What is wrong with America

[aintforever]

It’s bewildering how neither the Republicans or Democrats can find anyone younger/less mental to represent them. Biden looks like a decent guy but at 81 he’s clearly not fit to be president, Trump is just so unsuitable for the job it’s scary. You would think if either side had someone younger and vaguely human they would win by a landslide. Weird place.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[sadoldgit]

It is not as if Trump hadn’t been making the same gaffes though…

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/02/09/both-biden--trump-have-had-their-share-of-verbal-gaffes

This man has already been and could become the next President of the US. At least it gives Duckhunter a laugh.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills

Edited 11 February, 2024 by sadoldgit
Added text

[whelk]

Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447

please can someone put a bullet through this cunt’s head
 

[Doctoroncall]

When 45% of the electorate think the last election was rigged, Trump is on course to win. That’s not accounting for the Biden gaffes.

It seems Trump can say/do whatever he likes and they’ll back him. 

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447

please can someone put a bullet through this cunt’s head
 

In many respects, he has a point. For decades, Europe as a whole have taken the US comfort blanket for granted.

Germany have increased spending since this set of data was collected, but they are starting from a piss-poor base. I know our spending is inclusive of pension payments (maybe the same for the other nations), and France include the Gendarmerie in theirs.

We are what, now the 3rd biggest spenders in NATO (now behind Germany), and look at the state of our armed forces...and no one in the UK who matters cares (enough).

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

He might be senile, but this is excellent trolling from his official account (appreciate he probably knows nothing about this tweet).

 

[buctootim]

Seeing increasing chatter about Michelle Obama being lined up to replace Biden. No idea if true. 

[trousers]

20 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

In many respects, he has a point. For decades, Europe as a whole have taken the US comfort blanket for granted.

Aye; if one cuts through Trump's usual rhetoric / hyperbole / poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour, there is a valid underlying point there. 

Out of interest, does anyone know the history / backgrouind behind why so many countries don't adhere to the 2% of GDP committment? Are there underlying valid reasons why they don't / can't comply or is all based on political posturing etc? (I've never looked into it so genuinely interested if there's any Saintswebbers out there who are experts in this area)

Edited 12 February, 2024 by trousers

[badgerx16]

35 minutes ago, trousers said:

Aye; if one cuts through Trump's usual rhetoric / hyperbole / poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour, there is a valid underlying point there. 

Out of interest, does anyone know the history / backgrouind behind why so many countries don't adhere to the 2% of GDP committment? Are there underlying valid reasons why they don't / can't comply or is all based on political posturing etc? (I've never looked into it so genuinely interested if there's any Saintswebbers out there who are experts in this area)

In the case of Luxembourg the economy is so inflated by international investment money that if it spent 2% then probably every citizen would be driving a tank.

For those that spend more, like the Baltics, Poland, and Greece, they are facing existential or perceived threats, for low spenders like Spain there has not been that historical imperative, and changing now presents big challenges to spending priorities;

https://www.euronews.com/2023/04/07/nato-why-is-spending-2-of-gdp-on-defence-so-controversial

 

The 2% pledge was made in 2015, and most countries made it on the basis of GDP growth projections, that never really materialised even before the Pandemic hit. Realistically it is an aspiration, as for example it is highly unlikely that Germany is going to be able to double it's defence spending any time soon, despite the situation in Ukraine.

Edited 12 February, 2024 by badgerx16

[Challenger]

6 hours ago, trousers said:

Aye; if one cuts through Trump's usual rhetoric / hyperbole / poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour, there is a valid underlying point there. 

Out of interest, does anyone know the history / backgrouind behind why so many countries don't adhere to the 2% of GDP committment? Are there underlying valid reasons why they don't / can't comply or is all based on political posturing etc? (I've never looked into it so genuinely interested if there's any Saintswebbers out there who are experts in this area)

At the end of the day the UK is probably the most difficult country ( in Europe) for Russia to attack conventionally, and we have our own nukes.

Continental Europe have far more to worry about.

Edited 12 February, 2024 by Challenger

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Seeing increasing chatter about Michelle Obama being lined up to replace Biden. No idea if true. 

