Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 19 2026 00:08 Billyboy wrote: [quote] Republicans are not conservatives anymore
Maybe not all Republicans are conservatives and maybe not all conservatives are Republican, but oBlade is definitely both.
Given oBlade's passionate defense of kpop salutes and Trump appropriating rhetoric about immigrants from Nazi Germany, you could make a very strong argument they're not conservative but a secret third thing.
It wouldn’t be a third. It’d be the fourth thing.
The saturated system gravitates towards murder or war as a pillar of the state in times of internal turmoil.
Historically at least. In France it was the nobility, in Germany the minorities.
And in US right now its the conservatives.
That's true, remember that time someone was thrown in jail for a month for posting a meme about an assassinated leftist? Remember that time comedians were canceled for praising your president? Remember when your president disappeared a study that totally didn't say conservatives were responsible for more political violence than every other ideology combined? Remember when leftists stormed Congress after losing an election and all got pardoned for it?
I am in good mood so I'll entertain myself with telling you some truth you will probably neither understand, or accept. You dont call people nazis, fascists, or paedos if you think they deserve to live. It is as simple, as that.
So which would you prefer: we don't call out Nazis, fascists, and child molesters for being Nazis, fascists, and child molesters, so that they can stay alive; or that all Nazis, fascists, and child molesters need to be called out and murdered?
(And why the dichotomy? Why can't we call them out and ostracize them, but still let them live?)
You interfere with police work if they aren‘t convicted. What looks like a criminal to you might be an informant to the police or a provocateur.
Nothing stops you from looking for them on forums designed for them and arguing with them there, technically. It‘s just not very pleasant. Where would they hang out, on average ?
They can‘t even keep up with the stuff that spreads on SM nowadays, maybe that‘s the point.
You bring up an interesting point. All these people that Razyda wants to murder might not even have been convicted of a crime, let alone one punishable by death.
On June 19 2026 10:53 Razyda wrote: Thank you all for proving my point. xD
The Trump evolution is to just dish it back. The Romney and McCain original iterations was to protest and deny and try to rise above. Now, MAGA and the right have more or less adopted the approach. See groomers, particularly.
On June 19 2026 10:53 Razyda wrote: Thank you all for proving my point. xD
The Trump evolution is to just dish it back. The Romney and McCain original iterations was to protest and deny and try to rise above. Now, MAGA and the right have more or less adopted the approach. See groomers, particularly.
Romney, personally, was milquetoast. And McCain didn't get the nickname 'maverick' by being representative of the typical Republican. I seem to recall McCain needing to shutdown his supporters booing Obama and especially that woman who was expressing her concern that Obama was a Muslim. Rampant conspiracy theories on whether Obama was even a citizen encouraged in no small part by the current president of the United States. Cable tv still dominated and Fox News collectively lost their minds, somehow convincing themselves and their viewers that Obama was the most divisiveness president of all time. How many times can we mention Bill Ayers and Obama? Glenn Beck and his chalkboards lecturing Fox viewers how Obama was leading America straight into tyranny: either Nazism or Communism. He couldn't really decide. The rise of the Tea Party, evoking revolutionary imagery, while primarying establishment Republicans seen to be too centrist. George Soros conspiracies?
Republicans did not learn to fight as a result of Romney and McCain's failed presidential bids. They've been beating the drums of war to prevent a supposed Democrat communist take-over for a long time. It's just in Trump, they found someone that won't hold them back. Probably helped that he is about as conspiracy brained as a lot of his followers.
On June 19 2026 00:08 Billyboy wrote: [quote] Republicans are not conservatives anymore
Maybe not all Republicans are conservatives and maybe not all conservatives are Republican, but oBlade is definitely both.
Given oBlade's passionate defense of kpop salutes and Trump appropriating rhetoric about immigrants from Nazi Germany, you could make a very strong argument they're not conservative but a secret third thing.
It wouldn’t be a third. It’d be the fourth thing.
The saturated system gravitates towards murder or war as a pillar of the state in times of internal turmoil.
