US Politics Thread 2021-24

[mapuc]

This is why you should be critical to what your news channel is showing you

In the virtual hearing, which went awry when another alleged Capitol rioter interrupted with obscenities, Antonio’s attorney, Joseph Hurley, claimed that Fox News’s decision to regularly air then-President Donald Trump’s false claims of mass election fraud contributed to Antonio’s decision to participate in the insurrection

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-capitol-riot/

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This is why you should be critical to what your news channel is showing you



https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-capitol-riot/

Markus

Valid point Markus. The media is never held accountable for what it broadcasts (unless you are a kid on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial smiling at a Native American banging an instrument in your face).

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Valid point Markus. The media is never held accountable for what it broadcasts (unless you are a kid on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial smiling at a Native American banging an instrument in your face).

I hope the judge have the same attitude as you-Because a grown-up is responsible for their decisions or action they make/take.

During this afternoon I saw a half hours news from CNN.
Where they had a breaking story

The title was
"USA and its allied.....wargames amid Russian tension"

What is it that makes it breaking news ??

Wargames have been placed since...Napoleon or earlier.

Tension has always been between Soviet/Russia since 1917/18.
Sometimes it is high as now and sometimes it is low as it was in the 90's

Markus

[Moonlight]

Cast your mind back to James Bond "Tomorrow Never Dies" war, famine, terrorism, death and destruction and many other scenarios sells newspapers, diplomacy does not.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I hope the judge have the same attitude as you-Because a grown-up is responsible for their decisions or action they make/take.

During this afternoon I saw a half hours news from CNN.
Where they had a breaking story

The title was
"USA and its allied.....wargames amid Russian tension"

What is it that makes it breaking news ??

Wargames have been placed since...Napoleon or earlier.

Tension has always been between Soviet/Russia since 1917/18.
Sometimes it is high as now and sometimes it is low as it was in the 90's

Markus

Just a sensationalistic headline to catch peoples attention. Remember, we had 4 straight years of hearing about Russian collusion and good times. It worked for 4 years. Might as well keep using it.

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57166735

The New York State Attorney General, Letitia James, clearly believes that there is enough at play to warrant moving the investigation from a civil to a criminal one. When combined with the ongoing examination of the former president's tax returns by the Manhattan District Attorney, Cy Vance, Mr Trump is looking at a complex and tangled legal battle ahead — one which he remains adamant he shouldn't have to face but which he now almost certainly cannot avoid.

[Skybird]

https://www.axios.com/nord-stream-sa...99d674077.html

Sources close to the situation say that top Biden officials have determined that the only way to potentially stop the project — which is 95% complete — is to sanction the German end users of the gas. And the Biden administration is not willing to rupture its relationship with Germany over Nord Stream 2.

The American threats and demands have been found since long by legal experts to be breaking international law anyway.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57166735

All of which means basically nothing, there are now down to investigating whether the "valuation" they gave to buildings was too high or too low and whether that could be fraud. Based on what we know so far, this will peter out like every other attempt to find some "crime", any "crime" to charge Trump with.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The American threats and demands have been found since long by legal experts to be breaking international law anyway.

what?

what legal experts, pray tell?

The U.S. legislation imposing the sanctions was absolutely legal. The way all extra-territorial sanctions imposed by the U.S. works is by using just U.S. domestic laws. What the laws basically say is that IF you break the sanction, you can no longer do business in the USA which is a death sentence to any multi-national business.

We had a case up here where one of my clients was offered a very lucrative contract with Huawei. There is no sanction or laws in Canada preventing anyone from doing business with Huawei, but there are very tough U.S. sanctions against Huawei. By taking the contract, all of my client's business and assets in the U.S. would be subject to fine or seizure and any U.S. director could be subject to criminal prosecution in the USA. We checked with everyone, including the top lawyer in Canada on international sanction laws and the answer we got was that the U.S. sanctions were perfectly legal and there was no way around them.

[Skybird]

Bilge Rat, there have been several requests for assessment to legal expert boards on WTO level, EU level, German government and parliament level, and the scientific service of the Bundestag as well as its pendant on UN level, and all resulting reports have always rejected the american demands and ruled them to be breaking international law by claiming that American interest-led self-legitimation does not overrule sovereign decision making and treaties between sovereing foreign nations doing business that excludes the US. Sovereign nations doing dealsd between themsleves must not ask you for permission if ni American property is affected, you see.

