platitudes and generalizations. 

Please prove that any one of the factual statements is false. Did you not go to the linked evidence, which is VERY specific? 

Just as an example, can you prove that the following facts are false?

The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006, reflecting an apparent effort to force concessions from the Taliban at the negotiating table.

According to new figures released by US central command, US warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan, a nearly eightfold increase from 2015.

[EmmetK]

3 minutes ago, Marc in Calif said:

Please prove that any one of the factual statements is false. Did you not go to the linked evidence, which is VERY specific? 

Just as an example, can you prove that the following facts are false?

The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006, reflecting an apparent effort to force concessions from the Taliban at the negotiating table.

According to new figures released by US central command, US warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan, a nearly eightfold increase from 2015.

I wasn't the author of the article, so I don't have to prove anything.

There are ZERO specifics. Not one country is named. Not even an area. The article is a joke. Not surprising that you would resort to citing an opinion piece from a website that nobody reads and most people never heard of. Actually it's more pathetic than laughable.

[Marc in Calif]

4 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Not one country is named. Not even an area. 

There are sourced links throughout the article. And Afghanistan (it is indeed a "country") is specifically referenced. How could you not know that? I just told you.  🙄

REPEAT
I asked you specifically about Afghanistan. Can you prove that the following statements are incorrect?

The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006, reflecting an apparent effort to force concessions from the Taliban at the negotiating table.

According to new figures released by US central command, US warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan, a nearly eightfold increase from 2015.

[Marc in Calif]

9 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

There are ZERO specifics. Not one country is named. 

HINT: In online text, underlining (underscoring) indicates a reference link to the specific evidence. 

I'm embarrassed for you. You don't even know this most significant feature of the internet. 🤣

[EmmetK]

15 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

HINT: In online text, underlining (underscoring) indicates a reference link to the specific evidence. 

I'm embarrassed for you. You don't even know this most significant feature of the internet. 🤣

Clearly you are unable to grasp my point. So I'll try one more time. But I am not hopeful given the fact that I am dealing with someone who posts ad nauseum on the Gaza situation yet never heard of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

Citing unsourced and unverified statistics from a long-winded article contained in an unknown, little-read website, and then doing a copy and paste with red highlights proves NOTHING other than your lack of ability to engage in any form of intelligent dialog.

Your continual referencing of responsiblestatecraft.org as if it were the NYTimes or any other legitimate source on the right or left is truly stunning.

 

[unicorn]

It's far too early to be paying attention to poll results at this time. Many things will change over the coming months. Biden took some (in my opinion) undeserved hits due to economic woes in 2022 and early 2023, which primarily came from causes way outside of his control such as China's disastrous "Covid Zero" policy and the Saudis jacking up the price of crude oil. Obviously, oil price increases resulted in increased prices in many goods, as did supply-chain issues. Those issues have resolved, and clearly inflation has come way down, along with oil prices. Of course, Xi and bin Salman could still significantly damage our economy if they wanted to, and it may come down to economics.

Although I don't know that either meets the definition of dementia, it seems clear to myself and most other Americans that both Biden and Trump have shown cognitive decline, which will likely only get worse over the next 5 years. Neither is a good choice. I have my suspicion that if Biden and Trump get the nominations, neither will want to debate.

Third party candidates can also play spoiler roles, as they have many times in America's past. Other Democrats, such as Kennedy, could hand the election to the Republicans. Having two Republicans on the ballot would have the opposite effect. Another unknown is whether Trump will get a criminal conviction before the general election. The Trump team has done everything it can, of course, to delay things, but some trials are set to start soon. I don't think most independents (who always determine the election results) will want to vote for a convicted criminal.

So putting hopes or fears on poll numbers now seems a bit silly at this time.

[Marc in Calif]

14 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Citing unsourced and unverified statistics from a long-winded article... 

Thanks for finally admitting that you simply do not understand what source citations are. The article has MANY verified statistics from a wide variety of sources. You're just too stubborn to click the links and read those sources. 

Tell me: Did you click any of the links in that article?

If you were afraid to click them, I understand. Your fragile ego wouldn't have liked reading them because they prove that your claims are completely false. 

I'll just continue poking you with those links -- whether you want to click them or not! 🤡🤣🤡

[unicorn]

On 11/25/2023 at 2:06 PM, EmmetK said:

I wasn't the author of the article, so I don't have to prove anything...

You are not being paid, so obviously you don't have to do anything. However, if you dispute facts in an article with reliable references, and you have no references to contradict the other article's references, you're simply acknowledging you're wrong. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a pretty squirrely way to admit you're wrong on this subject. 

[EmmetK]

8 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Thanks for finally admitting that you simply do not understand what source citations are. The article has MANY verified statistics from a wide variety of sources. You're just too stubborn to click the links and read those sources. 

Tell me: Did you click any of the links in that article?

If you were afraid to click them, I understand. Your fragile ego wouldn't have liked reading them because they prove that your claims are completely false. 

I'll just continue poking you with those links -- whether you want to click them or not! 🤡🤣🤡

Thanks for again acknowledging your limited comprehension. Although that was made clear when you admitted that you were unfamiliar with the Rafah Crossing.