Historically at least. In France it was the nobility, in Germany the minorities.
And in US right now its the conservatives.
That's true, remember that time someone was thrown in jail for a month for posting a meme about an assassinated leftist? Remember that time comedians were canceled for praising your president? Remember when your president disappeared a study that totally didn't say conservatives were responsible for more political violence than every other ideology combined? Remember when leftists stormed Congress after losing an election and all got pardoned for it?
I am in good mood so I'll entertain myself with telling you some truth you will probably neither understand, or accept. You dont call people nazis, fascists, or paedos if you think they deserve to live. It is as simple, as that.
On June 19 2026 08:52 KwarK wrote: If they don’t like being called fascists have they considered another ideology? It feels like missing the point somewhat to put the responsibility on us to not say what they are. Like imagine if there was a bully terrorizing your child at school and so you complained to the headmaster only for them to say that we prefer not to use the word bully to describe people because it makes them feel like they might not be nice.
This is very much a “you have to meet us halfway” situation. Like if they want to stop being called pedos they really need to stop fucking kids.
It is kinda funny because I was about to reply to you, then something got better of you and you added to your post, in rather detrimental way.
" Like imagine if there was a bully terrorizing your child at school and so you complained to the headmaster only for them to say that we prefer not to use the word bully to describe people because it makes them feel like they might not be nice."
Like really???? The conservatives are the ones who tell you which words you cant use, because it makes them feel like they might not be nice.
"This is very much a “you have to meet us halfway” situation. Like if they want to stop being called pedos they really need to stop fucking kids."
Like you kinda prove my point here? You seem to be genuinely believing that almost half a country is raping kids? (I mean the way you see it, it is probably deplorable part of the country, but still...). Thats also notwithstanding the fact that LightSpectra keeps fantasising about "child rapists" rather openly on this very forum.
Now to decent part of your post:
"If they don’t like being called fascists have they considered another ideology? It feels like missing the point somewhat to put the responsibility on us to not say what they are."
Most of this claim I think comes from idea that patriotism, is the same as nationalism. Quite frankly I think you have been conditioned to believe that. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like you are British currently living in US (dunno whether you have dual citizenship, or just one). Thing is, neither of the countries I see you associated with, never really faced a threat, which could erase its existence (well UK theoretically during WW2), so it is easy for you t take it for granted. This however expose you to believe, that every form of patriotism is nationalism.
On June 19 2026 00:08 Billyboy wrote: [quote] Republicans are not conservatives anymore
Maybe not all Republicans are conservatives and maybe not all conservatives are Republican, but oBlade is definitely both.
Given oBlade's passionate defense of kpop salutes and Trump appropriating rhetoric about immigrants from Nazi Germany, you could make a very strong argument they're not conservative but a secret third thing.
It wouldn’t be a third. It’d be the fourth thing.
The saturated system gravitates towards murder or war as a pillar of the state in times of internal turmoil.
Historically at least. In France it was the nobility, in Germany the minorities.
And in US right now its the conservatives.
That's true, remember that time someone was thrown in jail for a month for posting a meme about an assassinated leftist? Remember that time comedians were canceled for praising your president? Remember when your president disappeared a study that totally didn't say conservatives were responsible for more political violence than every other ideology combined? Remember when leftists stormed Congress after losing an election and all got pardoned for it?
I am in good mood so I'll entertain myself with telling you some truth you will probably neither understand, or accept. You dont call people nazis, fascists, or paedos if you think they deserve to live. It is as simple, as that.
I mean is it that simple really? I imagine many think that the current far right swing = misguided people rather than irredeemable ones primarily
I mean at some point one has to call a spade a spade
On June 19 2026 00:08 Billyboy wrote: [quote] Republicans are not conservatives anymore
Maybe not all Republicans are conservatives and maybe not all conservatives are Republican, but oBlade is definitely both.
Given oBlade's passionate defense of kpop salutes and Trump appropriating rhetoric about immigrants from Nazi Germany, you could make a very strong argument they're not conservative but a secret third thing.
