- Date published:
5:30 pm, February 22nd, 2018 - 55 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Listen to this and weep:
And Trump’s response? Arm the teachers. Arm the security guards. Arm everyone in sight…
God defend the planet from this ape!
I watched it earlier on this afternoon Anne, I was struck by the grace and eloquence of everyone apart from Trump, unlike those in the room I wouldn’t have been able to control myself, he really is beyond description.
I can’t imagine any other president in my memory who would’ve been so appalling in a similar situation.
Everthing’s a photo-op.
BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday released the following statement on Russian government interference in U.S. elections:
“It is now clear to everyone that agents of the Russian government were, in a disgusting and dangerous manner, actively interfering in the 2016 elections in an effort to defeat Secretary Hillary Clinton. Based on media reports they intend to interfere in the mid-term elections of 2018. There has also been extensive reporting on the Russian government’s interference in European elections.
“All of this conduct taken together is a direct assault on the free democratic systems that stand in contrast to the autocratic, nationalistic kleptocracy of Vladimir Putin and his backers in the Russian oligarchy. Sadly, despite all this evidence, the only person who seems to be unconcerned about the subversion of democracy is our own president Donald Trump. Russian interference in both the 2016 primary and general election is unacceptable and everything possible must be done to ensure it does not happen again. No candidate, whether Secretary Clinton or anyone else, should have to wage an electoral contest in the face of foreign government intervention. The same is true of other kinds of interference the Russians engaged in, including posing as supporters of the social justice movement Black Lives Matter or members of the American Muslim community.
“Let there be no confusion about my view. What the Russians did in the 2016 election cycle deserves unconditional condemnation. That includes all of their conduct — whether it was active support of any candidate or active opposition to any candidate or the decision to not go after a candidate as a way of hurting or helping another campaign. This is true of any of the 2016 campaigns, including those of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or my own. As someone who campaigned hard for Secretary Clinton from one end of this country to another, it is an outrage that she had to run against not only Donald Trump but also the Russian government. All Americans rightly expected and deserved a fair election free of foreign governmental intervention. The key issues now are two: how we prevent the unwitting manipulation of the electoral and political system of our country by foreign governments; and exposing who was actively consorting with the Russian government’s attack on our democracy.”
“All countries rightly expected and deserved a fair election free of foreign governmental intervention. The key issues now are two: how we prevent the unwitting manipulation of the electoral and political system of other countries by the CIA on behalf of the USA Government ; and exposing who was actively consorting with the American government’s attack on the democracy of countries like Iraq, or Afghanistan or Bolivia or …”.
Despite blowback at home because of his stance, Sanders has spent decades severely criticising American foreign policy.
Although to be fair, he’s always been pretty fucking feeble over Israel with his support of settlements and IDF tactics.
This afternoon some Brit on Radionz was trying to raise doubts about Jeremy Corbyn. Here is a link to the Sun that seems to echo his tone.
“JEREMY CORBYN last night lashed out at the press for reporting on his Communist links – but still ignored key questions about his past.
The Labour leader threatened the media in a video rant shared with his followers online.”
The Guardian says evidence says no Jeremy is not a spy.
The Telegraph says”
“Corbyn’s ‘patriotism’ questioned amid mounting pressure to release files on meetings with Communist spy ”
For more on this:
Yes Ianmac add in Vietnam and Cambodia to the US meddling list. And of course dear old Boris Yeltsin sure was “close”.
What blinkered creatures we can be.
That looks like Colonel Sanders towing the party line.
Leader of the US Green Party says:
“It doesn’t pass the laugh test…”
and just listen to how totally ridiculous the media questioning is.
Oh, so now the Bern’s a member of the deep-state establishment, too?
He’s on the same side as an insane msnbc host, so yep.
Well Stein certainly came unstuck and protested way too much to be taken seriously.
Really that’s what you got, not stupid questions by the interviewer.
My guess you miss the bit where the interviewer admitted that MSNBC had effectively spent billions promoting trump, via free air time. And it was OK, because it was not a russian.
EDIT: Let me get a clarification joe90, you’re running with the women is hysterical so she is telling lies, argument?
This Russia conspiracy theory keeps rolling on.
Sheesh I wonder when you lot will have had enough of it.
Tonight one of the democratic senators was on msnbc comparing it pearl harbour, this is beyond a joke.
It’s well into lala land.
Adrian Chen, name you might want to look at… He a journalist, wrote somthing three years ago – but hey, what the hell.
So you reckon Bern’s part of the of the deep-state establishment, too?.
You said it yourself, J90…
pretty fucking feeble…
That’s a odd comment joe90, a bit like the whole topic really. Odd, paranoid, and not just a little bit daft at this point.
Lol, Bennett and Collins unfavourable.
Wonder who would have been the subscribers to that table. I found that whether to answer as a Labour supporter or as a National; supporter would alter things – drastically.
Universal poll 🙂
Todd Muller highly unfavourable!
In April last year Evolution 4.0 (predictive software with high accuracy) put the odds of a civil war in the US around 75% and they even highlighted about 20 cities that were most at risk.