Now that you have displayed that you rely on unsourced statistics from responsiblestatecraft.org, an unknown and little read website, one can only imagine what source you will be using next to prop up your losing argument. The Onion? Mad Magazine?  lol

Oh, and here's a free helpful hint...  Red highlights don't make your point any stronger. It merely emphasizes your total failure to prove whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[forky123]

15 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Now that you have displayed that you rely on unsourced statistics from responsiblestatecraft.org, an unknown and little read website, one can only imagine what source you will be using next to prop up your losing argument.

You still haven't read any of the sources have you? They provided their sources in the article but you simply couldn't be bothered to check any of them out. If it doesn't say Fox, Breitbart, OAN or Newsmax it's left wing to you and therefore "biased"

[EmmetK]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

You still haven't read any of the sources have you? They provided their sources in the article but you simply couldn't be bothered to check any of them out. If it doesn't say Fox, Breitbart, OAN or Newsmax it's left wing to you and therefore "biased"

I read the post.

I also point out the writer is a left-wing, unapologetic member of the DSA. Same as AOC, Tlaib, Bernie, and the rest of the lunatics.

Michael Galant (he/him) is the Senior Communications Associate at Win Without War, a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. Michael is interested in building global solidarity for Left alternatives to neoliberal models of globalization and development. He is a coordinator of the Progressive International — a new initiative to unite, organize, and mobilize global progressive forces behind a shared vision of a world transformed — an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and has organized in the global justice, labor, and Palestine solidarity movements. Michael has written for publications including Jacobin, In These Times, and Truthout on such topics as trade, tax avoidance, international financial institutions, corporate accountability, labor internationalism, and more. 

His politics are of a fringe movement. It is ridiculous to quote him from an unknown site to prove a point. And then use red highlights, as if you were quoting the Gettysburg Address.
Period.
Case closed.

 

[forky123]

18 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

His politics are of a fringe movement. It is ridiculous to quote him from an unknown site to prove a point. And then use red highlights, as if you were quoting the Gettysburg Address.

1) I have never quoted him. 

2) I have never used red highlights.

3) The fact you never read from, quote or listen to anyone from "the lunatics" is hardly a surprise. Your choice of news though is such that one might place you in the band of "lunatics" on the right. If the two extremes keep going the way they are in the US there is going to be bloodshed.

[Marc in Calif]

3 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Case closed.

Thanks for surrendering in the face of numerous verified statistics that Galant cited in that article. They're from sources such as your trusted New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and other major media. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to open those clearly marked links demonstrates your cowardice. 🐔🐔🐔

You didn't have the slightest chance of proving that those statistics were wrong. So you conveniently take the right-wing troll's way out by writing "Case closed"! 🤖 🤡

Nothing in Galant's background is relevant. His cited sources and facts are what matter in this case. And you cannot prove them wrong, can you? If you can, why don't you try. You'd love nothing better than to show they're wrong. here are some of them:

• Trump inherited Obama's drone war and he significantly expanded it in countries where the US was not technically at war.

• The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006, reflecting an apparent effort to force concessions from the Taliban at the negotiating table. According to new figures released by US central command, US warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan, a nearly eightfold increase from 2015.

•  From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data during the Trump administration, the number of civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent.

• Trump’s campaign talk of troop withdrawals doesn’t mMatch military reality. He has brought home few American combat troops over all even as his pressure campaign against Iran risks a new Middle East conflict.

[Latbear4blk]

3 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Case closed.

[EmmetK]

3 hours ago, forky123 said:

1) I have never quoted him. 

2) I have never used red highlights.

3) The fact you never read from, quote or listen to anyone from "the lunatics" is hardly a surprise. Your choice of news though is such that one might place you in the band of "lunatics" on the right. If the two extremes keep going the way they are in the US there is going to be bloodshed.

Actually I read many sites from all parts of the political spectrum. I read with great interest the left-wing sites as I want to keep up-to-date on what America's enemies are up to. However, why would I, or anyone, have any interest in an opinion piece from responsiblestatecraft.org written by a self-identified DSA member. A total nobody opining on a site no one ever heard of. If that's the best you can do to prove your point, you lose the argument on a TKO.

[Marc in Calif]

37 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Actually I read many sites from all parts of the political spectrum. 

And yet you're too cowardly to click links to actual statistics and verified facts.

You still haven't admitted WHY you don't want to click those links. Scared?  🐔🤣🐔

[forky123]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Actually I read many sites from all parts of the political spectrum. I read with great interest the left-wing sites as I want to keep up-to-date on what America's enemies are up to. However, why would I, or anyone, have any interest in an opinion piece from responsiblestatecraft.org written by a self-identified DSA member. A total nobody opining on a site no one ever heard of. If that's the best you can do to prove your point, you lose the argument on a TKO.

So, you read many sites from all parts of the spectrum but have no interest in this one because it's a total nobody on a site no one has heard of yet say you read it anyway but didn't bother with any of the sources. You should ask for your money back from Trump University. You're more incoherent than either Trump or Biden.

[Latbear4blk]

34 minutes ago, forky123 said:

You're more incoherent than ...  Biden

I do not think incoherent is the term. Is he not talking about dementia?

[EmmetK]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

So, you read many sites from all parts of the spectrum but have no interest in this one because it's a total nobody on a site no one has heard of

Exactly!

[forky123]

15 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Exactly!

And, as always, you misquote