US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9017

On October 18 2017 14:36 Tachion wrote:
It is possible to imagine that quote being connected to some other words of comfort that could come off as empathetic.
She definitely was not appreciative of the sentiment.

On October 18 2017 15:37 LegalLord wrote:
Just came across this tidbit:



I mean nonprofits asking for donations is fine and all but I can't help but feel this isn't the best way to make a request for money without being unduly political.

WASHINGTON — A lawsuit filed in federal court on Tuesday contends that major American corporations doing business with the Iraqi government during the Iraq War also provided it with free drugs and medical devices that became an important source of funding for a Shiite militia that targeted United States troops.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of members of the American military who were injured or killed by attacks between 2005 and 2009, at the height of the Iraq War. It accuses five companies — American firms General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer and European drugmakers AstraZeneca and Roche Holding A.G. — of winning contracts to sell their products to the Iraqi Ministry of Health with the understanding that they also provide additional medical supplies and medicines for free.
...
As evidence, the lawsuit cited contracts between the companies and the Iraqi government, leaked diplomatic cables, press accounts and the testimony of informants. It was filed in United States District Court in Washington by lawyers from of a start-up firm led by Ryan Sparacino, who has been investigating the allegations for more than a year, and the litigation firm of Kellogg Hansen.

“While Americans worked to rebuild Iraq, many were attacked by a terrorist group that we allege has been funded in part by the defendants’ corrupt sales practices,” said Josh Branson, a Kellogg Hansen partner.
...
The central argument of the lawsuit is that the companies must have known that the Iraqi health ministry had become a de facto terrorist organization, and the American firms should have at least insisted that contracts be structured to guard against diversion and corruption. It is illegal under United States law to knowingly fund terror groups; the Mahdi Army and other Sadrist militias are not designated as terror organizations by the State Department, but they are linked to Hezbollah, which is.

The lawsuit says that the companies underwrote the Mahdi Army in two ways. Contracts mandated discounts, but instead of lowering the price, the companies provided “free goods” often equal to about 10 percent of the total order, allowing ministry officials to sell the extras on the black market or distribute them to fighters.

The companies were also required to hire intermediaries to register their companies, get approval for the use of their products in Iraq and negotiate contracts. The lawsuit says the payments to intermediaries were thinly-disguised bribes.

On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:

I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.

On October 18 2017 14:38 Danglars wrote:
I can't help laughing at the casual slip from saying the Republican is part of the establishment to claiming the media has a generic proestablishment bias. I see the absolute opposite in play and it's bright as day. The media establishment, which includes all the big-name legacy players, has habitually shilled for the Democratic party and left-wing causes for decade without shame. There's now a bad liar in the White House that gets away with quite a bit, since his journalistic checks lack historical credibility. Habitual lying and half truths met wild lying, media narcissism met a playboy reality TV show personality narcissism, journalists echo a different version of ignorance, intellectual disengagement, and common sense. They've never been about honest discourse or saving American lies. The list goes on. I find very different parties guilty of the things you point out.

The man who killed more than 300 people with a truck bomb in the centre of Mogadishu on Saturday was a former soldier in Somalia’s army whose home town was raided by local troops and US special forces two months ago in a controversial operation in which 10 civilians were killed, officials in Somalia have said.

The death toll from the bombing now stands at more than 300, making it one of the most devastating terrorist attacks anywhere in the world for many years. On Tuesday remains of victims were still being brought out of rubble spread over hundreds of square metres.

Investigators believe the attack on Saturday may in part have been motivated by a desire for revenge for the botched US-led operation in August.

Al-Shabaab has not claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attack but a member of the cell detained by security forces has told interrogators the group was responsible, one security official told the Guardian.

Following the raid, in which three children aged between six and 10 died, local tribal elders called for revenge against the Somali government and its allies.

Not only was the bomber from the specific community targeted by the raid, but the investigation is also uncovering a series of other links to the town where it took place.

Details of the attack are now becoming clearer. Officials say it involved two vehicles – a Toyota Noah minivan and a much larger truck carrying around 350kg of military grade and homemade explosives.

The target for both vehicles was the heavily guarded airport compound in Mogadishu, where the United Nations, most embassies and the headquarters of the 22,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force, Amisom, are based, officials said.

The smaller device was supposed to blast open the heavily defended Medina Gate entrance to the compound to open the way for the bigger bomb, a standard militant tactic.

The minivan was stopped by at a checkpoint several hundred metres short of its target and the driver detained. This bomb later detonated, possibly set off by remote control or by security officials, without causing casualties, two officials told the Guardian.

