Random Political comments...

[Bliss]

Well, yeah, I've been following the story on CNN international and BBC World news. I know it was a coup d'etat. Mugabe has reigned since independence 40 Years ago. Enough is enough.

Well, it appears all is forgiven (despite murdering 20,000 tribesmen).

********
'...Addressing the Zimbabwe's newly sworn-in President Emmerson Mnangagwa praised outgoing leader Robert Mugabe as 'the father of the nation' during his inauguration address on Friday.

This despite news emerging overnight that Mugabe was told by the new leadership team his involvement in the massacring of 20,000 tribespeople would be exposed if he did not volunteer to resign.

'Let me at this stage pay tribute to one of the, and the only surviving, founding fathers of our nation, comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe,' Mnangagwa said in front of a crowd of tens of thousands at his inauguration ceremony.

'Let us all accept and acknowledge his immense contribution to the building of our nation.'

Mnangagwa vowed to tackle corruption synonymous with Mugabe's long reign, saying that 'the culture of government must change, and change now."

 

[andreboba]

No l'm not defending it.. I'm asking questions when rules are altered and simply looking deeper into it because l never blindly accept Liberal hysteria headlines like you and Beasty do. I'm not a knee-jerk puppet to MSM headlines.

Researching the possible changes, l was surprised to learn that we've never had net neutrality ( or at least for a long time).
I keep telling you we are the last to know.

If you want to understand the dynamics of how we get our data, this article is an eye opener..

Net neutrality is fiction no matter what the FCC does
By Shira Ovide

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-11-21/net-neutrality-already-ended

Bliss, did you read the linked article??
It has very little to do with net neutrality and instead discusses the competitive advantages large ISP companies already have over smaller providers in distributing data to their customers.

The writers points out large web service companies in their own way restrict or provide greater access to web content through faster connections, or through fees.

The end of net neutrality is on a completely different level of impact when we're talking about internet access.

Basically, large internet providers can tier pricing, speed and access to the internet. And you as the consumer have no other choice but to accept their terms.

This is going to be seismic shift in how people use the internet and I don't think most people are ready for there to be 'toll booths' that have to be entered just to surf the Web.

Stop making everything liberal or conservative. Every concern in the U.S. isn't about political tribalism or a zero sum game.
This is a digital rights issue for consumers and a question about whether or not large ISP companies have the right to decide where and how fast we're allowed to go on the internet.

Imagine if you had to pay a fee every time you visited a site on the internet?? In many ways this is what companies like Comcast and Cox Communications are going to be able to do, monetize your surfing by deciding how fast your internet service is based on the sites you visit.

And if you want speedier access to sites your provider thinks you should pay more to visit, pay their fee.

The reason many pro business interests are in favor of ending net neutrality is because it would be a huge financial windfall for anyone who owns stocks in web service companies. Think of Comcast stock suddenly quadrupling in value.

Good for the mutual fund manager and the investment banker.
Not really that great for the average American.

There isn't one benefit on the consumer end that you can argue would occur by ending net neutrality.

U.S. consumers have been getting screwed on internet access and speeds anyway by the big service providers. Americans really don't know what high speed internet access really looks like. Now you're going end net neutrality...for whose benefit exactly??

Per usual, Americans pay more for less, like our healthcare for instance, than any other country in the world.

 

[Bliss]

Bliss, did you read the linked article??
It has very little to do with net neutrality and instead discusses the competitive advantages large ISP companies already have over smaller providers in distributing data to their customers.

The writers points out large web service companies in their own way restrict or provide greater access to web content through faster connections, or through fees.

The end of net neutrality is on a completely different level of impact when we're talking about internet access.

Basically, large internet providers can tier pricing, speed and access to the internet. And you as the consumer have no other choice but to accept their terms.

This is going to be seismic shift in how people use the internet and I don't think most people are ready for there to be 'toll booths' that have to be entered just to surf the Web.

Stop making everything liberal or conservative. Every concern in the U.S. isn't about political tribalism or a zero sum game.
This is a digital rights issue for consumers and a question about whether or not large ISP companies have the right to decide where and how fast we're allowed to go on the internet.