Its just not your business and does not need your legal permission. You stick your noses into something your precious national law is not relevant for, since no US company and property is involved. Maybe some in Washington think that the world is their property and most obey them and is regulated by US national legislation. Well, it mustn't, and isn't.

The US wants to replace Russian energy exports with overpriced and lower quality own exports of liquidized gas, which is more polluted, thus needs more post-processing, and price-ise not competitive. Very bad deal for us, it already is, and we do not want to increase our losses. Europe buys some of that already, to do America a favour, but the interest to increase these imports from the US has been avaluated, and found to be NILL. Lousy quality at overpriced costs: very bad deal. Thats why Germany does not build a once planned further gas terminal at Wilhelmshaven. There are no industry customers who would buy that additonal gas. Its too bad an offer.
Moneymoneymoney. US laws have no valid legal claim do regulate independent treaties and regulations between foreign sovereign nations. This is what has been confirmed by legal experts time and again, and it explains why those European nations not liking Norstream 2 nevertheless reject to openly confront the Germans and side with Washington. The US has tried to bully Denmark, Sweden to make them prevent building the pipeline in their waters, and got a bloody nose everytime. Brussels also has formally rejected the Washington demands although its sympathy for the German going is somewhat muted.

You see, Washington's permission does not get asked about this. Its not your legal matter, you may not like that and claim otherwise, but nevertheless it is not your legal matter. Never was, never will be. You break international law where you act to enforce your demands the way the cinese try to enforce theirs for the South chinese sea. It simpyl is illegal in both (different) cases. Thgere are no valid legal claims. Only self-legitimations one tries to bully through.

Biden does not change his course for nothing. He knows he has no valid legal basis in all this, he does not want to deepen the rifts between the US and Germany, and he wants germany'S support for his climate agenda and his international minimum tax policy. Not all states in the EU are happy with minimum corporation tax raises, some benefit from keeping them low. If he wants Germany to weigh in its weight on EU level, he needs to make concessions. Tit for tat.


The bitterness in resisting Germany, and EU mistrust towards the US, he will not overcome that cheaply, however. Four orange years have taught us all a lesson we will not ignore again. America first, okay, we took note of it. And we draw consequences from it. You broke it, you're proud of having broken it, now live with the broken pieces.


Why we should prefer to replace US-claimed dependency from Russian energy with dependency from US energy, is beyond me, btw. After said four orange years, the appetite for that is somewhat limited. Like it or not, those four years have done damage that is going to stay. We wpould be stupid to just go back to the time before that as if nothiugn happend. We have been demonstrated very convincingly how easily the US political landscape can go bollocks, and how easily the government in Washington can lose it. What happened four years ago, can easily - and will - happen again.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bilge Rat, there have been several requests for assessment to legal expert boards on WTO level, EU level, German government and parliament level, and the scientific service of the Bundestag as well as its pendant on UN level, and all resulting reports have always rejected the american demands and ruled them to be breaking international law by claiming that American interest-led self-legitimation does not overrule sovereign decision making and treaties between sovereing foreign nations doing business that excludes the US. Sovereign nations doing dealsd between themsleves must not ask you for permission if ni American property is affected, you see.

Its just not your business and does not need your legal permission. gain.

Well it looks like Biden is now the most pro Putin administration to date. Seems he just backed off and is allowing Russia to complete Nordstream2.

Though Biden doesnt have problem colluding with Putin building a pipeline. He has no problem shutting down Keystone and the jobs it would create for his own back home.

Meanwhile Euros complain about climate change yet never meet any of their goals and seem to have no problem pumping methane into the atmosphere through NS2 pipeline.

[Catfish]

Probably he backed off because he has no chance legally or otherwise.
How exactly do you pump methane into the air with burning crude or raffinated spirits?

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well it looks like Biden is now the most pro Putin administration to date. Seems he just backed off and is allowing Russia to complete Nordstream2.

I don't really care. We'd be better off if Germany was Russia's problem anyways.

Originally Posted by Catfish

Probably he backed off because he has no chance legally or otherwise.

He had no chance of imposing sanctions on the Russian individual and company overseeing the pipelines construction? I'd say it was more like he had the ability to impose sanctions and chose not to. That is not the same thing as giving his permission for the project itself.

[mapuc]

Regarding Nordstream 2

It has not so much to do with knowledge where people stand in this issue. The standpoint is based on a person personal belief and where they stand politically.

Markus

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by August

I don't really care. We'd be better off if Germany was Russia's problem anyways. [...].

Really. Why don't you go at last. I thought the biggest problems of today's world are Russia and the US, and China.