I am curious if you guys like DonaldTrump, or do you hate him?
Out of interest, Obama's Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel had no relevant military of diplomatic experience, he was a businessman.
Funnily enough, he was the CEO of a company which created computerised voting machines.
I would have thought that two Purple Hearts would actually be very relevant in that position. Better than some General who wore out the seat of his pants in Washington.
And Australia’s current Minister for foreign affairs was once our Minister for defence.
After a preparatory career in the young liberals and an arts degree.
That’s your standard for an expert politician.
And Scott Morrison is the face of our entire country after being a failed marketing executive. Soon to be replaced with Bill Shorten who has literally never done a days work in his life and whose offshore experience amounts to the time he went to Cockatoo island for a union leaders picnic.
BB, infantry squad leader hardly sets you up for foreign affairs, diplomat or basically anything broad scale in the military.
You're an habitual straw-grasper :)
Anyhoo, point being is that yes, Trump is a knob and so are his flunkies but with regards to Venezuela they're doing nothing that the U.S. hasn't been doing for decades, it's business as usual including, most likely, attempting to engineer yet another U.S. coup.
I disagree Andy, I think having been at the sharp end should be an essential qualification for having the power, deliberately or otherwise, to turn civilisation into a smoking ruin.
Actually I tend to agree with you but my last comment still stands.
OK, you guys, let's just agree to agree here...
Hang on, I mean disagree to disagree...
Fuck me, I've got "We Are the World" in my head now.
Ha ha I am working very hard to block the memory of that wonderfully insipid moment Andy! The US doing business as usual with Trump in charge does not stand as business as usual, if you get my drift.
Yeah, nah :)
A bit of common ground never hurts.
"The US doing business as usual with Trump in charge does not stand as business as usual..."
Now THAT I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Trump is NOT a usual business-man.
And that's NOT a positive.
Even less so, now that's he's President.
ps: I'm no fan of 'business'
Trump: "What do you mean I can't address State of the Union to the House!"
'That's because you shutdown The State & The Union & The House, Mr President Sir!'
Trump said he was "very proud" to end the shutdown after previously claiming that he'd be "proud to shut down the government" if his demand for $5 billion in border wall funding wasn't met.
35 days shutdown but now open for 21 days, until it gets shutdown again?
Meanwhile I can neither confirm nor deny the following quote by Trump,
"Im not usually one to boast but I completed a jigsaw puzzle in only 1 week but the box clearly said 2-4 years"
Ha Ha Ha that is very witty....
Trump's Wall cost $5.7 billion
Trump's Shutdown cost $6 > $8 billion
Each Trump Tantrum adds further $ billions to his pet Wall.
Trump claims another Shutdown is certainly an option - $5b >$10b >$15b >$20b?
Art of The Deal.
Just goes to show the Democrats should have let him build it. Apparently many sections of wall already exist , just finish the job.
Same old, same old.
Is there anyone who can even pretend to be surprised, anymore?
(Hahaha. Pesky Russians. Whose side are they on??)
7,700 mexicans enter US a week. Now less than half of of previous decade.
If Trump were to pay each immigrant $250,000/week to mail cash home to Mexico.
U.S would still be far better off than under Trump's rolling Shutdowns.
As the Mexicans on revolving door are more affordable to keep than One Trump.
Logic would dictate to simply build the wall around Trump Empire. He approved it!
Ok! Sure that would cost a lot more than $5 billion. (But U.S. would save a fortune)
Trumps haters decide that he can’t withdraw US forces from Afghanistan.
And everyone calls his wall immoral but gives this free shift .. Bizarre.
Afghanistan who has won a war there again? No oil there some one should be locked up
Geezus posting via a phone is torture. .......yeah yeah I am old
Fair comment Blowin. The US are not there to help Afghanis. They are there to prevent the establishment of a regime that would provide a base for Islamic terrorism around the world. So how you judge things depends on how you feel about that idea.
Not true , BB.
IS could set themselves up anywhere. Under that pretext , the US should invade Pakistan too.
