This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Would you have wanted an interview with Hitler during the battle of Britain? Lmao
What worth would his lies have to you?
Last edited:
Why not? You would have objected to a reporter sitting down with Hitler and asking him tough questions about his attempted takeover of Europe. Throwing the Treaty of Versailles on the table and calling him out for violating the same? It’s easy for these types to sit back and give speeches. Much more difficult when they are called out in interviews for their lies....because they never are.
Maybe a hard interview or two and there wouldnt have been as many sympathizers and admirers in our govt..
^Dumb. Many people called Hitler out, many people asked him difficult questions. People like him and Putin are expert at turning difficult questions into propoganda by exploiting false narratives and lying by omission. Carleson has already signaled that he’s adopted Putin’s narratives as fact during his introduction to the interview.
Last edited:
Only a die hard Putin fan would have come away from watching his interview with Chris Wallace believing he came across in a positive light. Guess you apparently thought that interview helped him.
It did nothing against him other than give him an avenue to spread his narrative. It doesn’t even matter if Chris Wallace called him a liar to his face.
Moreover, Tucker Carlson couldn’t hold Chris Wallace’s jock strap in terms of journalistic integrity.
Almost every media outlet and commentator disagrees with your assessment including the Washington Post. Tells me you’re on the wrong side here. Experts believed Putin came across poorly but you thought he did well….weird.
Last edited:
I don't think aston was commenting on whether he came across as positive or negative . He was commenting on how much damage that did to him, which was none. You are preaching to the choir with an interview like this. The people that hate him continue to hate him, and those that don't, don't pay attention to an interview like this.
This wouldn't be viewed by most of the Russian populace which is who needs to see it. If he is going to be brought down, it is by his own country's populace and/or oligarchies. I doubt many countries population will have any effect on their government's approach to Putin either. The country that is for him is probably an autocracy. Their media is saturated with a bunch of propaganda and is government controlled anyway. So the masses won't see this interview. And even if they did see it, they have no control over their countries international relations anyway. Xi, Orban, Unny, etc, don't give a crap what the people in their country think unless a revolution seems imminent.
So it doesn't really affect Putin in any real way.
I was speaking of how the 2018 interview played with the Western audience. I thought questions were asked which needed to be asked. I thought Putin struggled to answer those questions. The only scenario which Putin will ever be forced to publicly answer those questions is an interview with a western interviewer. I’m not a fan of allowing people like Putin to control the narrative. At least in the 2018 interview he was called out and lost his ability albeit briefly of his ability to control the message. No clue what access the Russian public will have to the interview via social media and other interweb sites. However, to claim it was dumb to interview Putin as Aston did has no bases in the reality of that interview.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think you are addressing two different things though. How a western audience views that interview and whether it addresses things that western audience needs to know, doesn't mean that Putin is affected by it negatively. Which is what aston seemed to be commenting on. That the interview reflected poorly on Putin doesn't really affect him.
You don’t believe the more negatively the American people view Putin the greater likelyhood the US keeps pumping money into what appears to be a never ending war in Ukraine? To that extent, I do believe coming off poorly in an interview with a western journalist affects him as I believe his Ukrainian strategy at this point is time and attrition.
You are going back and forth in time and interviewers, which affects how the Americans would be affected by it, and what effect it would have on our foreign policy then and or now. I'm going to go present tense since that's all that can be changed.
I would hope the way the Americans view him would be affected. But I doubt it would affect our policy in the form of aid and/or sanctions. The politicians trying to block aid to Ukraine are not affected by the common American's views. The only Americans that are being focused on by the politicians leading up to this withholding of aid, is the far right voters. I don't think those voters would change their mind unless Trump, Gaetz, Boebart, Taylor-Greene, etc started speaking out about it and changed their stance. And they are the ones who are leading the policy. Why would they do that.
The Republican party is being led by these politicians, and these voters like a dog on a leash. You see what very conservative congressman Lankford from our own state is having on this situation. He doesn't seem to be affecting it in any way, considering he helped write the bill, and it is going nowhere. He got concessions that Democrats would have been loath to give at any other time.