It wouldn’t be a third. It’d be the fourth thing.
The saturated system gravitates towards murder or war as a pillar of the state in times of internal turmoil.
Historically at least. In France it was the nobility, in Germany the minorities.
And in US right now its the conservatives.
That's true, remember that time someone was thrown in jail for a month for posting a meme about an assassinated leftist? Remember that time comedians were canceled for praising your president? Remember when your president disappeared a study that totally didn't say conservatives were responsible for more political violence than every other ideology combined? Remember when leftists stormed Congress after losing an election and all got pardoned for it?
I am in good mood so I'll entertain myself with telling you some truth you will probably neither understand, or accept. You dont call people nazis, fascists, or paedos if you think they deserve to live. It is as simple, as that.
(And why the dichotomy? Why can't we call them out and ostracize them, but still let them live?)
Because you are not going to.
If “stop fucking kids” is too much for me to ask then I really think you might be the problem.
On June 19 2026 10:53 Razyda wrote: Thank you all for proving my point. xD
The Trump evolution is to just dish it back. The Romney and McCain original iterations was to protest and deny and try to rise above. Now, MAGA and the right have more or less adopted the approach. See groomers, particularly.
Romney, personally, was milquetoast. And McCain didn't get the nickname 'maverick' by being representative of the typical Republican. I seem to recall McCain needing to shutdown his supporters booing Obama and especially that woman who was expressing her concern that Obama was a Muslim. Rampant conspiracy theories on whether Obama was even a citizen encouraged in no small part by the current president of the United States. Cable tv still dominated and Fox News collectively lost their minds, somehow convincing themselves and their viewers that Obama was the most divisiveness president of all time. How many times can we mention Bill Ayers and Obama? Glenn Beck and his chalkboards lecturing Fox viewers how Obama was leading America straight into tyranny: either Nazism or Communism. He couldn't really decide. The rise of the Tea Party, evoking revolutionary imagery, while primarying establishment Republicans seen to be too centrist. George Soros conspiracies?
Republicans did not learn to fight as a result of Romney and McCain's failed presidential bids. They've been beating the drums of war to prevent a supposed Democrat communist take-over for a long time. It's just in Trump, they found someone that won't hold them back. Probably helped that he is about as conspiracy brained as a lot of his followers.
I'm hearing that Romney and McCain were milquetoast, and McCain particularly nonconfrontational, and both lost. So maybe you agree with me that their mode of political combat and results might have ... shaped ... the Republican primary in 2016? Trump certainly drew a contrast with them, and I think Razyda should look to that departure as to why objecting now to the racist fascist Nazi stuff is unconvincing. Trump heavily engaged in mud-wrestling and it's no use crying at the reverse side using mud.
Probably? I just reject the framing that Republicans tried to play nice and because Democrats were mean to Romney, they decided no mister nice guy and chose Trump.
The rhetoric attacking Obama by the conservative media apparatus was wild, including talk radio, framing the choices between tyranny and freedom. "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." --Savage
Moderate Republicans were heckled for not going along with the Birther's conspiracy claims (Castle). For conservative organizations raising money through mail, birtherism was supposedly "one of the hottest (and most lucrative) topics of all."
To this day: Barack HUSSEIN Obama. --Your president. "He's not, he's not -- he's an Arab."
On June 19 2026 12:39 Falling wrote: Probably? I just reject the framing that Republicans tried to play nice and because Democrats were mean to Romney, they decided no mister nice guy and chose Trump.
The rhetoric attacking Obama by the conservative media apparatus was wild, including talk radio, framing the choices between tyranny and freedom. "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." --Savage
Moderate Republicans were heckled for not going along with the Birther's conspiracy claims (Castle). For conservative organizations raising money through mail, birtherism was supposedly "one of the hottest (and most lucrative) topics of all."
To this day: Barack HUSSEIN Obama. --Your president. "He's not, he's not -- he's an Arab."
