***Official Political Discussion Thread***

rexanglorum said:
Since human civilization’s survival depends on us overcoming capitalism and overcoming capitalism requires cross racial worker coalition building and since we have ruled out the possibility of cross racial worker coalitions, we are doomed.

It’s time to just embrace climate posadism and accept that most of humanity will die off due to capitalism induced, catastrophic climate change and maybe then capitalism and white supremacy will fall apart and the survivors can try to start anew.
Click to expand...
This is what will happen. No doubt about it at all. Let it burn. I have said this before here, too much harm has been done, and Mother Nature is pissed. There is always the calm before the storm, and having Gordon Gekko in charge, has sped up the process.
 
Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary chairman Graham is urging Don Jr to ignore the subpoena and refuse to show up or plead the 5th.
It is quite telling that Republicans are furious about Burr issuing a subpoena to Don Jr, whilst remaining silent about the Mueller report indicating that Burr briefed the WH on the status of the FBI's Russia investigation after Comey briefed congressional leadership about it.

For what it's worth, Democrats on the Senate Intel committee have given Burr the benefit of the doubt as he maintained a bipartisan investigation. Burr himself said that he doesn't recall briefing the WH on the FBI investigation but added that he might have discussed the individuals the Senate Intel committee was looking at. He said those names (Manafort, Page, Flynn, Papadopoulos) were public by that time, with the exception of Papadopoulos.
Perhaps issuing the subpoena to Don Jr was intended as an attempt to restore his credibility in light of that revelation in the Mueller report.
5465b99138cc7ebd6c8ac940d80756c4.png

https://www.apnews.com/68fc79442530436986b3f4cbdad78b2c
Canceled interviews led to Trump Jr. subpoena
The Senate intelligence committee subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. after he backed out of two scheduled interviews as part of the panel’s Russia investigation, the chairman of the committee told his Republican colleagues last week as he tried to stem criticism from the move.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., outlined the events at a GOP caucus luncheon Thursday after weathering fierce criticism for the subpoena of President Donald Trump’s eldest son, according to three people familiar with the remarks. They requested anonymity to discuss the private senators’ meeting.

Burr told colleagues that Trump Jr. had twice voluntarily agreed to interviews and later backed out. The committee had been in negotiations with Trump Jr. since December and had scheduled the interviews for March and April, according to one of the people familiar with his remarks.

Trump Jr.‘s stance about the interviews changed after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe on Russian election interference ended without any charges, according to a person familiar with his beliefs but not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations. Trump Jr.’s legal team also complained that, in its view, the committee refused to negotiate the scope or time limit of the testimony.
The president on Tuesday said he believed that his son was being treated poorly.

“It’s really a tough situation because my son spent, I guess, over 20 hours testifying about something that Mueller said was 100 percent OK and now they want him to testify again,” Trump told reporters at the White House before traveling to Louisiana. “I don’t know why. I have no idea why. But it seems very unfair to me.”

It’s unclear if Trump Jr. will comply with the subpoena, or whether the committee will take action to hold him in contempt if he doesn’t. Senators on the committee want to go over answers Trump Jr. gave the panel’s staff in a 2017 interview and ask further questions.

It’s the first known subpoena of a member of the president’s immediate family, and news of the move prompted strong words from Burr’s Republican colleagues last week, including some who went as far as to say they thought Trump Jr. shouldn’t comply.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., tweeted, “It’s time to move on & start focusing on issues that matter to Americans.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a GOP member of the panel, said he understood Trump Jr.’s frustration. Cornyn’s Texas colleague, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, said there was “no need” for the subpoena.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on “Fox News Sunday” that if he were Trump Jr.’s lawyer, “I would tell him, ‘You don’t need to go back into this environment anymore.’”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended Burr, telling his colleagues during the private GOP luncheon that he trusted the intelligence committee chairman. On Tuesday, McConnell told reporters that “none of us tell Chairman Burr how to run his committee.”

Still, McConnell made it clear that he is eager to be finished with the probe, which has now gone on for more than two years.

Burr has “indicated publicly he believes they will find no collusion” with Russia, McConnell said. “We’re hoping we will get a report on that subject sometime soon.”

It’s uncertain when the panel will issue a final report. Burr told The Associated Press earlier this month that he hopes to be finished with the investigation by the end of the year.