Imagine if you had to pay a fee every time you visited a site on the internet?? In many ways this is what companies like Comcast and Cox Communications are going to be able to do, monetize your surfing by deciding how fast your internet service is based on the sites you visit.

And if you want speedier access to sites your provider thinks you should pay more to visit, pay their fee.

The reason many pro business interests are in favor of ending net neutrality is because it would be a huge financial windfall for anyone who owns stocks in web service companies. Think of Comcast stock suddenly quadrupling in value.

Good for the mutual fund manager and the investment banker.
Not really that great for the average American.

There isn't one benefit on the consumer end that you can argue would occur by ending net neutrality.

U.S. consumers have been getting screwed on internet access and speeds anyway by the big service providers. Americans really don't know what high speed internet access really looks like. Now you're going end net neutrality...for whose benefit exactly??

Per usual, Americans pay more for less, like our healthcare for instance, than any other country in the world.

Of course I read the article, I don't post anything I don't read first.

The point of the article is that we have been restricted with access for years nothing is going to change. I can't just hook to any WiFi when I'm on the road, I have to pay for it. Tell me what's going to change from that?

It isn't a pay-to-play everytime you want to use it, it's bundles. Which is a lot of what I paid for now. I can't just watch HBO, l have to pay for it. Tell me exactly what's going to change? Price restructuring? We are paying different fees already.
According to the article, even Google, FB and Netflix is not really bothering to fight this because they're already in cahoots with the ISP's with favorable deals and contracts.
We can complain all we want, but bottom line. you can't get on the internet without them.
So unless you can come up with a way to surf the internet without using their cable lines or satellites, what are you going to do?.

Also, l didn't bring liberals or conservatives into it, you did -- do you not remember your opening post where it said "votes matter, Bernie and Trump." You brought it up, so you stop and I will.

BTW yout charts are well known. In Europe, Asia, even the Middle East their internet access is lightning speed. And very cheap. No question we are monopolized in the US when it comes too fees and internet access. Remember how long ATT and Bell monopolized our landline fees?

Just like E-money and crypto-currency, if access to the internet and its growth is stymied, someone will find a way to circumvent it.

 

[Madeleine]

Well, it appears all is forgiven (despite murdering 20,000 tribesmen).

********
'...Addressing the Zimbabwe's newly sworn-in President Emmerson Mnangagwa praised outgoing leader Robert Mugabe as 'the father of the nation' during his inauguration address on Friday.

This despite news emerging overnight that Mugabe was told by the new leadership team his involvement in the massacring of 20,000 tribespeople would be exposed if he did not volunteer to resign.

'Let me at this stage pay tribute to one of the, and the only surviving, founding fathers of our nation, comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe,' Mnangagwa said in front of a crowd of tens of thousands at his inauguration ceremony.

'Let us all accept and acknowledge his immense contribution to the building of our nation.'

Mnangagwa vowed to tackle corruption synonymous with Mugabe's long reign, saying that 'the culture of government must change, and change now."

Mnangagwa would say that because he’s been by Mugabe’s side for decades. I don’t think in the eyes of common Zimbabweans all is forgiven. Let’s hope he holds election s next year like he promised. Else it’ll be dictatorship round 2.

 

[Soulthinker]

Mnangagwa would say that because he’s been by Mugabe’s side for decades. I don’t think in the eyes of common Zimbabweans all is forgiven. Let’s hope he holds election s next year like he promised. Else it’ll be dictatorship round 2.

You don't trust a dictator on anything he said since he is from the same party. The called him "The Crocidile". As for persuading the White farmers Mugabe driven out it will be a hard sell.

 

[Soulthinker]

Bliss, did you read the linked article??
It has very little to do with net neutrality and instead discusses the competitive advantages large ISP companies already have over smaller providers in distributing data to their customers.

The writers points out large web service companies in their own way restrict or provide greater access to web content through faster connections, or through fees.

The end of net neutrality is on a completely different level of impact when we're talking about internet access.

Basically, large internet providers can tier pricing, speed and access to the internet. And you as the consumer have no other choice but to accept their terms.