What you've leaving unstated here, perhaps obviously so, is that you're citing Michael Savage and anonymous hecklers instead of the McCain and Romney campaigns. If we follow your logic, then Obama brought a more raw and more vicious style of political campaigning with Romney/Ryan tossing granny off the cliff and Romney killing a woman with cancer. Pick a lane, and please note that Romney and McCain both lost.
On June 19 2026 00:04 WombaT wrote: For someone who apparently isn’t a conservative Oblade sure as fuck carries a hell of a lot of water for the cause. Maybe if Adam Sandler decides to make the Waterboy 2 he might be best off not casting himself in this one.
I mean I find the folks who have shrines of Trump as Jesus deeply confusing individuals, but I do understand why they’ll go to bat.
Republicans are not conservatives anymore
Maybe not all Republicans are conservatives and maybe not all conservatives are Republican, but oBlade is definitely both.
Given oBlade's passionate defense of kpop salutes and Trump appropriating rhetoric about immigrants from Nazi Germany, you could make a very strong argument they're not conservative but a secret third thing.
It wouldn’t be a third. It’d be the fourth thing.
The saturated system gravitates towards murder or war as a pillar of the state in times of internal turmoil.
Historically at least. In France it was the nobility, in Germany the minorities.
And in US right now its the conservatives.
That's true, remember that time someone was thrown in jail for a month for posting a meme about an assassinated leftist? Remember that time comedians were canceled for praising your president? Remember when your president disappeared a study that totally didn't say conservatives were responsible for more political violence than every other ideology combined? Remember when leftists stormed Congress after losing an election and all got pardoned for it?
I am in good mood so I'll entertain myself with telling you some truth you will probably neither understand, or accept. You dont call people nazis, fascists, or paedos if you think they deserve to live. It is as simple, as that.
Yeah I'm not understanding why describing certain people's ideologies, or tendencies (accurate or not) is always a call to murder? It just doesn't seem to follow?
Not all solutions to people and ideologies you don't like have to escalate to murder. Hell, most of the (developed) world doesn't even execute convicted murderers anymore.
I'm not sure why there is this assumption of murderous intent, towards even the most heinous of ideologies. This isn't the world of theocracies anymore, we don't have to treat all bad (or terrible, hell, the worst you can imagine) ideas as heresy or apostasy anymore. Not even the worst problems need to always escalate to murder, mass murder or genocide.
Look, you barely have to scratch the surface of human nature to find the animal selfishness, hostility and tribalism underneath. If everyone decided that people with some terrible, perhaps even harmful ideas 'didn't deserve to live', we'd be spending WAY more time trying to exterminate each other than we already historically did. To the point that we wouldn't be able to have complex society, we would literally still be living in small, related tribes, if not extinct.
On June 19 2026 12:39 Falling wrote: Probably? I just reject the framing that Republicans tried to play nice and because Democrats were mean to Romney, they decided no mister nice guy and chose Trump.
The rhetoric attacking Obama by the conservative media apparatus was wild, including talk radio, framing the choices between tyranny and freedom. "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." --Savage
Moderate Republicans were heckled for not going along with the Birther's conspiracy claims (Castle). For conservative organizations raising money through mail, birtherism was supposedly "one of the hottest (and most lucrative) topics of all."
To this day: Barack HUSSEIN Obama. --Your president. "He's not, he's not -- he's an Arab."
What you've leaving unstated here, perhaps obviously so, is that you're citing Michael Savage and anonymous hecklers instead of the McCain and Romney campaigns. If we follow your logic, then Obama brought a more raw and more vicious style of political campaigning with Romney/Ryan tossing granny off the cliff and Romney killing a woman with cancer. Pick a lane, and please note that Romney and McCain both lost.
Okay. We can ignore mass movements of motivated supporters and the media apparatus that egged them on. We can pick the lane you seem to be wanting. Head to head. Obama vs McCain Obama vs Romney.
Are you wanting to isolate to those three men only to explain why Trump was Republicans learning their lesson? What did Obama say personally that required the rise of Trump in reaction?