Not surprising when you see the stark contrast in descriptions of what people think is occurring.
Here is a very different view than that commonly listed here.
You really need to define what is meant by ‘civil war’ in a 21st century context.
The actual 19th century American civil war was a split in the elite ruling class (over slavery and states’ rights), with defined geographical boundaries (secessionist states) and with each side having the industrial capacity to manufacture arms, bring together armies and have set-piece artillery and cavalry battles. It was really like a war between two different countries, the South elected it’s own president and the North inevitably won because of greater population and industrial strength.
None of these things applies in 21st century USA – at most you could argue that Trump is causing some sort of split in elite opinion but it seems pretty weak in comparison to 1861-64.
So how does ‘civil war’ even occur under these conditions? You probably mean ‘revolution’ not civil war, but that’s highly implausible too.
Strippers in China must have extraordinary marketing (funerals, weddings…)
Sounds like bullshit to me, Chinas the home of you’ve got the money, you can have whatever you want.
You think? William Yan aka Bill Liu would’ve stayed if it was. China is complicated.
I’d say the entire planet is the home of that, not just China.
Best minister in the government.
Read On, McDuff.
I’m trying to see how that aligns with increasing police numbers, which one assumes will lead to more incarceration. Opposed to further addressing poverty, which, of course, is a driver of crime. And also reflects on the high number of Maori inside.
Enforcement isn’t necessarily a linear relationship of a fixed volume of crime so more cops = more resolution = more sentences of the same proportions as today.
E.g. more police = more attention to lower priority crime = more resolution of offenses at lower end = earlier intervention point for people going off the rails. So more offences, but after the initial resolution spike the offences have more community level punishments.
E.g. more time to think about how to address a recurring problem household before someone gets stabbed.
E.g. more police = more patrols = more deterrence = less crime
“Enforcement isn’t necessarily a linear relationship of a fixed volume of crime so more cops = more resolution = more sentences of the same proportions as today.”
More sentences of the same proportions as today = a larger number (than currently) going to jail.
And the volume of crime isn’t fixed.
An increase in police numbers doesn’t necessarily mean more attention will be solely going towards lower priority crime. Especially with all these dairies being robbed.
More police = more patrols = more deterrence = less crime in the area targeted, perhaps. Fixed it for you.
Your determination to construct pessimism with a complete absence of justification once again wins through.
I didn’t say “solely”. But if you have police availble to arrive on scene when the crime is still “assault” rather than “murder” (which still has a decent clearance rate these days), that’s going to be a maximin seven years rather than a minimum 12, innit.
“But if you have police availble to arrive on scene when the crime is still ‘assault’ rather than “murder” (which still has a decent clearance rate these days), that’s going to be a maximin seven years rather than a minimum 12, innit.”
It still results in time having to be served. As it fails to address the reason for the dispute that led to the confrontation, which in many cases is poverty related.
The timing of Little’s announcement comes as corrections is at near full capacity. Down to around 300 beds to spare.
Early releases? More double bunking? Or a new prison?
What will Labour do?
Less prisoners held on remand. More community service sentences. As the current prisoners reach normal parole or release conditions.
One of the questions it will address is systemic racism in the system. So less tendency to lock up Maori. Less prisoners.
Again, you want to know what people will do when you don’t know if there’ll be anything they have to do in the first place.
Apart from relaxing sentencing law, prisoners held on remand and who is given community service sentences is up to the courts to decide.
And will relaxing sentencing law be enough at this stage to meet the urgency?
“One of the questions it will address is systemic racism in the system. So less tendency to lock up Maori.”
And how exactly will Little ensure that works in day to day policing? And will that systemic change happen fast enough to meet the current urgency?
Moreover, will less targeting of Maori merely be offset by the targeting of others? They’ll have to fill their time somehow.
🙄 If they’re in on assault rather than murder charges, I suspect the courts might be less likely to hold them on remand until the trial.
As for what Little will do, I’ve no idea. But I’m sure you’ll find something in it that will concern you.
I think you might have forgotten to criticise the Greens for not issuing a press release about it, too. Slip your mind, concern-o-bot?
“If they’re in on assault rather than murder charges, I suspect the courts might be less likely to hold them on remand until the trial.”
Speculation. Each case will be judged on its own standing.
“As for what Little will do, I’ve no idea. But I’m sure you’ll find something in it that will concern you.”
That all depends on what he decides to do.
“I think you might have forgotten to criticise the Greens for not issuing a press release about it, too. Slip your mind, concern-o-bot?”
Not at all. As I previously told you, I don’t pull them up every time they fail to gain media cut through by failing to issue a press release.
But I would advise them to be more media savvy as part of upping their game.
Speaking of the Greens, seen Matthew Whitehead about?
Speculator discounts other people’s speculation. Is easily distracted. lol
“I didn’t say ‘solely’.”
No, you didn’t. But the point is with violent crime on the increase, in reality, what percentage to you envision going on low priority crime?