The subpoena highlights a delicate bind facing Burr, a third-term senator who has said he is not running for re-election in 2022. He has been adamant that the panel’s Russia probe be bipartisan and fair and has worked closely with the panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.

Burr’s committee had renewed interest in talking to Trump Jr. after Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, told a House committee in February that he had briefed Trump Jr. approximately 10 times about a plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow before the presidential election. Trump Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a separate interview in 2017 he was only “peripherally aware” of the proposal.

The panel is also interested in talking to the president’s first son about other topics, including a campaign meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer.

That Trump Jr. backed out of the interviews was first reported by CNN.
Click to expand...
 
And the committee has just now struck a deal with Don Jr, in spite of Jr's refusal to comply with the Mueller investigation and his earlier refusals to comply with the Senate Intel investigation.
 
"The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton"
Shocker, who could've seen that coming?
If only there was some sort of safeguard against Iran's nuclear program. Oh right, Trump crippled that safeguard despite certifying Iran's compliance and then proceeded to sabotage the efforts of the other signatory states to maintain the Iran deal. All signatory states were in favor of renegotiation but Trump & co destroyed that possibility through their continued sabotage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War
At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.

The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.

The development reflects the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.

It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Trump, who has sought to disentangle the United States from Afghanistan and Syria, ultimately would send so many American forces back to the Middle East.

It is also unclear whether the president has been briefed on the number of troops or other details in the plans. On Monday, asked about if he was seeking regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said: “We’ll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake.”
There are sharp divisions in the administration over how to respond to Iran at a time when tensions are rising about Iran’s nuclear policy and its intentions in the Middle East.

Some senior American officials said the plans, even at a very preliminary stage, show how dangerous the threat from Iran has become. Others, who are urging a diplomatic resolution to the current tensions, said it amounts to a scare tactic to warn Iran against new aggressions.

European allies who met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said that they worry that tensions between Washington and Tehran could boil over, possibly inadvertently.

More than a half-dozen American national security officials who have been briefed on details of the updated plans agreed to discuss them with The New York Times on the condition of anonymity. Spokesmen for Mr. Shanahan and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to comment.

The size of the force involved has shocked some who have been briefed on them. The 120,000 troops would approach the size of the American force that invaded Iraq in 2003.

Deploying such a robust air, land and naval force would give Tehran more targets to strike, and potentially more reason to do so, risking entangling the United States in a drawn out conflict. It also would reverse years of retrenching by the American military in the Middle East that began with President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011.

But two of the American national security officials said Mr. Trump’s announced drawdown in December of American forces in Syria, and the diminished naval presence in the region, appear to have emboldened some leaders in Tehran and convinced the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that the United States has no appetite for a fight with Iran.

Several oil tankers were reportedly attacked or sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates over the weekend, raising fears that shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf could become flash points. “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens,” Mr. Trump said on Monday, asked about the episode.

Emirati officials are investigating the apparent sabotage, and American officials suspect that Iran was involved. Several officials cautioned, however, that there is not yet any definitive evidence linking Iran or its proxies to the reported attacks. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman called it a “regretful incident,” according to a state news agency.

In Brussels, Mr. Pompeo met with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, cosignatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, as well as with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini. He did not speak to the media, but the European officials said they had urged restraint upon Washington, fearing accidental escalation that could lead to conflict with Iran.

“We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side,” said Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign secretary.

The Iranian government has not threatened violence recently, but last week, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran would walk away from parts of the 2015 nuclear deal it reached with world powers. Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement a year ago, but European nations have urged Iran to stick with the deal and ignore Mr. Trump’s provocations.

The high-level review of the Pentagon’s plans was presented during a meeting about broader Iran policy. It was held days after what the Trump administration described, without evidence, as new intelligence indicating that Iran was mobilizing proxy groups in Iraq and Syria to attack American forces.

As a precaution, the Pentagon has moved an aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers, a Patriot missile interceptor battery and more naval firepower to the gulf region.

At last week’s meeting, Mr. Shanahan gave an overview of the Pentagon’s planning, then turned to General Dunford to detail various force options, officials said. The uppermost option called for deploying 120,000 troops, which would take weeks or months to complete.

Among those attending Thursday’s meeting were Mr. Shanahan; Mr. Bolton; General Dunford; Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director; and Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.


“The president has been clear, the United States does not seek military conflict with Iran, and he is open to talks with Iranian leadership,” Garrett Marquis, a National Security Council spokesman, said Monday in an email. “However, Iran’s default option for 40 years has been violence, and we are ready to defend U.S. personnel and interests in the region.”