Also, McCain lost after 8 years of Bush and an unpopular Iraq War. I don't think anyone should be judging his campaign too harshly for losing nor learning too many lessons except maybe don't get in a war using bad intel. Except choosing Palin as a running mate. That was an unforced error no matter how popular she was with certain supporters.
On June 19 2026 12:39 Falling wrote: Probably? I just reject the framing that Republicans tried to play nice and because Democrats were mean to Romney, they decided no mister nice guy and chose Trump.
The rhetoric attacking Obama by the conservative media apparatus was wild, including talk radio, framing the choices between tyranny and freedom. "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." --Savage
Moderate Republicans were heckled for not going along with the Birther's conspiracy claims (Castle). For conservative organizations raising money through mail, birtherism was supposedly "one of the hottest (and most lucrative) topics of all."
To this day: Barack HUSSEIN Obama. --Your president. "He's not, he's not -- he's an Arab."
What you've leaving unstated here, perhaps obviously so, is that you're citing Michael Savage and anonymous hecklers instead of the McCain and Romney campaigns. If we follow your logic, then Obama brought a more raw and more vicious style of political campaigning with Romney/Ryan tossing granny off the cliff and Romney killing a woman with cancer. Pick a lane, and please note that Romney and McCain both lost.
Okay. We can ignore mass movements of motivated supporters and the media apparatus that egged them on. We can pick the lane you seem to be wanting. Head to head. Obama vs McCain Obama vs Romney.
Are you wanting to isolate to those three men only to explain why Trump was Republicans learning their lesson? What did Obama say personally that required the rise of Trump in reaction?
This may reduce to some misunderstanding about Presidential Politics, but those three men running is literally what happened during the 8 years immediately before Trump won the primary and won the election, so neglect the study at your own peril.
Also, McCain lost after 8 years of Bush and an unpopular Iraq War. I don't think anyone should be judging his campaign too harshly for losing nor learning too many lessons except maybe don't get in a war using bad intel. Except choosing Palin as a running mate. That was an unforced error no matter how popular she was with certain supporters.
I'm using his campaigning as one of the examples that contextualize my response to Razyda. He made many more mistakes than that, and honestly some mistakes not repeated for 16 years, until Kamala couldn't recall a single thing she would have done different than Biden.
I really don't understand what you are going on about. Yes, of course they were the men running to become president. Correct me if I was wrong, but it seemed to me the way you were framing things is that Republicans had tried playing nice by putting up McCain and Romney. They failed and so they felt they needed someone nasty like Trump instead.
My contention is that they were not playing nice at all. Underneath McCain and Romney was a base of supporters who were a boiling cauldron of nasty media and conspiratorial voters. You said those were just randos and creating uneven scales. I don't agree. There was serious momentum behind the birther movement. And the number 1 cable news without many rivals in the alternative media space (Breitbart who were more unhinged) is anything but randos. It goes to intent.
Because I don't think there was any intentionality in 'trying to be nice' by putting up McCain or Romney. Post-Bush and without his VP running, it was pretty wide open. McCain got less than half of the popular primary vote. And given how weak Bush's popularity was, someone who was NOT Bush or associated with his administration was likely to take it. McCain fits that.
I'm sure McCain made lots of mistakes but I think they are mostly irrelevant. Do you really think a Republican had a snowball's chance in hell to win post-Bush post-Iraq (and I forgot about this- the 2008 financial crisis?) No matter who the Democrats put up, it was theirs to lose.
As for 2012. Again, I don't really see intentionality in 'trying to be nice'. It honestly looks like an off year. At least in Canadian politics, certain election cycles the big guns sit out of the leadership race for opposition because the incumbent is too likely to win. (Although if you are good enough, you risk it and win the presumed loss anyways like Carney with a little help from your neighbour threatening some good old fashion annexation.)