🙏🙏🙏

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

In the case of Luxembourg the economy is so inflated by international investment money that if it spent 2% then probably every citizen would be driving a tank.

For those that spend more, like the Baltics, Poland, and Greece, they are facing existential or perceived threats, for low spenders like Spain there has not been that historical imperative, and changing now presents big challenges to spending priorities;

https://www.euronews.com/2023/04/07/nato-why-is-spending-2-of-gdp-on-defence-so-controversial

 

The 2% pledge was made in 2015, and most countries made it on the basis of GDP growth projections, that never really materialised even before the Pandemic hit. Realistically it is an aspiration, as for example it is highly unlikely that Germany is going to be able to double it's defence spending any time soon, despite the situation in Ukraine.

There is also an element of smoke and mirrors even in the UK. All kinds of costs are included in our supposed defence expenditure  - pensions, notional value of training land if it were used for housing which was then rented out, the jets used by politicians and the royal family etc etc. 'Real' expenditure is supposed to be nearer 1.6% 

[whelk]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Seeing increasing chatter about Michelle Obama being lined up to replace Biden. No idea if true. 

Think it is wishful thinking but would love to be true. She should do it if only out if duty to ensure Trump gets fucked

[whelk]

The Biden gaffs of late have probably helped any wavering Dems become convinced he is not fit to stand and will not draw voters

[buctootim]

6 hours ago, whelk said:

The Biden gaffs of late have probably helped any wavering Dems become convinced he is not fit to stand and will not draw voters

7 hours ago, whelk said:

Think it is wishful thinking but would love to be true. She should do it if only out if duty to ensure Trump gets fucked

 

Probably is wishful thinking but I imagine many people wish it to be true. The Obamas might be the only people able persuade him to stand aside - he was Baracks VP and Michelle and Bidens wife Jill were friends apparently,  

Edited 12 February, 2024 by buctootim

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, trousers said:

Aye; if one cuts through Trump's usual rhetoric / hyperbole / poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour, there is a valid underlying point there. 

Out of interest, does anyone know the history / backgrouind behind why so many countries don't adhere to the 2% of GDP committment? Are there underlying valid reasons why they don't / can't comply or is all based on political posturing etc? (I've never looked into it so genuinely interested if there's any Saintswebbers out there who are experts in this area)

Apparently some members are paying more than 2%. I agree that Trump/the US have a right to expect member nations in NATO to pay their way, where it turns into the usual Trump batshit crazy land is where he says if they don’t, then Russia can do what they like with them. That stuff might go down well in a redneck roadhouse, but it has no place in international politics - not least when there is another sociopath looking to exploit any weaknesses in the West.

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Apparently some members are paying more than 2%. I agree that Trump/the US have a right to expect member nations in NATO to pay their way, where it turns into the usual Trump batshit crazy land is where he says if they don’t, then Russia can do what they like with them. That stuff might go down well in a redneck roadhouse, but it has no place in international politics - not least when there is another sociopath looking to exploit any weaknesses in the West.

The more the USA foots Europe’s defence bill, the more control they expect - which I know you hate

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

She should do it if only out if duty to ensure Trump gets fucked

I can't imagine her standards ever going that low. 🙂

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Apparently some members are paying more than 2%. I agree that Trump/the US have a right to expect member nations in NATO to pay their way, where it turns into the usual Trump batshit crazy land is where he says if they don’t, then Russia can do what they like with them. That stuff might go down well in a redneck roadhouse, but it has no place in international politics - not least when there is another sociopath looking to exploit any weaknesses in the West.

What a load of old pony. 

[LVSaint]

12 hours ago, buctootim said:

 

Probably is wishful thinking but I imagine many people wish it to be true. The Obamas might be the only people able persuade him to stand aside - he was Baracks VP and Michelle and Bidens wife Jill were friends apparently,  

Yup, this 'romantic' notion that she could be the chosen one is so far fetched. She's linked only by the fact that her husband and Joe were/are close...and he could have a word in the old man's ear, etc?! Oh and she's had first hand experience of the White House...  Incidentally, did anyone notice Trump Jnr's recent tweet comparing her to an NFL linebacker? I'd personally like to see a bullet put in his head first.

realistically, the most obvious replacement is California governor.....Arnie....no, Gavin Newsom, but he seems to have ruled himself out in this cycle. FFS. Useless, lazy, apathetic fools in allowing Trump another go.