First, Carlson is no longer a journalist. He is a propaganda-ist. He wouldn't ask the hard question unless he was under torture or being blackmailed. It cuts into his ego, his pocketbook, and his political future.(lust for power) Now if some other journalist with credibility like Wallace were to ask those questions today, what would it do?
As I said before, I don't think it would do anything. The politicians and voters that have us on a chain wouldn't be swayed. They don't want to be swayed, nor would they let themselves be swayed. The things that normal Americans would be swayed by are attractants to those politicians, and can be easily manipulated by those politicians, that the opinions of those voters wouldn't be changed in any significant ways.
I stated up front that I would only support such an interview if it were along the lines of the Chris Wallace one.
I wasn't contradicting you, I was just putting what I thought of Carlson in the stratosphere. If it came across as contradictory, my apologies.
I have gone past the point of carrying about Putin’s answers to any question, because I know no matter what question he is asked, he will spin it into a justification for his actions, no matter how many fallacies or omissions he uses to do it. Or he will deflect. And the problem isn’t that you or I know he is lying, it’s that there are a lot of people who don’t know enough to tell the difference and just go along believing his answers.
He’s playing for the least common denominator because their votes count for just as much as mine does but there are more of them.
It’s also a bit different to interview someone when we are now seriously involved in an Armed conflict with them…. Not that we weren’t adversarial before, but post the general invasion of Ukraine, things have certainly changed.
I am just going to say I dont think one media outlet is ever going to say he looked positive in the interview. Can you imagine the backlash they would receive with the general public if they did that? So no matter what all media outlets will say he came off in a negative light...With that said I do agree with what Aston was saying that it really didnt matter to Putin himself how he came off.
I can't believe Trump is ragging on having Haley's husband there at events in SC and other places, when Melania is nowhere to be seen. Haley's husband couldn't be there if he wanted to, he's deployed is South Africa in the National Guard. Is Trump completely ignorant of this, or does he think the press won't report on it, or the saps that watch him won't pay attention to those reports.
I don't get how he can make ignorant remarks like this. In normal times this would piss off the core constituency that he relies on the most to carry him. A rural more agrarian, and more religious constituency is generally the types of the public to be the most fervently affected by insults to those serving. SMH at the bs he gets away with over republican fears at being outnumbered by minorities, immigrants, and Democrats.
I don't get how he can make ignorant remarks like this. In normal times this would piss off the core constituency that he relies on the most to carry him. A rural more agrarian, and more religious constituency is generally the types of the public to be the most fervently affected by insults to those serving. SMH at the bs he gets away with over republican fears at being outnumbered by minorities, immigrants, and Democrats.
She should have said "where is Melania? The woman that won't even hold Donald's hand without a legal contract."
Last edited:
Smirnov has something in common with Steele. (Not a reference to the vodka brand.) False reporting.(speculative according to Steele)
Steele can say that it was speculation and have a disagreement with what some others believe to be true. Don't think Smirnov can make that argument. If the things he said happened were at a later time than he stated that they happened, there isn't much room for the speculative excuse. He is either intentionally or unintentionally wrong. I'm guessing at intentionally.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-02-16/a-chaotic-us-house-is-losing-three-republican-committee-chairs-to-retirement-in-the-span-of-a-week
Several party chair persons are retiring from congress. Nearly two dozen republican senators and representatives are retiring, compared to approximatively 1/3 the number of democrats. If we keep doing this,(it has already happened two or three times) the congress will have increased a minor minority to a major minority of Gaetz's.
They have already found ways to increase their power way beyond what it should be with their small #'s.(House speaker, one man wrecking crew-Gaetz, public pressure etc, etc.) What will we do when several more get elected in the wake of retirements. Do those retiring expect somebody else will come in and swim against the current to get elected to the person's seats. They must be fully aware that a bunch more freaks like Gaetz will run, and more often than not, win. If we're not careful, they may eventually be the majority of republicans.
This is more of DT's replacing the swamp with his own much more repulsive swamp. Many of the retirees are under 60. This is not them retiring because of their age. The more who give in, the harder it is for others to stay and fight the good fight. I would think not letting those types encroach on congress' #'s even more, would give them reason to stay.