What were the choices? Romney 2.0 Santorum? Ron Paul 2.0 Newt Gingrich? meh I guess you had Rick Perry but he was drawing dead early on. Romney was really the only credible option and he got over 50% of the votes. But even primary voting is down 23M 2008 and 18M 2012. Alternative or supplemental interpretation: it's a little like 2016 for the Democrats. Too many potential contenders felt Clinton (Romney) would have too great an advantage and decided to not even bother... except some quirky, fringe ideologues that decided to fight it out (Sanders/ Paul). But that ended up with not many options for the voters... and a bunch of disillusioned Paul/Sanders fans.
But once Obama is on his way out, boy howdy, everybody came out to play. And Santorum who was one of Romney's main challengers in 2012 is completely lost in the mix. 2016 had a much deeper line up than 2012. And you see it in the votes: 29M in primaries. Republicans saw this as the time to take back the presidency and showed up in numbers.
Soros conspiracy theories? Soros sucks. You don't need any conspiracy theory.
This just happened in the news.
The Philadelphia DA is a man named Larry Krasner.
He won elections in 2017 and 2021 to which George Soros PACs contributed a total of $3 million, which was the overwhelming majority of funds raised by Krasner.
Since then he has been so generous to convicted murderers that the PA Supreme Court itself intervened and ruled 5-2 that from now on the state attorney general has to review what he's doing with convicted murderers. The reason being because the system relies on being adversarial (DA isn't a judge), if DA has ulterior motives it just results in freeing convicted murderers who didn't deserve it.
The prosecutor does not decide whether a defendant is entitled to relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Nonetheless, while not dispositive, a prosecutor’s concession of relief is undoubtedly influential. Courts have long been instructed to give such concessions “great weight[.]” Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 258 (1942). But when the prosecutor sides with a defendant, there generally is no adversarial testing of the defendant’s entitlement to relief, and the court is left without the benefits of opposing advocacy, including the presentation of counterarguments and exposure of misrepresentations of fact and law. The PCRA court’s review is limited to the record before it. If relevant evidence is withheld from the court, this pertinent information goes unconsidered. The court is not permitted to conduct its own independent investigation of extra-record materials, and it is not equipped to do so in any case. For these reasons, an unreliable prosecutorial concession substantially risks the erroneous grant of relief by the court. This is not to say a prosecutor should never concede relief. A prosecutor bears the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. Hence, a prosecutor is duty-bound to confess error, provided the facts and law call for it. But the proviso is critical. When relief is not dictated by the record and law but merely advocated for personal, political, ideological, policy, or other non-legal reasons, a prosecutor’s concession does not minister justice; it facilitates injustice.
Here, in this case reviewed under our King’s Bench jurisdiction, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO), on behalf of the Commonwealth, conceded that Lavar Brown (Brown), a convicted murderer sentenced to death for a separate murder, was entitled to a new trial based upon a facially untimely claim under the PCRA. Upon careful review, we conclude this concession was not reliable. More specifically, we find the DAO conceded relief although none was warranted based on the existing record, violated its duty of candor to the PCRA court, withheld material evidence from the court, opposed efforts by amici to gain access to this evidence, submitted a false stipulation of fact, misstated facts in its pleadings, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and opposed a required evidentiary hearing. The predictable result was the erroneous grant of a new trial.
These circumstances, troubling as they are, would not warrant a remedy beyond reversal of the PCRA court’s order in this particular case if they were confined to this one case. Unfortunately, they aren’t. Since 2018, the DAO has conceded relief well over 100 times, mostly in murder cases like this one. There have been numerous instances of untrustworthy concessions, lack of candor, misrepresentations of fact, lack of adequate investigation, and avoidance of hearings. And the problems are poised to continue. There are apparently more than 1,000 cases yet to be reviewed by the DAO’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), and the DAO vigorously defends its checkered concession program as a necessary corrective to past misdeeds by prior administrations.
