Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread
Comments
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »They give that money to Israel to buy American equipment. Effectively paying themselves
and giving the Israeli free military hardware which is being used to kill Palestinians.0 -
NYT- President Biden expressed support for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas on Monday in a call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, but fell short of demanding an immediate end to the violence.
Pathetic Joe. Hang your head in shame.0 -
Sad isn't it, but it's what you have seen with every US president going back as far as I can remember anyway.
They are beholden to Israel, for a variety of reasons and it is shameful."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
I don't think you can hang this over Biden's head too much: as Stringer observes, every modern US president has kept Israel at arms reach, or just looked the other way. We can't suddenly expect Biden to behave in a transformative fashion when his entire ticket was effectively a return to normalcy in regards to a sitting President's behaviour and policies.
It's disappointing for sure, and half the problem going on is America's continued withholding of its diplomatic stick, but we can't be surprised either.0 -
"Israel thanks US for blocking UN statement calling for immediate ceasefire in Gaza"
Not a good look, but what does the US care.0 -
Advertisement
-
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Let’s be realistic here,
A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)
Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)
Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery
No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.
Wait. Hamas started this?
Are you sure?0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Let’s be realistic here,
A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)
Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)
Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery
No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.
Actually that's not how it started.
This round started with the Isralies firing tear gas into a crowd celebrating the end of Ramadan at a mosque.
Which was in response to something, which was a response to something else and so on back to 53AD.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Let’s be realistic here,
A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)
Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)
Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery
No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.
Sorry, CHBS, but I don't see it that way at all.. I reckon you're being selective in deciding the point at which this 'started'. You will recall that Israel has been evicting Palestinians from Sheik Jarrah for months in an ongoing effort to seize the entirety of Jerusalem. You will recall that Israeli IDF / Police forces stormed the Islamic Holy Site at Al Aqsa, a massive affront to believers, just as Ramadan was ending and arrested scores. All this, and so so much more bullying and thuggery precipitated the first set of rockets this time around, the **** hit the fan from there.. So, no.. I don't doubt that a small bunch of crazies are involved in Hamas.. However a state-sponsored bunch of crazies, masquerading as 'statesmen' are waging genocide against an entire people.0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Those thousands of rockets spontaneously appeared out of the blue?
As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.
David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.
It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.
In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.
The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.
Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.0 -
I don't think you can hang this over Biden's head too much: as Stringer observes, every modern US president has kept Israel at arms reach, or just looked the other way. We can't suddenly expect Biden to behave in a transformative fashion when his entire ticket was effectively a return to normalcy in regards to a sitting President's behaviour and policies.
It's disappointing for sure, and half the problem going on is America's continued withholding of its diplomatic stick, but we can't be surprised either.
I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.0 -
Advertisement
-
correct horse battery staple wrote: »That part of world had people bashing each other going back to Stone Age hell just read the olde bible. I don’t blame any president for not wanting to get dragged into that quagmire, last time US got involved in Middle East it all somehow went to ****e faster.
I'd be entirely ad idem with you if it was some kind of an independent quagmire waaay out there in the Middle East... But, it's not! Israel and the US have been locked in an incestuous shark/pilot fish relationship for DECADES! And at this stage, its almost impossible to know who's the pilot and who's the shark! The IDF is HUGELY supported by US arms and other support, and EVERY Smart Bomb that is dropped on a Palestinian building is a descendent of overt US arms delivered to Israel.
So, this is 2021! The US simply CANNOT portray the problem as "THAT quagmire".. From a US point of view, the problem is "OUR quagmire".
So, whether he likes it or not, Biden must deal with it!correct horse battery staple wrote: »If anything we should be happy we don’t have a Trump there he probably would have poured oil on whole situation instead of calling for calm
Well, today's instability is a direct result of Trump's placing of US Foreign Policy in Respect of the Middle East in the grubby paws of SlumLord Billionaire Kushner and his gang! So, effectively, the oil Trump poured over the past 4 years has only now been set alight!correct horse battery staple wrote: »Like I said Biden has his own homegrown extremists to worry about, we are only a few months since the American Taliban tried to stage an insurrection in the capitol. What he should do is use carrots and sticks to get both sides calm down and send one of his state department people or someone qualified to try get everyone to a table to try reach something of a deal like was done here in Ireland
I'll buy that!
But Israel says NO! And, so far, Biden seems to be accepting that!
For the sake of the future of Israel/Palestine, Biden must not be seen to defer to Netenyahu! Equally, he must deal with HAMAS! There's the challenge!0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.
David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.
It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.
In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.
The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.
Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.
Great analysis, with which I can fully agree..
Basically, two evil entities, living in an environment of mutually assured destruction, have decided to partner up for a tango that will take everyone else's eyes out, and they know it, but don't care... So long as the eyes taken out leave them alone with the power to see.0 -
I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.
There's a lot of truth in this, IMO!
He simply HAS to do an "I Have A Dream" in respect of Israel/Palestine!
C'mon Man!!!0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Those thousands of rockets spontaneously appeared out of the blue?
You don’t see the hypocrisy in complaining about Israel overreacting to a thousand rockets coming their way, which according to previous poster is itself an over reaction to tear gas attack
Once again politically best we can hope for is for a president to tell both sides to cut out this escalating spiral of stupidity.
Ah come on.
Have you ever cornered a dog?
Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?
Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.
---
The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...
---
Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?
---
Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?
You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.
Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.
David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.
It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.
In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.
The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.
Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.
This is bang on.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.
David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.
It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.
In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.
The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.
Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.
Brilliant post"People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Ah come on.