Is the party conference so overrun with maga that they can threaten chair persons without suffering for it. If it's that way now it will only be worse in the future. Chairmen leaving seems like throwing in the white flag to the maga types. The bigger the minority, the easier it is to put pressure on congress, get more chairs to give up their power, and to get more retirements. Maybe I'm blind as to how this minority can already disintegrate their power into nothing, if they stay? I would think they would still have some power.
Several party chair persons are retiring from congress. Nearly two dozen republican senators and representatives are retiring, compared to approximatively 1/3 the number of democrats. If we keep doing this,(it has already happened two or three times) the congress will have increased a minor minority to a major minority of Gaetz's.
They have already found ways to increase their power way beyond what it should be with their small #'s.(House speaker, one man wrecking crew-Gaetz, public pressure etc, etc.) What will we do when several more get elected in the wake of retirements. Do those retiring expect somebody else will come in and swim against the current to get elected to the person's seats. They must be fully aware that a bunch more freaks like Gaetz will run, and more often than not, win. If we're not careful, they may eventually be the majority of republicans.
This is more of DT's replacing the swamp with his own much more repulsive swamp. Many of the retirees are under 60. This is not them retiring because of their age. The more who give in, the harder it is for others to stay and fight the good fight. I would think not letting those types encroach on congress' #'s even more, would give them reason to stay.
Is the party conference so overrun with maga that they can threaten chair persons without suffering for it. If it's that way now it will only be worse in the future. Chairmen leaving seems like throwing in the white flag to the maga types. The bigger the minority, the easier it is to put pressure on congress, get more chairs to give up their power, and to get more retirements. Maybe I'm blind as to how this minority can already disintegrate their power into nothing, if they stay? I would think they would still have some power.
Last edited:
So now Biden is contemplating using an Executive order at the border. The media is expecting some big backlash over this by politicians. No, there will be no backlash except from a few Democrats.
This is part of the game. You don't let Biden have a win on the aid & border policy. Biden illegally does what Trump tried to do.(with no serious backlash) Then Trump comes into office with implicit permission from the Democrats to do what he tried to do the last time he was in office.
It's still illegal, but everybody does it anyway. It doesn't truly solve some of the main issues about the border, that need new laws, but everybody just uses it as a workaround solution that doesn't address the main issues that need to be addressed.
This is part of the game. You don't let Biden have a win on the aid & border policy. Biden illegally does what Trump tried to do.(with no serious backlash) Then Trump comes into office with implicit permission from the Democrats to do what he tried to do the last time he was in office.
It's still illegal, but everybody does it anyway. It doesn't truly solve some of the main issues about the border, that need new laws, but everybody just uses it as a workaround solution that doesn't address the main issues that need to be addressed.
On the IVF issue. Alabama outlaws abortion at any point unless the life of the mother is in danger. Florida has an fairly extreme 6 week rule. Several people in Florida want to adopt measures that recognize this Alabama cases ruling. I think it's kind of ironic that recognizing this cases ruling would make all abortion illegal, period. So pro lifers have found a case that helps them to change the law once again, eliminate abortion even as early as six weeks or less. Hardly any articles mention this, but an IVF embryo is at the point of gestation of less than 3 weeks. Calling it a person eliminates that from mattering though.
The problem for all presidents is that our immigration laws are decades out of date and don't allow the measures that the states and Congress insist be taken. The steps a President can legally take are limited and insufficient to deal with the problem. When Presidents do act, their actions are then challenged legally. The House Republicans current refusal to allow a vote on the bi-partisan Senate immigration Senate bill to give the executive branch more tools just because Donald Trump wants to blame Biden is sick, but it has become a key Republican strategy. In 2013 the Republican House did exactly the same thing: ignored a bi-partisan Senate bill to update immigration law. The House Republicans said that instead of voting on the bill, they would come up with one of their own. They never did and the bill died.
Question….there’s a legitimate case to be made that the current situation at the border is an emergency. Look at the number of migrants crossing and the number of migrants who have crossed over the past year plus our inability to deal with the same. When has the Supreme Court ruled an EO’s which limits the number of migrants entering the country to be unconstitutional ?
Last edited:
That is a band aid at best.
Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that issue as far as I know. But that's not the problem, and does nothing to stop the causes of the problem. The problem is there are other issues besides just limiting the # who enter, that are the reasons for the present # entering being so staggering. It is Congresses inaction that has made this into a problem. It should be Congress solving the problem.
As soon as Biden uses the band aid/gives Trump permission, Trump will shut down any immigrants entering when he wins. Trump has no guard rails his second term. That has been made most obvious by his comments on Russia.
I was specifically responding to your comment that the EO would be illegal. I didn’t believe there to be any legal precedent for that statement.
I agree it is Congress job. I disagree that Biden using an EO to help with the border crisis gives Trump permission. It in fact has zero effect. Trump will use an EO on any issue (as do most Presidents of late) regardless of whether their predecessor used the same or not. I personally would be in favor of shutting down or greatly reducing the under of immigrants entering the county until we can properly accommodate them. The large increases in numbers we’ve seen over the past year is something we were not prepared to handle.
Google push pull factors.
The United States cannot solve every problem alone.
The President of the United States cannot side step bureaucracy and solve every problem with executive orders.
People are going to enter between ports of entry until there is a wall that cannot be scaled or dug under from coast to coast. Then they will arrive by boat and improvised aircraft. Or via land in Canada who lately seems eager to allow that to happen.
Even if you could catch them all, which you can’t, most are people that the countries they are leaving from simply don’t want back.
Biden can pretend to try and clean up his mess with cleverly worded documents that people who have never worked anywhere except Congress and the West Wing think will solve the problem - at least the domestic political campaign problem.
The fact will remain that you can order the planes to be filled, but they have to have a place to land and a country willing to accept them back.
The fact will remain that people will risk their lives to gain entry into the United States to avoid going to prison or being conscripted into gangs in sufficient numbers to threaten this country.
The fact will remain that people will smuggle because only one run can change their lives and the risk is low. Much lower than your family being threatened by the cartels if you don’t.
The fact remains that more people entered illegally and falsely claiming asylum that is unsupported by factual evidence establishing credible fear during the Biden Administration than the entire population of New York City. If gathered into one geographical region they would make the country’s 10th largest state.
You can’t have sustained numbers that size “Remain in Mexico.” It’s not feasible. And only destabilizes Mexico.
Biden can’t solve the problem with an executive order. Though he might take certain items off the table as they attempt to horse trade immigration “reform” for Ukraine aid. Lord knows Germany isn’t pulling their weight.
As a practical matter, they likely think they can issue executive orders that tone down Trump era border controls and address issues that don’t play well with female voters, while largely adopting the Title 42 and Remain in Mexico policies of 2018-2020. Then have their friends sue him in a friendly federal court like Hawaii or DC to enjoin those orders. Then Biden can claim he tried to fix it in Congress and they stopped him. Then he tried to stop it on his own and the courts stopped him. Thinking that will give him a pass with voters in the fall. The only problem with that strategy is that it will waste millions of dollars in legal fees paid for by the taxpayer on a political stunt while leaving Biden looking like the tired, old, impotent and unaware man that he is.
The United States cannot solve every problem alone.
The President of the United States cannot side step bureaucracy and solve every problem with executive orders.
People are going to enter between ports of entry until there is a wall that cannot be scaled or dug under from coast to coast. Then they will arrive by boat and improvised aircraft. Or via land in Canada who lately seems eager to allow that to happen.
Even if you could catch them all, which you can’t, most are people that the countries they are leaving from simply don’t want back.
Biden can pretend to try and clean up his mess with cleverly worded documents that people who have never worked anywhere except Congress and the West Wing think will solve the problem - at least the domestic political campaign problem.
The fact will remain that you can order the planes to be filled, but they have to have a place to land and a country willing to accept them back.
The fact will remain that people will risk their lives to gain entry into the United States to avoid going to prison or being conscripted into gangs in sufficient numbers to threaten this country.
The fact will remain that people will smuggle because only one run can change their lives and the risk is low. Much lower than your family being threatened by the cartels if you don’t.
The fact remains that more people entered illegally and falsely claiming asylum that is unsupported by factual evidence establishing credible fear during the Biden Administration than the entire population of New York City. If gathered into one geographical region they would make the country’s 10th largest state.
You can’t have sustained numbers that size “Remain in Mexico.” It’s not feasible. And only destabilizes Mexico.