The reduction of forces in the Middle East in recent years has been propelled by a new focus on China, Russia and a so-called Great Powers competition. The most recent National Defense Strategy — released before Mr. Bolton joined the Trump administration — concluded that while the Middle East remains important, and Iran is a threat to American allies, the United States must do more to ensure a rising China does not upend the world order.

As recently as late April, an American intelligence analysis indicated that Iran had no short-term desire to provoke a conflict. But new intelligence reports, including intercepts, imagery and other information, have since indicated that Iran was building up its proxy forces’ readiness to fight and was preparing them to attack American forces in the region.

The new intelligence reports surfaced on the afternoon of May 3, Mr. Shanahan told Congress last week. On May 5, Mr. Bolton announced the first of new deployments to the Persian Gulf, including bombers and an aircraft carrier.

It is not clear to American intelligence officials what changed Iran’s posture. But intelligence and Defense Department officials said American sanctions have been working better than originally expected, proving far more crippling to the Iranian economy — especially after a clampdown on all oil exports that was announced last month.

Also in April, the State Department designated the Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist organization over objections from Pentagon and intelligence officials who feared reprisals from the Iranian military.

While much of the new intelligence appears to have focused on Iran readying its proxy forces, officials said they believed the most likely cause of a conflict will follow a provocative act, or outright attack, by the Revolutionary Guards’ navy. The Guards’ fleet of small boats has a history of approaching American Navy ships at high speed. Revolutionary Guards commanders have precarious control over their ill-disciplined naval forces.

Part of the updated planning appears to focus on what military action the United States might take if Iran resumes its nuclear fuel production, which has been frozen under the 2015 agreement. It would be difficult for the Trump administration to make a case that the United States was under imminent nuclear peril; Iran shipped 97 percent of its fuel out of the country in 2016, and currently does not have enough to make a bomb.

That could change if Iran resumes enriching uranium. But it would take a year or more to build up a significant quantity of material, and longer to fashion it into a weapon. That would allow, at least in theory, plenty of time for the United States to develop a response — like a further cutoff of oil revenues, covert action or military strikes.

The previous version of the Pentagon’s war plan included a classified subset code-named Nitro Zeus, a cyberoperation that called for unplugging Iran’s major cities, its power grid and its military.

The idea was to use cyberweapons to paralyze Iran in the opening hours of any conflict, in hopes that it would obviate the need to drop any bombs or conduct a traditional attack. That plan required extensive presence inside Iran’s networks — called “implants” or “beacons” — that would pave the way for injecting destabilizing malware into Iranian systems.

Two officials said those plans have been constantly updated in recent years.

But even a cyberattack, without dropping bombs, carries significant risk. Iran has built up a major corps of its own, one that successfully attacked financial markets in 2012, a casino in Las Vegas and a range of military targets. American intelligence officials told Congress in January that Iranian hackers are now considered sophisticated operators who are increasingly capable of striking United States targets.

Since Mr. Bolton became national security adviser in April 2018, he has intensified the Trump administration’s policy of isolating and pressuring Iran. The animus against Iran’s leaders dates back at least to his days as an official in the George W. Bush administration. Later, as a private citizen, Mr. Bolton called for military strikes on Iran, as well as regime change.


The newly updated plans were not the first time during the Trump administration that Mr. Bolton has sought military options to strike Iran.

This year, Defense Department and senior American officials said Mr. Bolton sought similar guidance from the Pentagon last year, after Iranian-backed militants fired three mortar rounds or rockets into an empty lot on the grounds of the United States Embassy in Baghdad in September.

In response to Mr. Bolton’s request, which alarmed Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, the Pentagon offered some general options, including a cross-border airstrike on an Iranian military facility that would have been mostly symbolic.

But Mr. Mattis and other military leaders adamantly opposed retaliation for the Baghdad attack, successfully arguing that it was insignificant.
Click to expand...
Excerpts:
d0478b9e4706409231e1593a9da4942f.png

3512e507cbe1c0384d68104a5a937133.png


c6b625ba92fbb4ac4b6d8ed4c9d9e421.png


9dfbda90a3983c65841ec77cc335c556.png


eeb6165f60b5c99dc42d63df570f9616.png


 
KHUFU said:
This is what will happen. No doubt about it at all. Let it burn. I have said this before here, too much harm has been done, and Mother Nature is pissed. There is always the calm before the storm, and having Gordon Gekko in charge, has sped up the process.
Click to expand...