Pakistan receives enormous amount US of cash to behave its a vexed question re prevention measures does it fervor more jihadist or prevent jihadist
Pakistan has been playing duplicitous game for a long time. As a nuclear power they can be confident the US will not attack them. All the evidence is that their military protects the Taliban and allows them to use parts of Pakistan as a refuge where they cannot be attacked. If the US pulls out then the Taliban will take over resume their oppression of women and impose their harsh version of Sharia law. Unless Pakistan changes its attitude, that will happen whenever the US pulls out, no matter what bits of paper are negotiated between the various players. So stay or go, it's a lose/lose scenario. The best argument for staying is that it reduces the risk of major terrorist attacks globally. The best argument for going is that staying probably costs more lives than it saves.
"resume their oppression of women and impose their harsh version of Sharia law"
Are you saying that this is a reason for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan?
One for the Trump lovers? Of course ProMo has signed on to this too! Surprise!!!!
Check this from Pilger.
The interview in question. Definitely worth viewing in its entirety. How's the performance of Jon Snow?!
The Media Lens Alert.
Sifting through the garbage is a Herculean task. Forget 'draining the swamp', this is Augean stables shit!!!!
No, the US are there out of perceived self-interest but after 9/11 they played up those issues to increase support for their invasion.
So why are you still falling for it , particularly since you out of most people has voiced your awareness and opposition to the US Middle East fuck up ?
Yep fell for a simple factual summary with no opinion included. Just can't help it.
Good find Facto, that Chris Williamson/John Snow interview should be required viewing.
One thing in particular that horrifies me, apart from what a cunt John Snow appears to be, is that as the years go by it becomes more and more difficult to find ANY media outlet in Australia which provides a measured opinion and as I've mentioned before, if anyone thinks the ABC provides an unbiased voice on international affairs, think again.
And from Media Lens:
'Oh look! Juan Guaido, the figurehead for the CIA's illegal regime-change operation intended to grab Venezuela's oil (as John Bolton has publicly conceded), is again presented breathlessly by the Guardian as the country's saviour'
Media Lens looks at The Guardian, the BBC, and even Channel 4 in particular, because the Murdoch press, The Daily Mail, ITV and Sky are a farce that is beyond the pale.
Similarly here. Though we are not as degraded in a lot of ways. Fairfax is in its death throes. Its output has reflected that for years now. And although the ABC and SBS are not as compromised as the state broadcaster in the UK, they are literally fighting for their lives with this government. We've seen the appalling and pitiful kowtowing in full effect.
Murdoch, the commercial TV channels, and Sky are ridiculous.
Do we really want to end up with US style corporate media propaganda, and the governments that result?? Corporate Democrats & the scary sliding shit-show that is the Republican party??
There's still hope there, and in the UK especially, and even here (though again we're not as degraded...and have compulsory voting, for example, as an important point of difference), but I have to say the online independent news and social media bypass window is closing real fast.
“the online independent news and social media bypass window is closing real fast”
Can you clarify this?
What news / current affairs do you read , Andy ?
PS Facto , I liked that post. You gave a straight up opinion without smarm or condescension, without linking to another’s viewpoint.
For example, Google and Facebook's "delisting and censorship of information" (SEO updates, recalibrating algorithms to hide and block "fake news"), as well as the external financial pressures on independent news sites. Sometimes even backed by the State (check Hungary for example!)
"You gave a straight up opinion without smarm or condescension, without linking to another’s viewpoint."
Well, again, according to you.
Maybe 'cos I'm communicating with Andy?
Same goes with others.
You'd know that if you read and digested more.
Mate , just have a quick review of your posting style . You’ve never added much besides a few links and snide disapproval of others who disagree with you . I don’t give a rats if you’ve got a different perspective on a topic , but at least say what it is you think , don’t just allude to it and belittle others for thinking differently.
Everyone else writes what they think and why they think that way. That’s where the gold lies. Links are just to reinforce opinions or provide evidence.
I wouldn’t think you were such a twit if you just plainly stated your position as you just did.
The smarm and condescension ain’t doing you any favours either. It’s quite emasculating. You don’t have to impress me , but I’d definitely engage with you in a more legitimate way if you said something for yourself more often.