The DAO’s active, ongoing, and problematic concession program requires broader remedial action to promote just outcomes. Accordingly, in addition to reversing the PCRA court’s grant of a new trial here, we also hold that in any PCRA case in which the DAO concedes relief, the PCRA court shall grant the Office of Attorney General (OAG) notice and the right to intervene in the case before ruling on the concession. Regardless of the OAG’s position on the concession if it chooses to intervene — it may well agree relief is warranted — its independent assessment and participation will enhance the reliability of the proceedings and the PCRA court’s ultimate decision.
Here DAO is District Attorney's Office (Krasner) and OAG is the PA attorney general. You have to be a pretty bad DA for a state supreme court to scold you and order review by the state AG because you're being dishonestly lenient.
On top of which the ADA (assistant district attorney) under him and one of the top people in his office was just suspended for 3 years by a panel of judges for 1) repeatedly lying to have old convictions overturned 2) lying about their in-office secret policy to try to throw out all death sentences whatsoever
Winkelman, the judges said, “knowingly made misrepresentations” as part of the district attorney’s office “policy of vacating all death sentences.”
Krasner and his staff have long denied that the office has any such policy.
But the panel appeared to reject that, writing, “We do not credit [Winkelman’s] testimony that there is no such policy.”
Whether the problem is George or he's just an invalid and victim of elder abuse by Alex, he's not contributing positively to the American system. Every DA connected to Soros turns out to be subversive. Not that there aren't other terrible DAs with no connection but you don't need conspiracy theories.
US-Iran talks abruptly called off after Israel and Hezbollah trade deadly attacks JD Vance’s staff were at an airbase ready to fly to summit in Obbürgen before trip was suddenly cancelled
Talks due to take place on Friday between the US and Iran in Switzerland to implement a peace deal were cancelled as Hezbollah killed four Israeli soldiers and Israel carried out a wave of retaliatory airstrikes in south Lebanon and the Bekaa valley that killed at least 18 people.
The talks had been due to begin in the Swiss village of Obbürgen two days after the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that opened a 60-day window to negotiate a permanent understanding over Iran’s nuclear programme, while getting oil traffic moving through the strait of Hormuz.
US-Iran talks abruptly called off after Israel and Hezbollah trade deadly attacks JD Vance’s staff were at an airbase ready to fly to summit in Obbürgen before trip was suddenly cancelled
Talks due to take place on Friday between the US and Iran in Switzerland to implement a peace deal were cancelled as Hezbollah killed four Israeli soldiers and Israel carried out a wave of retaliatory airstrikes in south Lebanon and the Bekaa valley that killed at least 18 people.
The talks had been due to begin in the Swiss village of Obbürgen two days after the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that opened a 60-day window to negotiate a permanent understanding over Iran’s nuclear programme, while getting oil traffic moving through the strait of Hormuz.
I, for one, am astonished that Trump's war with Iran hasn't yet perfectly concluded!
From your source: "The cancellation of the talks came as Israel and Hezbollah traded their most violent strikes since the ceasefire was established. Hezbollah targeted Israeli forces near the city of Nabatieh, in south Lebanon, with several salvoes of rocket fire and drones overnight after intermittent Israeli shelling throughout Thursday. Israel responded with a wave of airstrikes on the city and surrounding towns on what it said were Hezbollah targets, leaving at least 18 people dead and 33 wounded, according to Lebanon’s ministry of health."
So just to get the timeline right: Israel attacked first (on Thursday), then Hezbollah retaliated, then Israel attacked again? Do I have that order correct, where Israel started this most recent back-and-forth?
US-Iran talks abruptly called off after Israel and Hezbollah trade deadly attacks JD Vance’s staff were at an airbase ready to fly to summit in Obbürgen before trip was suddenly cancelled
Talks due to take place on Friday between the US and Iran in Switzerland to implement a peace deal were cancelled as Hezbollah killed four Israeli soldiers and Israel carried out a wave of retaliatory airstrikes in south Lebanon and the Bekaa valley that killed at least 18 people.
The talks had been due to begin in the Swiss village of Obbürgen two days after the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that opened a 60-day window to negotiate a permanent understanding over Iran’s nuclear programme, while getting oil traffic moving through the strait of Hormuz.