[buctootim]

12 hours ago, LVSaint said:

realistically, the most obvious replacement is California governor.....Arnie....no, Gavin Newsom, but he seems to have ruled himself out in this cycle. FFS. Useless, lazy, apathetic fools in allowing Trump another go.

Isnt that a tactical 'there is no vacancy and dont want to appear grasping and disloyal' ruling himself out? I'm sure if Biden said tomorrow he isnt going to stand again Newsom would run. Newsom is impressive, seems to have endless facts and figures at his fingertips. Not sure howe a gay guy would go down in many states tho. Perhaps it doesnt matter if they are firmly red and Trump anyhow.  

[Fan The Flames]

In order to save America, the deep state might decide it's better to murder Biden instead of Trump. 

[LVSaint]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Isnt that a tactical 'there is no vacancy and dont want to appear grasping and disloyal' ruling himself out? I'm sure if Biden said tomorrow he isnt going to stand again Newsom would run. Newsom is impressive, seems to have endless facts and figures at his fingertips. Not sure howe a gay guy would go down in many states tho. Perhaps it doesnt matter if they are firmly red and Trump anyhow.  

Hopefully it's a matter of tactical timing then.

Newsom is impressive and would give Trump a spanking in the debates. He's straight, are you confusing him with Buttigieg?

[revolution saint]

15 hours ago, LVSaint said:

Yup, this 'romantic' notion that she could be the chosen one is so far fetched. She's linked only by the fact that her husband and Joe were/are close...and he could have a word in the old man's ear, etc?! Oh and she's had first hand experience of the White House...  Incidentally, did anyone notice Trump Jnr's recent tweet comparing her to an NFL linebacker? I'd personally like to see a bullet put in his head first.

realistically, the most obvious replacement is California governor.....Arnie....no, Gavin Newsom, but he seems to have ruled himself out in this cycle. FFS. Useless, lazy, apathetic fools in allowing Trump another go.

I saw an interview recently with Gavin Newsom and that was the first time I'd really heard him speak in detail.  He was quite impressive and certainly seemed to be a cut above both Biden and Trump.  I think he's doing a tour of the red states at the moment?  

Michelle Obama with Barak as VP would be good but probably wishful thinking.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

In order to save America, the deep state might decide it's better to murder Biden instead of Trump. 

2 for 1 offer ?

[Baird of the land]

17 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I saw an interview recently with Gavin Newsom and that was the first time I'd really heard him speak in detail.  He was quite impressive and certainly seemed to be a cut above both Biden and Trump.  I think he's doing a tour of the red states at the moment?  

Michelle Obama with Barak as VP would be good but probably wishful thinking.

Would Barak even be allowed to be VP, having been president for 2 terms

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Would Barak even be allowed to be VP, having been president for 2 terms

Probably a good test case for the 12th Amendment.

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, LVSaint said:

are you confusing him with Buttigieg?

Ha no but did make some big assumptions because he's fit, well dressed and a former mayor of San Francisco! My bad 

[badgerx16]

Does this ruling effectively outlaw IVF ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337

[skintsaint]

If that comes to the UK, freeze lots of embryo's and claim the dole with 100's of dependants. ££££££

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, skintsaint said:

If that comes to the UK, freeze lots of embryo's and claim the dole with 100's of dependants. ££££££

I shall miss your user name, when you change it. 🙂

[skintsaint]

3 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I shall miss your user name, when you change it. 🙂

cashedupsaint coming soon........

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Does this ruling effectively outlaw IVF ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337

As soon as I started reading it, I was wondering about the implications for abortion. Which it went onto cover.

"The wrongful death law applied to "all unborn children, regardless of their location", the decision said.

Concurring with the majority opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote: "Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."

The bit in bold stood out, and prompted me to go back to the top, where I'd missed "Alabama" first time.

It also explains why the pics of my scans show me with a beard, robe and sandals. 🙂

[buctootim]

Heard somebody say on US TV. "Who really believes they are babies? If there was a fire and you could only save one six month old baby or 100 embryos which one are you going to choose?" 