Officials also said the driver was a veteran militant who had been involved in previous attacks in Mogadishu, including one on the Jazeera hotel in 2012 in which eight people died.

The bigger truck bomb was detonated at a busy crossroads at least a kilometre from the Medina Gate when it reached a checkpoint where security guards became suspicious. The explosion ignited a fuel truck nearby which caused a massive fireball. It has been impossible to identify the type of truck from the wreckage.

Officials said the driver had joined the army in 2010 but defected from his military post to join al-Shabaab around five years later.

The US involvement in Somalia intensified in the later years of the Obama administration but has increased significantly since Donald Trump became president, with greater latitude given to local commanders to order airstrikes or take part in raids.

Critics have argued this risks greater civilian casualties, which, in the tight-knit world of Somalia’s complex clan system, can prompt feuds and revenge attacks.

The raid in August targeted the small town of Bariire, 30 miles (50km) west of Mogadishu, which is a stronghold of al-Shabaab.

Investigators have established that both vehicles used in Saturday’s attack appear to have set out from Bariire, and the owner of the truck used for the bigger bomb was from the town or the surrounding region, officials say. He has been detained.

Investigators are probing the possibility that some individuals manning the checkpoints on the route taken by the bomb vehicles into Mogadishu from the direction of Bariire may have been complicit in the attack.

All those on duty on Saturday have been removed from their posts and put under investigation, apart from those who successfully stopped the smaller vehicle. The personnel who tried to stop the truck bomb near the Kilometre Five checkpoint are all dead.

Bariire is known as an al-Shabaab stronghold which has been a lanchpad for several major attacks on Mogadishu.

The group has been pushed out of major cities but retains control of swaths of countryside in the south and centre of Somalia.

In May a US Navy Seal was killed and two troops wounded in a raid on an al-Shabaab militant compound in Bariire, in what was the first US combat death in the African country since the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” disaster.

The town was recaptured by government troops earlier this year but abandoned in a “tactical withdrawal” last week. Analysts say the retreat left Mogadishu exposed.

The area has also been the site of intensive activity by US drones. Local media reported airstrikes around Bariire on Tuesday.

The links between the attack and Bariire will raise questions about the tactics and strategy of the campaign against al-Shabaab.

“If you go out more aggressively in this kind of environment you risk scoring some serious own goals. The extremists really cranked everything they could out of the botched raid in August. They put out images of the bodies of the kids, published the testimony of supposed witnesses,” said one western counter-terrorist expert with long experience of working with Somali authorities.

A second expert who works closely with regional security forces in Somalia described the possibility that the bombings were launched by clan elders sympathetic to al-Shabaab and set on revenge as “very plausible”.

A recent United Nations study found that in “a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa”.

Of more than 500 former members of militant organisations interviewed for the report, 71% pointed to “government action”, including “killing of a family member or friend” or “arrest of a family member or friend” as the incident that prompted them to join a group.

On October 18 2017 18:12 Artisreal wrote:

Tbh this would be a start.
Genuine, non heritage Foundation, peer reviewed, scientific examination of media bias. Great stuff that would be.
Honestly idk whether such studies might exist already. That is too far out of my field to have an overview. But I'll gladly take a doi or link to look it up when I have access to the publishing medium again.

Media bias fact check works with an open methodology but is lacking in the peer review department.

On October 18 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:
Hmmm. Remarks from an influential investor :

On October 18 2017 12:01 GoTuNk! wrote:


You can't be serious.

On October 18 2017 12:31 Buckyman wrote:
"Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about."

On October 18 2017 22:21 zlefin wrote:


The closest info I have to that is the Shorenstein report listed in my sig; I don't remember how thoroughly it was reviewed, but it may partially qualify for what you're looking for, and/or have links to other sources.

On October 18 2017 22:43 KwarK wrote:

"The media" is not biased against people who have a (R) after their name, it's biased against outright dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence. If the Republicans weren't so eager to establish a monopoly on those then they would find the media would treat them more positively.

Sometimes it's not everyone else, sometimes it's you.

On October 18 2017 22:44 KwarK wrote:

"We're supporting a Nazi, but it's your fault because you called Romney names and shit"

On October 18 2017 12:31 Buckyman wrote:
"Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about."

On October 19 2017 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:


A very weak attempt to justify your vote for Donald Trump for President. You can't really blame the media for your vote to put a failure in the White House. Here you are even stating you knowingly and purposely put a failure in the White House. It's on you.