It’s like Iran is big dogging this. Anytime they want to start it they just order Hezbollah to attack and Israel almost on command goes back to bombing. And before anyone pretends it’s not Iran, there have been over a dozen confirmed irgc and quds killed in Lebanon since the start of this one. Not to mention Lebanons leader Joe just openly saying it.
On June 09 2026 09:59 Billyboy wrote: Iran is really dictating this conflict. What I mean by that is they can start it anytime they want by having Hezbollah just fire a rocket at Israel, the Israel 100% escalates and Trump then has too tell them to stop, and they have but after a few strikes. And it continually makes Trump look bad because they do it after he announces how close they are.
The only one who seems to notice is Lebanons leader who has told Iran it’s not their country but Iran doesn’t care. The whole region would be better off if Israel and Iran just actually fought each other instead of proxy wars.
Trumps peace is the peaciest that peace ever was. And the best part is, he brough peace over 22 times and counting! Who has ever done that before? Not even the Peacemaker has brought this much peace. Incredible
Strangely the best outcome for Cuba might actually be getting bombed by the US, they have some near death seniors that could be taken out. Trump will get bored in a couple of weeks, remove all sanctions, give them billions and declare victory.
On June 19 2026 16:14 Falling wrote: I really don't understand what you are going on about. Yes, of course they were the men running to become president. Correct me if I was wrong, but it seemed to me the way you were framing things is that Republicans had tried playing nice by putting up McCain and Romney. They failed and so they felt they needed someone nasty like Trump instead.
My contention is that they were not playing nice at all. Underneath McCain and Romney was a base of supporters who were a boiling cauldron of nasty media and conspiratorial voters. You said those were just randos and creating uneven scales. I don't agree. There was serious momentum behind the birther movement. And the number 1 cable news without many rivals in the alternative media space (Breitbart who were more unhinged) is anything but randos. It goes to intent.
Because I don't think there was any intentionality in 'trying to be nice' by putting up McCain or Romney. Post-Bush and without his VP running, it was pretty wide open. McCain got less than half of the popular primary vote. And given how weak Bush's popularity was, someone who was NOT Bush or associated with his administration was likely to take it. McCain fits that.
I'm sure McCain made lots of mistakes but I think they are mostly irrelevant. Do you really think a Republican had a snowball's chance in hell to win post-Bush post-Iraq (and I forgot about this- the 2008 financial crisis?) No matter who the Democrats put up, it was theirs to lose.
As for 2012. Again, I don't really see intentionality in 'trying to be nice'. It honestly looks like an off year. At least in Canadian politics, certain election cycles the big guns sit out of the leadership race for opposition because the incumbent is too likely to win. (Although if you are good enough, you risk it and win the presumed loss anyways like Carney with a little help from your neighbour threatening some good old fashion annexation.)
I’m speaking just on their choices of campaigning. I’m not getting involved in other topics that you are clearly very passionate about.
What were the choices? Romney 2.0 Santorum? Ron Paul 2.0 Newt Gingrich? meh I guess you had Rick Perry but he was drawing dead early on. Romney was really the only credible option and he got over 50% of the votes. But even primary voting is down 23M 2008 and 18M 2012. Alternative or supplemental interpretation: it's a little like 2016 for the Democrats. Too many potential contenders felt Clinton (Romney) would have too great an advantage and decided to not even bother... except some quirky, fringe ideologues that decided to fight it out (Sanders/ Paul). But that ended up with not many options for the voters... and a bunch of disillusioned Paul/Sanders fans.
But once Obama is on his way out, boy howdy, everybody came out to play. And Santorum who was one of Romney's main challengers in 2012 is completely lost in the mix. 2016 had a much deeper line up than 2012. And you see it in the votes: 29M in primaries. Republicans saw this as the time to take back the presidency and showed up in numbers.
I don’t see the relevance in a slapdash analysis of the other candidates for office. You’re getting out the effort that you’re putting in.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/fmb4se4f65sf1.jpeg)