Classic you say I need to read and digest more if you knew what I did for many , many hours each day.
Haha. Larry joins Moe. Now where's Curls?
Maybe when I said this above...
"Maybe 'cos I'm communicating with Andy?
Same goes with others."
I should've SPELLED IT OUT NICE N CLEAR...
Same goes with others EXCEPT YOU.
There's still hope for Curls aka Seppo.
Poor old Larry. Well...he's special.
"Classic you say I need to read and digest more if you knew what I did for many , many hours each day."
Playboy for the articles, hey? Old skool.
Oh hang on, you mean just bloviating on here 24/7.
Blowin - news and current affairs:
Online - ABC, The Guardian, SMH, The Conversation, Macro Business, Independent Australia, New Matilda, Media Lens, Al Jazeera, Jacobin...
The first three of those I see as being pretty click-baity but I still skim through them most days.
TV - none. Haven't owned a tv in a long time. What I see of commercial tv is unbelievably, mind-bogglingly bad, a total insult.
Radio - ABC podcasts such as The Minefield, Religion and Ethics, some Phillip Adams etc.
Youtube - whatever I feel like at the time - Chomsky, TED talks, Pilger... I went through a Jordan Peterson phase recently to see what all the fuss was about.
Reference books are good - The Australian Political System, Political Ideologies
And of course just going down the rabbit hole, chasing links and going from site to site and finding yourself in the weirdest places, both good and bad.
Just had a read about the Battle of Dien Bien Phu - French got their arses kicked by the Viet Minh under General Võ Nguyên Giáp, who went on to command the North Vietnamese Army, beat the U.S. in Vietnam and become recognised as one of the great military strategists of the 20th century.
But I digress.
What about you?
"Online - ABC, The Guardian, SMH, The Conversation, Macro Business, Independent Australia, New Matilda, Media Lens, Al Jazeera, Jacobin...
The first three of those I see as being pretty click-baity but I still skim through them most days."
How the hell does the abc end up getting lumped in with the trash at the guardian?
That's not a shot at you andym, I think the learn-ed ones refer to that as a rhetorical question.
Seriously though. I used to have the utmost respect for the abc (and utter disdain for the guardian) but I tend to agree, the abc has gone to the dogs...a bit anyway. Still some great quality amongst the trash, but it seems to be losing a lot of the authority/relevance they once had.
Maybe its them having to be more 'click-baity' in the changing media landscape. Or maybe it's just the internet has opened up many more quality independent type outlets, showing just how un-independent the abc are.
Maybe I'm being too hard on old Aunty.
A quick glance now looks ok but sometimes there's some pretty marginal stuff there - kid admitted to hospital after falling off swing or something. Must be hard to keep churning it out on those slow news days.
I think the changing media landscape has a lot to do with it, that style is pretty much expected online.
The Guardian has the odd good article but my god you click on some of it at your peril.
Case in point as we speak - "Public voting in an Australian clothing company’s baby pageant competition has been cancelled because of out-of-control parents sledging the appearances of other parents’ infants."
But, but, it was supposed to be an “inclusive celebration of babies”.
No doubt it was aimed at "empowerment" too...
There's only so many times you can hear buzzwords before they become self-defeating.
Anyhoo, I digress again - you sure can tell when there's no surf.
What are your go-to sites or programs Syppo?
"There's only so many times you can hear buzzwords before they become self-defeating..."
Curls, step right up.
Well I do do it with an air of irony factobum. Do you really think the left's buzzwords are less tedious?
It's all about an equal and opposite counter reaction
I look at pretty similar sites to you andym, but it's totally random.
I listen to lots of RN and abc, I actually think RN is a masterful media source, totally biased, but fantastic. Especially the shows you mention.
TV is news, drum, weirdo viceland type docco's, abc and sbs mainly, and Im a celebrity get me out of here.
What did you think of Jordan peterson?
I gave him a run, interesting cat I reckon.
I also listen to radio national/ABC radio most days, yeah its very bias but it's not as bad as RRR or 3PBS whom i use to love, but now have gone from great public radio stations with variety and good music to being over run by far left hipsters.
I just can't stand commercial radio.