I didn’t “envision” percentages. But if someone calls the cops, I suspect more cops means a quicker response time. Which means the incidents the cops attend will, overall, have a lower level of charges. Yes, there will still be serious crimes. But catching little shits doing beatings before the fuckwit in the group starts jumping on heads is just as likely as simply having a better clearance rate on the exact same level of offences.
Like I said, your concern about more cops meaning a greater strain on prison capacity is based on nothing.
You’re simply hypothesising only scenarios that will raise concern points, excluding scenarios that will have positive outcomes. Yet again.
I didn’t “envision” percentages.
I know. Which is why I asked. Evidently, there is a lot you fail to envision.
“I suspect more cops means a quicker response time.”
You do know calls are prioritised? And while their all busy dealing with the increase in violent crime, low priority calls get served last.
“Like I said, your concern about more cops meaning a greater strain on prison capacity is based on nothing.”
No, it’s based on the issues highlighted above, a number of which you have failed to address.
“You’re simply hypothesising only scenarios that will raise concern points, excluding scenarios that will have positive outcomes.”
What I’m highlighting is the positives are not as great as you imply and the down side may outweigh them. But clearly you don’t want to hear that. It’s all to depressing.
You had literally zero positives in your original list of hypothetical concerns. I added some positive hypotheticals. If any of your hypotheticals become actuals, you will have no solutions. Labour will, though. If any of mine become actuals, then gosh, there’s no fucking problem at all.
The failure begins and ends with you.
“You had literally zero positives in your original list of hypothetical concerns”.
Of course. That’s because more police largely addresses the symptom and not the cause.
“ I added some positive hypotheticals”.
Which my questioning poked large gaping holes through, leading to them crumbling and you resorting to your usual MO, playing the man and not the ball. Bully boy.
Thus the failure is all yours.
Hypotheticals can’t have gaping holes. They’re hypothetical. Your negatives were hypothetical. My positives were hypothetical. But you’re still concerned.
Well, nobody else has responded to you, so I might as well leave it, too. You don’t seem to have made anyone else concerned.
Failure to concern is all yours.
The concerns are there regardless if people fail to see them. Remember, we live in the land of pineapple lumps, thus people aren’t that quick around here, which explains why the country has become such a mess. Most didn’t see it coming.
As for the perhaps, it could just result in more being caught, thus more being sentenced to jail, depending on the offence committed.
I am starting to think Michael Ruppert was correct.
Collapse is coming.
Most people were first exposed to Michael Ruppert through the 2009 documentary, Collapse. It was one of the scariest documentaries about our world and the fragile the state of our planet.
What makes it so scary is that Ruppert is correct in his statements.
As he says,
I am starting to think Guy McPherson is correct.
Collapse is coming.
As Rachel Stewart says
“Keep worrying about stupid shit, people. ”
Oh look, UMR is polling on leaders the correct way, with favourable/unfavourable! Good on them. This is what happens when you give polling to companies who do internals as opposed to just media polls all the time, lol.
A couple of UK based pieces to ponder….
“How badly all this ends depends crucially on how Trump reacts to a current account which is failing to behave as he would have wished, but is instead obeying basic laws of economics. If he lashes out with a fully fledged Smoot-Hawley type protectionist agenda, then everyone is in real trouble.”
A looming trade war might just be justification for a multi country trade agreement (flaws and all)
“World stock markets are in retreat this morning, after America’s central bank dropped a clear hint that interest rates will rise steadily this year.
In the minutes of its last meeting, released last night, the Federal Reserve revealed that several policymakers are more optimistic about the US economy, and have raised their growth forecasts.
This suggests they are likely to hike borrowing costs four times this year – more than many in the markets had expected.”
the volatility looks set to continue..
I just watched BBC NEWS And the USA
national rifle association what ever his title is could not look straight he keept moving his head he is worried who’s got the rubber rings for him
ECO MAORI has some.
He tries to justify the gun laws in the USA. What about all the needless lives lost because of his organisation he tangata he tangata its the people that count to me.
Than he makes a statement that they would pay any school to arm the teachers
OR the security guard. Now that statement let’s everyone know they are the 00.1% Ruling class who don’t care about the people they only care about $$$$$$ and control of the 99.9%.
Keep protesting against this unhumane organisation this will force changes to the US gun laws Ana to kai Ka kite ano
Protesters PS I was having a bad day yesterday than I found a article about Changes to Atoearoa policy to a more humane society. Ka pai
An intelligent analysis of CPTTP (or whatever its now called)…..although too late now for this agreement the points raised would be well applied to any future agreements (though unlikely considering the religious fervour of those involved)….as we need to trade (wait for it) then at least we should have a rational discussion about the trade offs we are prepared to accept as GC writes…..
“Where does that leave us? Hopefully, with a more balanced debate on trade, and one that encompasses both its genuine benefits and its equally as real downsides. Otherwise, if we insist on living in denial about the risks that’ free’ trade poses, we will almost certainly be hit by them. Ultimately, why should we trust the same sort of people who told us the 1980s economic reforms would likewise be a win/win for all of us?”
Sadly, much like the issue of migration I wouldnt advise anyone holding their breath in expectation.