Have you ever cornered a dog?
Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?
Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.
---
The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...
---
Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?
---
Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?
You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.
Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.
Nail on the proverbial head there. Totally agree.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.
David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.
It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.
In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.
The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.
Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.
Probably one of the better posts I've read about the recent escalation of the conflict.0 -
Fairly explosive article series coming from Propublica about tax avoidance by US billionaires. It'll interesting to see how this is picked up national media and Congress. McConnell has predictably come out decrying this violation of privacy.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax0 -
Tonight proves the democrats need to get rid of the filibuster
The GOP blocking the voting rights bill, what an awful party
They know they have to block it other wise they are dead in the water and it's their old fault.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tonight proves the democrats need to get rid of the filibuster
The GOP blocking the voting rights bill, what an awful party
They know they have to block it other wise they are dead in the water and it's their old fault.
Ludicrous vicious circle. If voter turnout increases, the Dems always benefit. But they can’t take action on voter suppression because the GOP use their Senate power, elected by a suppressed vote, to block it.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
The idea that, basically, you can stall your way into killing any bill you don't like is a perversion of democracy, and the filibuster needs to die. Now: obviously what goes around comes around & its absence might be keenly felt the first time a hardline GOP bill breezes through the chambers, but the principle of the concept is obscene.
Not that there aren't ways for the Dáil to stymy bills and legislation but I'm eternally grateful a founding principle of our government is the notion that it's a constant Work In Progress - not holy writ and part of some chucklesome "Game" to be played.0 -
And the thing is, if the Dems don't counter the GOP State by State perversions of democracy now, the 2022 elections will put the GOP back into the House almost for sure, due to gerrymandering. The basic voter suppression laws being passed all over the place will focus on limiting effectiveness of more liberal voting and may also hand the Senate back to the GOP.
That country will be in the throes of renewed White Supremacy for a generation if that happens.0 -
The idea that, basically, you can stall your way into killing any bill you don't like is a perversion of democracy, and the filibuster needs to die. Now: obviously what goes around comes around & its absence might be keenly felt the first time a hardline GOP bill breezes through the chambers, but the principle of the concept is obscene.
Not that there aren't ways for the Dáil to stymy bills and legislation but I'm eternally grateful a founding principle of our government is the notion that it's a constant Work In Progress - not holy writ and part of some chucklesome "Game" to be played.
In fairness the filibuster is only a senate rule it is not part of the institution so to speak and can be changed or got rid of. For instance if the Democrats wanted to they could keep the rule as is except make an exception for voting rights legislation. This is exactly what the Republicans did when they decided that stacking the federal courts with far right activist judges was a priority they got rid of the filibuster but just for the appointment of federal judges. The exact same could be done for voting rights legislation.0 -
There are many different voices calling for a sea-change in Democratic thinking on this whole filibuster issue, and particularly for the Manchin/Sinema tactic of keeping it intact so that, when the Dems lose the Senate again, they'll have it to fall back on, and its presence 'promotes bi-partisanship' (hint: it doesnt)
I think this American comedian/ordinary person from Georgia speaks more sense about it than a gaggle of Senators... Warning: He's not easy on the language...
https://youtu.be/265YZcKhMYY0 -
Biden just made a speech about new gun control legislation. Everything he said made sense and sounds eminently reasonable to anyone in any other country, but sadly he sounded so tired, his speech was so flat and frequently slurred, that it was a gift to republican critics.0
-
Biden just made a speech about new gun control legislation. Everything he said made sense and sounds eminently reasonable to anyone in any other country, but sadly he sounded so tired, his speech was so flat and frequently slurred, that it was a gift to republican critics.
Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.
Let me guess, he should roll over and ask those who supported the insurrection what exactly they are comfortable with?
Compare his tone, language and logic with the example of his predecessor who held press conferences to say short blunt statements like 'We're getting rid of Obamacare, it's a terrible terrible thing.' or any other number of examples where he gave no context and just said something was 'bad' when he didn't even understand what he was talking about.
I really wish Biden would realise what Conservatives (and some within his own party) are doing when talking about partisan agreements and a need for consensus when they aren't willing to do the tiniest thing towards making this happen.
Case in point, the American Rescue Bill and all the Republicans who voted against it and then went back to their districts lauding what it was delivering for their constituents. I'd love to see Biden ride a Democratic Agenda through all flag wearing chest thumping 'patriots' on the other side and then let their next President roll them back if they want to really own their regressive tendencies.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.
Gun dealers breaking already existing laws being cracked down on is unreasonable and senseless?
Interesting...0 -
Advertisement
-
TomOnBoard wrote: »There are many different voices calling for a sea-change in Democratic thinking on this whole filibuster issue, and particularly for the Manchin/Sinema tactic of keeping it intact so that, when the Dems lose the Senate again, they'll have it to fall back on, and its presence 'promotes bi-partisanship' (hint: it doesnt)
I think this American comedian/ordinary person from Georgia speaks more sense about it than a gaggle of Senators... Warning: He's not easy on the language...
https://youtu.be/265YZcKhMYY
It's moronic in the extreme. Democrats needed to railroad everything they could through and thumbtheir noses at any and every republican taking issue with it - its not like they're without endless examples to push back in their faces from the last 4 years.
Instead, they put back in place precedents that the republicans already broke (filibuster) which does exactly nothing but handcuff themselves to a fuel the Republicans will remove as soon as they take power.
The republicans are going to win huge in 2022 and likely 2024, and more than anything it will be because the democrats let them by trying to keep pretending that there was a chance for good faith work to be done.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
Advertisement