[Fan The Flames]

On 22/02/2024 at 09:21, badgerx16 said:

Does this ruling effectively outlaw IVF ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337

How does it affect IVF, this hasn't been explained in anything I've read. Are they saying its wrong to extract the embryos in the first place, or that it will be wrong to implant them. 

It's a weird state of affairs. Surely the family who's embryos were ruined could have just sued for negligence. And a person wandered in a dropped them. It all sounds a bit suspect.

And the quote "Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory" sounds like something from Iran.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

How does it affect IVF, this hasn't been explained in anything I've read. Are they saying its wrong to extract the embryos in the first place, or that it will be wrong to implant them.

They are implying it is wrong to destroy the unused 'embryos', which further implies they have to be preserved indefinitely. This was the premise of my OP - what medical facility is going to do that?

Edited 23 February, 2024 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

36 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

 

It's a weird state of affairs. Surely the family who's embryos were ruined could have just sued for negligence. And a person wandered in a dropped them. It all sounds a bit suspect.

 

I imagine they can get more cash for wrongful death than negligence?

[Fan The Flames]

36 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

They are implying it is wrong to destroy the unused 'embryos', which further implies they have to be preserved indefinitely. This was the premise of my OP - what medical facility is going to do that?

That makes sense, thanks.

[Fan The Flames]

33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I imagine they can get more cash for wrongful death than negligence?

It feels like a test case set up to me to get a judgement.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sleepy Joe successfully easing tensions in the middle east again. I wondered why the Israelis hadn’t attacked Haifa, now I know. Old Joe warned them off doing so. 
 

The leader of the free world folks 
 

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Sleepy Joe successfully easing tensions in the middle east again. I wondered why the Israelis hadn’t attacked Haifa, now I know. Old Joe warned them off doing so. 
 

The leader of the free world folks 
 

 

 

Good times!

The options are that or Trump! Despots around the globe are rubbing their hands.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Sleepy Joe successfully easing tensions in the middle east again. I wondered why the Israelis hadn’t attacked Haifa, now I know. Old Joe warned them off doing so. 
 

The leader of the free world folks 
 

 

 

The alternative making a speech in Pennsylvania at the weekend;

"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. I mean, it was so much and so interesting and so vicious and horrible and so beautiful in so many different ways, It represented such a big portion of the success this country. Gettysburg, wow."

 

[badgerx16]

How many times does it need to be said ?

Fucked up country..........

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033d532354o

[east-stand-nic]

19 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

How many times does it need to be said ?

Fucked up country..........

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033d532354o

So, the idiot Trump banned it and the great guy Biden brought it back.

[whelk]

12 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, the idiot Trump banned it and the great guy Biden brought it back.

Yeah you fully understand their legal system. Something you could get yourself educated on by MSM maybe

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, the idiot Trump banned it and the great guy Biden brought it back.

No.

If you bothered to take your tongue out of Trump's arse for a bit and read some facts, you'll find that the ruling was made by the supreme court, which is heavily conservative leaning, and that Biden has critcised the decision.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, the idiot Trump banned it and the great guy Biden brought it back.

Did you wake up this morning and think 'How can I make myself look even more of a thick prick than usual ?', because if you did - congratulations, you succeeded.

Edited 16 June, 2024 by badgerx16

[east-stand-nic]

17 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

No.

If you bothered to take your tongue out of Trump's arse for a bit and read some facts, you'll find that the ruling was made by the supreme court, which is heavily conservative leaning, and that Biden has critcised the decision.

Yep, knew it. Anything good done by Trump = not done by Trump. Anything bad done by Biden, stitch up and lies by Trump. You guys are so childish and blind it is unreal.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

Yep, knew it. Anything good done by Trump = not done by Trump. Anything bad done by Biden, stitch up and lies by Trump. You guys are so childish and blind it is unreal.

President Biden had nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on bump stocks. It is really quite a simple thing to comprehend. Nobody is laying any blame at Trump's door for the decision either, they are just pointing out that the SC has a Conservative majority due to mrmbers having been appointed during Trump's Presidency.

Are you unwilling, or unable, to understand what happened ? And you accuse others of being blind to facts and twisting the logic of situations.

Edited 17 June, 2024 by badgerx16