Biden can’t solve the problem with an executive order. Though he might take certain items off the table as they attempt to horse trade immigration “reform” for Ukraine aid. Lord knows Germany isn’t pulling their weight.
As a practical matter, they likely think they can issue executive orders that tone down Trump era border controls and address issues that don’t play well with female voters, while largely adopting the Title 42 and Remain in Mexico policies of 2018-2020. Then have their friends sue him in a friendly federal court like Hawaii or DC to enjoin those orders. Then Biden can claim he tried to fix it in Congress and they stopped him. Then he tried to stop it on his own and the courts stopped him. Thinking that will give him a pass with voters in the fall. The only problem with that strategy is that it will waste millions of dollars in legal fees paid for by the taxpayer on a political stunt while leaving Biden looking like the tired, old, impotent and unaware man that he is.
Last edited:
Trump tried to use an EO's that were illegal. And he will try again to use EO's that are illegal, especially if Biden uses any EO's for immigration purposes. I guarantee you he will use that as justification. And if you don't think he will, I direct your attention to the millions of things he did that nobody would have expected him to do or attempted to do.(many of which were illegal) He just threatened Allies that he would stand by and watch actions by Russia on those allies, if they didn't pay. That's against the rules of the rules of the Nato Treaty. He's threatening to take militant action, and go into neighborhoods with masses of ice agents to send massive amounts of illegal immigrants back to their countries. That is an impossible task, and other countries won't take them back. Once they get past the border, extreme measures like this will fail. It would threaten legal immigrants with the measures they would have to take as well.
Here's the things I can remember off the top of my head:
* He did an EO that didn't allow legal immigrants back in the country even though they had proper documentation. He backed off while the EO was in the courts, waiting to be ruled on.(EO rejected at the Federal Appeals Court/Not yet gone to the Supreme Court)
* He used an EO to build the wall, when it should have had to be legislated by Congress to spend that kind of money for an immigrant deterrent. But he found surreptitious ways around it, and lied that Mexico would be paying for it. He failed to find the money to fully fund it, because it should have been legislated.
* He restricted humanitarian protections, some of which were illegal. He expanded building of detention cells and separated children from their families, which had an injunction ordered against the policy by the courts.
____________________________________________________________________________
He had nearly 475 EOs on immigration. I don't want to sift through all of those EO's so I just highlighted the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Also, the justices on the Supreme Court swung in his favor since he tried a lot of these actions. They might let one or two slide by with some justification that they can swallow.
Last edited:
You make it sound as if nothing will really work to slow it down. So let's just let em all in? I don't think so. There is no cleverly worded segments in the bill that do nothing, unless Lankford let them in for what reason?
ignorance...
for appearances sake, simply to fool the voters...
or what?
When the Republicans were in power but lacked a majority, they demanded these concessions, and failed to get them. When they had the majority, they never got around to trying to pass the bill. They likely didn't write it because they didn't feel like they could get it passed with a slim majority.
So when the Democrats are willing to pass a bill that gives up all of these major concessions, suddenly the story changes? Now it's not needed? Or according to what you seem to say, nothing can be done, so we might as well just ignore it. That contradicts most republicans from congress in the recent past.
Once again, are you saying these demands were simply being voiced for appearances sake? So one of the parties main agendas was simply put out there to appease the masses? All they wanted to do was make it appear as if the GOP was going to accomplish something? I wouldn't put it past either party to try and pull this stunt, but I hardly think they would, with such a major party position.
Sure they want it for a campaign point. But they won't give it when they don't have any motivation to do so. If you win, why would they give in to all of these concessions?
Last edited:
I would argue by giving those examples of Trump using EO’s on immigration only strengthens my position that he will use them again regardless of whether Biden used an EO to address the current border crisis. In short…he won’t care. It is who he is.
Biden has zero issues with handing out unconstitutional EOs so that certainly shouldn’t be a problem given the legality of declaring an emergency at the border and issuing an EO can at least be somewhat justified from a legal standpoint.
Last edited:
Yeah, lack of detention space really requires action from congress. Just like Trump had trouble funding the wall, so would Biden have trouble funding additional detention space, and additional staff to attend to it. Biden might be able to work around funding better than Trump did. Considering additional detention space could be less costly than the wall, but it really needs congress to act.