This is going to be seismic shift in how people use the internet and I don't think most people are ready for there to be 'toll booths' that have to be entered just to surf the Web.

Stop making everything liberal or conservative. Every concern in the U.S. isn't about political tribalism or a zero sum game.
This is a digital rights issue for consumers and a question about whether or not large ISP companies have the right to decide where and how fast we're allowed to go on the internet.

Imagine if you had to pay a fee every time you visited a site on the internet?? In many ways this is what companies like Comcast and Cox Communications are going to be able to do, monetize your surfing by deciding how fast your internet service is based on the sites you visit.

And if you want speedier access to sites your provider thinks you should pay more to visit, pay their fee.

The reason many pro business interests are in favor of ending net neutrality is because it would be a huge financial windfall for anyone who owns stocks in web service companies. Think of Comcast stock suddenly quadrupling in value.

Good for the mutual fund manager and the investment banker.
Not really that great for the average American.

There isn't one benefit on the consumer end that you can argue would occur by ending net neutrality.

U.S. consumers have been getting screwed on internet access and speeds anyway by the big service providers. Americans really don't know what high speed internet access really looks like. Now you're going end net neutrality...for whose benefit exactly??

Per usual, Americans pay more for less, like our healthcare for instance, than any other country in the world.

Portugal has not Net Neutrality and it is bad in that country since they had to pay for the net.

 

[Madeleine]

You don't trust a dictator on anything he said since he is from the same party. The called him "The Crocidile". As for persuading the White farmers Mugabe driven out it will be a hard sell.

You are right, but after decades of oppression of the opposition there was no one else prepared to take over on the spot.
Mugabe had been preparing for his wife to take over, I’m afraid that woman might have been worse than Mnangagwa. Hope the military continues to put pressure towards the right direction, I.e. including opposition leaders and preparing for election.

 

[Loki]

Really interesting, its long, over an hour, but some very interesting points, and thinking on both sides.
Debate on President Trump & American Democracy Newt Gingrich, Kimberly Strassel vs Andrew Sullivan

Strassel kept trying to deflect from Trump by bringing up President Obama's battles with the supreme court on some issues during his term and trying to frame it as "executive overreach", I keep seeing this tactic from the right, but below is more context for those who like to engage in such debates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

 

[ColiBreh1]

Hannity has transformed from typical right-wing pundit into Fox News' leading conspiracy theorist, and that's making the network's advertisers nervous.

 

[Bliss]

Lol, why are all the Vox reporters highlighted in it..so ..sweet?

Side-note: Reading the first 50ish comments, 9/10 are against the YT host, or the DNC. Ouch.

 

[archangel]

Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To The FBI


Lock him up , Lock him up!!!!!

 

[Bliss]

Thusly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals once again, overturned.

 

[Bliss]

'Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital, 'Acknowledging this as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.
"It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,' President Trump said, urging calm and 'the voices of tolerance to prevail over the purveyors of hate.'

 

[andreboba]

'Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital, 'Acknowledging this as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.
"It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,' President Trump said, urging calm and 'the voices of tolerance to prevail over the purveyors of hate.'

SMH.

This is what happens when you assign your Zionist SON IN LAW to be your chief liaison on Israeli affairs.

Trump idiotically just helped ignite the next intifada.

 

[Bliss]

SMH.

This is what happens when you assign your Zionist SON IN LAW to be your chief liaison on Israeli affairs.

Trump idiotically just helped ignite the next intifada.

Wow...Zionist SIL? You sound disgruntled.

Intafada lol..in your and Palestinians own mind. Israel is ready!
Jerusalem (as the Capital) has always belonged to the State of Israel.
Don't be mad that Trump followed through on a campaign promise.

 

[andreboba]

Wow...Zionist SIL? You sound disgruntled.

Intafada lol..in your and Palestinians own mind. Israel is ready!
Jerusalem (as the Capital) has always belonged to the State of Israel.
Don't be mad that Trump followed through on a campaign promise.

THere's a reason why for nearly 60 years the United States has never made a public statement about where the official capital of Israel should be located.

Jerusalem has always been one of the 3 holiest sites in Islam, and Trump just said one of those sites belongs exclusively to the Israelis.
Once it's clear the U.S. is picking one side over the other, we can no longer be considered 'honest brokers' in the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

This is how Jared is going to bring peace to the Middle East???

Jared has just created the motivation for the next bus bomber in Tel Aviv.

What Trump did was idiotic on so many levels, why stir up shit when there's been a relative peace between the Palestinians and the Jews for years??

Why go out of your way to get people pissed off??

Or is this just another example of Trump being Trump??

 

[Bliss]

THere's a reason why for nearly 60 years the United States has never made a public statement about where the official capital of Israel should be located.

Never? In 60 years? You sure about that?

Because in 1995, under President Bill Clinton, The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed the Senate by a vote of 93-5!

However, we can even fast forward to just 6 months ago, to Res 176,
where a plethora of Senators voted publicly to reaffirm this - (see #20)

*********

Names included in that vote ^^^ BTW, were Senator Feinstein,
AND Chuck Shumer
AND Corey Booker...
all of whom flapped their gums against President Trump for honoring the very PUBLIC STATEMENT that THEY VOTED FOR. Hence, this 'outrage' by Dems is a bunch of phoney posturing, because they voted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
(See below:)

Jerusalem has always been one of the 3 holiest sites in Islam, and Trump just said one of those sites belongs exclusively to the Israelis.
Once it's clear the U.S. is picking one side over the other, we can no longer be considered 'honest brokers' in the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

See Res. 176 above at bolded.

To your "Islam's holiest site" comment, seriously AB, given that Jerusalem was the 'capital' of Judea for 3,000 years (before the Romans took over and renamed the land as Palestine) and that the lslamic religion didn't appear until the 600's AD..your argument is meritless.

This is how Jared is going to bring peace to the Middle East??? Jared has just created the motivation for the next bus bomber in Tel Aviv.
What Trump did was idiotic on so many levels, why stir up shit when there's been a relative peace between the Palestinians and the Jews for years??

When has there been "Peace in the M.E??
Lol. The ONLY Reason there hasn't been daily bus bombs in Israel is because Israel...built a Wall.

 

[andreboba]

Never? In 60 years? You sure about that?

Because in 1995, under President Bill Clinton, The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed the Senate by a vote of 93-5!

However, we can even fast forward to just 6 months ago, to Res 176,
where a plethora of Senators voted publicly to reaffirm this - (see #20)

*********

Names included in that vote ^^^ BTW, were Senator Feinstein,
AND Chuck Shumer
AND Corey Booker...
all of whom flapped their gums against President Trump for honoring the very PUBLIC STATEMENT that THEY VOTED FOR. Hence, this 'outrage' by Dems is a bunch of phoney posturing, because they voted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
(See below:)

See Res. 176 above at bolded.

To your "Islam's holiest site" comment, seriously AB, given that Jerusalem was the 'capital' of Judea for 3,000 years (before the Romans took over and renamed the land as Palestine) and that the lslamic religion didn't appear until the 600's AD..your argument is meritless.


When has there been "Peace in the M.E??
Lol. The ONLY Reason there hasn't been daily bus bombs in Israel is because Israel...built a Wall.

The Senate doesn't conduct foreign policy.
The State Department does.

The Senate passes all kinds of bullshit grandstanding resolutions that mean absolutely nothing.

But you won't find one Secretary of State EVER say in public that Jerusalem should ever be the capital of Israel.
Whatever you may think about the 'newness' of the Islamic religion, almost 2 billion people on the planet are Muslim.

Your dismissive attitude of the Islamic faith is the reason why Trump's statement was so dangerous. The Al-Aqsa mosque is located in Jerusalem, and yet dumb dumb Trump just claimed ALL of Jerusalem for the Jews. Not smart.

Interesting you brought up the Jerusalem Embassy Act, signed by Clinton, a law intended to to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. You must also be aware that Clinton never implemented the law, nor did Bush or Obama.

Why do you think that was??

Because the future status of the city of Jerusalem is critical to peace in the Middle East and the U.S. can't be considered an honest broker by the Palestinians if we we publicly side with Israel.

You love to talk about your opposition to the goals and agenda of the deep state, yet you favor a 'deep state' Zionist agenda like disenfranchising the Palestinians.

Keep believing the wall on the West Bank will stop another intifada, since I'm sure that's Trump's rationale too.
It won't.

 

[Bliss]

The Senate doesn't conduct foreign policy.The State Department does.The Senate passes all kinds of bullshit grandstanding resolutions that mean absolutely nothing.
But you won't find one Secretary of State EVER say in public that Jerusalem should ever be the capital of Israel.
Whatever you may think about the 'newness' of the Islamic religion, almost 2 billion people on the planet are Muslim.

Your dismissive attitude of the Islamic faith is the reason why Trump's statement was so dangerous. The Al-Aqsa mosque is located in Jerusalem, and yet dumb dumb Trump just claimed ALL of Jerusalem for the Jews. Not smart.

Interesting you brought up the Jerusalem Embassy Act, signed by Clinton, a law intended to to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. You must also be aware that Clinton never implemented the law, nor did Bush or Obama.

Why do you think that was??

Because the future status of the city of Jerusalem is critical to peace in the Middle East and the U.S. can't be considered an honest broker by the Palestinians if we we publicly side with Israel.

You love to talk about your opposition to the goals and agenda of the deep state, yet you favor a 'deep state' Zionist agenda like disenfranchising the Palestinians.

Keep believing the wall on the West Bank will stop another intifada, since I'm sure that's Trump's rationale too.
It won't.

Andreboba Quote:
"There's a reason why for nearly 60 years the United States has never made a public statement about where the official capital of Israel should be located." .

*****
Bullshit, AB. After I clearly showed you that the United States did have a public stance you move the goalposts to say, "Well, no State Department did" and that Congress and the Senate's opinions mean shit.
Really?
Ok, then how about the Democratic nominee snd future President, Barack Obama's public statement?

June 4, 2008, in his first foreign policy speech after capturing the Democratic nomination the day before:

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

"The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognised and defensible borders.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. I have no illusions that this will be easy."

I also have PUBLIC declarations on behalf of the United States from Bush and Clinton, now you want to change it to, 'no "State Department ever publicly said it."
Lol..sheesh, .quit the backtrack.

 

[andreboba]

Andreboba Quote:
"There's a reason why for nearly 60 years the United States has never made a public statement about where the official capital of Israel should be located." .

*****
Bullshit, AB. After I clearly showed you that the United States did have a public stance you move the goalposts to say, "Well, no State Department did" and that Congress and the Senate's opinions mean shit.
Really?
Ok, then how about the Democratic nominee snd future President, Barack Obama's public statement?

June 4, 2008, in his first foreign policy speech after capturing the Democratic nomination the day before:

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

"The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognised and defensible borders.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. I have no illusions that this will be easy."

I also have PUBLIC declarations on behalf of the United States from Bush and Clinton, now you want to change it to, 'no "State Department ever publicly said it."
Lol..sheesh, .quit the backtrack.

The State Department and the Oval Office set our foreign policy. I didn't realize using them interchangeably would be so confusing.
That resolution you posted was for American Jewish consumption, it had nothing at all to do with foreign policy in the ME.
Clinton signing that Jerusalem Act into 'law' meant absolutely nothing, except to secure his base support among Jewish voters.

However, you will find several examples of POTUSes, Secretaries of State and UN diplomats endorsing a two state solution on the West Bank.
That can't happen unless Jerusalem always remains divided.

No one's moving the goalposts on this discussion.

Most foreign policy expects have argued the only viable peace plans on the West Bank must involve either a divided Jerusalem, or one that exists as the the capital of both Israel and Palestine.

Israel has the military muscle to relocate its capital to Jerusalem, but they won't do it. Because they know what kind of provocation that would be.

You really need to read more about why so many foreign policy wonks consider what Trump said to be reckless and his intention to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem to be incomprehensible.

From Bill Clinton to Trump: The Never-ending Story of the Jerusalem Embassy Move
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.769498

Trump made a unilateral decision that broke protocol on decades of U.S. foreign policy for no particular reason or purpose whatsoever, except to antagonize and provoke Palestinians and Muslims worldwide.