Been saying it for a minute. Earth is clearly a living entity like the human body. The human body uses fever and antibodies to fight off illnesses.

Humans are like a very stubborn antigen. It appears to me earth itself is trying to get rid of an infection.
 
itsaboutthattime said:
Click to expand...


I don't necessarily disagree with Trump on his tariffs. I just think its too late because people have gotten use to paying pennies for goods made in China with slave labor.
However, the goal here is to have consumers buy American (w/American labor standards) because the Chinese product is now just as expensive given the tariffs.
Problem is we implemented tariffs too late and it's now harder to find 100% USA made goods. American producers want on the cheap products/materials too so many "American" products include Chinese parts/materials. Thus tariffs will drive both local and foreign goods costs up.

side note: I use to buy foreign French and Italian goods not necessarily because they were luxury but because they were made with quality craftsmanship and I knew their employees were getting a paid vacation, a lunch break, and living wages. Unfortunately Europe has followed american corporate greed and now brands like French Lacoste are making their goods in Vietnam or Peru using slave labor with no retail price reduction. So essentially you are now paying for the brand name and not for the craftsmanship and higher labor standards you were use to paying for.

I would pay $20 for a quality and american made shirt over $5 Chinese shirt if it would provide the employee a decent living wage.
 
Last edited:
rexanglorum said:
Since human civilization’s survival depends on us overcoming capitalism and overcoming capitalism requires cross racial worker coalition building and since we have ruled out the possibility of cross racial worker coalitions, we are doomed.

It’s time to just embrace climate posadism and accept that most of humanity will die off due to capitalism induced, catastrophic climate change and maybe then capitalism and white supremacy will fall apart and the survivors can try to start anew.
Click to expand...

Doom and gloom much lol

I still think there is hope but we need an honest and transparent government to intervene.
Corporate greed is souless and needs a counter balance that focuses on a safety net and the greater good.
Corporate America can still follow their money hungry interest but we will shave a little bit off the top in order to revamp the rules of the game and ensure corporations are abiding by them.
Government can also use corporate profits to ensure everyone has basic education and healthcare.
Instead of raising the minimum wage I would probably establish a ratio between the highest earner and lowest earner of a corporation. Perhaps a cap that says a CEO can not make more than 10,000% of their lowest company earner i.e. compaction.
People can still flourish but you gotta bring the tide up with you.
The rest of the mountain climb is up to the individual

#Bernie2020
 
KHUFU said:
Lol @ someone wanting Black people to fight against their own best interests, yet again. Poor white interests are not the same as the descendants of African slave best interests, of which should never be combined as a force for change. The way white people ignore history, then always wanting to revise such, proves that efforts to join forces would be fruitless. Only a fool would walk into a lions den, rocking a steak suit.
Click to expand...

W.E.B. Dubois wrote a book on this called Black Reconstruction. Basically to summarize since slavery poor black people have reached out to poor whites and said let’s work together to promote our shared interest and poor whites have consistently said “No, but we’ll take your ideas, and through segregation, benefit ourselves at your expense”. Until someone can show me when that trend hasn’t been the default norm then I do not believe there is a common interest.
 
Wargames said:
W.E.B. Dubois wrote a book on this called Black Reconstruction. Basically to summarize since slavery poor black people have reached out to poor whites and said let’s work together to promote our shared interest and poor whites have consistently said “No, but we’ll take your ideas, and through segregation, benefit ourselves at your expense”. Until someone can show me when that trend hasn’t been the default norm then I do not believe there is a common interest.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Appropriation at its finest. I've asked this question more than a few times, can you name one land where those who've deemed themselves white have arrived, with them leaving the indigenous people of that land in a better place? Nobody, and I mean not one person, has been able to give me an answer.
 
RIP sleazyy said:
Been saying it for a minute. Earth is clearly a living entity like the human body. The human body uses fever and antibodies to fight off illnesses.

Humans are like a very stubborn antigen. It appears to me earth itself is trying to get rid of an infection.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how well you read, nor how well written your statements may be, no hurricane, no tsunami, has ever stopped to ask how many degrees you have, nor how many books you've read, before it wipes your behind out.

The entitlement of those who feel that they can challenge what is going on, is quite comical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom