Happened again
SILVER ELITE
who are you talking about?
Today in Fascism
- Thread starter Hüsker Dü
- Start date
"Putin and Russia are winning...it's not pretty, but they are winning. don't believe the hype, we are spending an untold amount of printed dollars on a proxy war with an inevitable ending. Waste of your dollars but very effective at raising gas prices."
President Joe Biden
Don't feel bad. Nobody else is either. The people that need to won’t and if they do they won’t believe any of it . . . they think trump is still president. It is purely a political stunt to enlighten. It won’t work. ‘murican’ts don’t care, they just want daddy back.
www.socalsoccer.com
The consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for international security – NATO and beyond
February 24, 2022, is likely to engrave itself on the history template of the contemporary world. Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is not only a manifestation of a huge security danger that has shattered peace in Europe.
More structurally, it has broken the entire security architecture built patiently on the continent over many decades, including international commitments agreed in the last 30 years. As the top UK general recently observed, it is dangerous to assume that the war on Ukraine is a limited conflict. This could be “our 1937 moment“, and everything possible must be done in order to stop territorial expansion by force, thereby averting a war similar to the one that ravaged Europe 80 years ago. Mobilising our resources must start today.
This is also a war against the West
The magnitude of damage is immense and still increasing. Ukrainians (military and civilians alike) are being killed simply because they are Ukrainians. Whole cities – like Mariupol – are being razed to the ground. Evident atrocities fitting the criteria of war crimes are being perpetrated and accompanied by genocidal talk on Russian state TV. Hundreds of thousands of people, including children, have been forcefully deported to Russia. Over six million (at the time of writing) have had to flee Ukraine; many more have been internally displaced. Hospitals, infrastructure, cultural treasures, private homes and industrial centres are either destroyed or pillaged, with stolen goods being sent to Russia in an organised manner.
The suffering of Ukraine presents a moral challenge to Europe and the world. Human rights and the UN Charter have been trampled upon and our values mocked. Indifference is simply not an option. As convincingly explained by Nicholas Tenzer: this is a war against the West too.
According to its own terminology, Putin’s regime has chosen confrontation with the “collective West”, irrespective of the costs for Russia itself. All efforts comprising security and confidence-building measures, or institutional arrangements designed to preserve peace, suddenly look very fragile when faced with blunt force. After many months of Moscow engaging in sham dialogue and blatantly lying to other countries and institutions, including NATO and the OSCE, all trust has been eroded. Moreover, by creating economic shocks in the energy markets and weaponising famine as a political instrument, Russia has further globalised the consequences of its war.
Russian threats
Russia has also purposefully raised the level of risk for the possible use of nuclear weapons, the main goal primarily being to discourage Western Allies from offering military support to Ukraine and to instil fear in decision-makers. A long-held taboo that made an actual application of nuclear force unthinkable has been verbally discarded. While many experts calculate that risk to be low - not higher than five percent - Putin and his aides have chosen to abandon the rational caution exercised by the majority of his Soviet predecessors. Compared to Cold War practice, today, Kremlin propagandists and officials engage in highly irresponsible rhetoric advocating for the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal against Ukraine, and possibly even against NATO states. This is backed by exercises (at least two this year) openly testing the Russian military’s ability to fire nuclear warheads at Western targets and protect Russia from possible counter-strikes. The Russian president has even shown his willingness to bring Belarus into the nuclear equation. Such brinkmanship has contributed to the return of nuclear arms into the power competition on a global stage.
With or without a nuclear threat dimension, Russia’s neighbours already have valid reasons to fear the Russian predator. They feel that, if not stopped in and by Ukraine, Putin may entertain aggression against other territories. The historic decision by both Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership points to the gravity of this threat. Small countries, such as Moldova and Georgia, but also Moscow’s formal allies such as Kazakhstan, may fear becoming Putin’s next target. The Kremlin has not made any attempt to assuage these fears, but has instead amplified them via direct menaces, propaganda and intimidation levers. Latest examples include curtailing gas supplies for political reasons, violating the airspace of a NATO country, threatening Lithuania, and using economic blackmail against Collective Security Treaty Organization member, Kazakhstan.
Entire article:
February 24, 2022, is likely to engrave itself on the history template of the contemporary world. Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is not only a manifestation of a huge security danger that has shattered peace in Europe.
More structurally, it has broken the entire security architecture built patiently on the continent over many decades, including international commitments agreed in the last 30 years. As the top UK general recently observed, it is dangerous to assume that the war on Ukraine is a limited conflict. This could be “our 1937 moment“, and everything possible must be done in order to stop territorial expansion by force, thereby averting a war similar to the one that ravaged Europe 80 years ago. Mobilising our resources must start today.
This is also a war against the West
The magnitude of damage is immense and still increasing. Ukrainians (military and civilians alike) are being killed simply because they are Ukrainians. Whole cities – like Mariupol – are being razed to the ground. Evident atrocities fitting the criteria of war crimes are being perpetrated and accompanied by genocidal talk on Russian state TV. Hundreds of thousands of people, including children, have been forcefully deported to Russia. Over six million (at the time of writing) have had to flee Ukraine; many more have been internally displaced. Hospitals, infrastructure, cultural treasures, private homes and industrial centres are either destroyed or pillaged, with stolen goods being sent to Russia in an organised manner.
The suffering of Ukraine presents a moral challenge to Europe and the world. Human rights and the UN Charter have been trampled upon and our values mocked. Indifference is simply not an option. As convincingly explained by Nicholas Tenzer: this is a war against the West too.
According to its own terminology, Putin’s regime has chosen confrontation with the “collective West”, irrespective of the costs for Russia itself. All efforts comprising security and confidence-building measures, or institutional arrangements designed to preserve peace, suddenly look very fragile when faced with blunt force. After many months of Moscow engaging in sham dialogue and blatantly lying to other countries and institutions, including NATO and the OSCE, all trust has been eroded. Moreover, by creating economic shocks in the energy markets and weaponising famine as a political instrument, Russia has further globalised the consequences of its war.
Russian threats
Russia has also purposefully raised the level of risk for the possible use of nuclear weapons, the main goal primarily being to discourage Western Allies from offering military support to Ukraine and to instil fear in decision-makers. A long-held taboo that made an actual application of nuclear force unthinkable has been verbally discarded. While many experts calculate that risk to be low - not higher than five percent - Putin and his aides have chosen to abandon the rational caution exercised by the majority of his Soviet predecessors. Compared to Cold War practice, today, Kremlin propagandists and officials engage in highly irresponsible rhetoric advocating for the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal against Ukraine, and possibly even against NATO states. This is backed by exercises (at least two this year) openly testing the Russian military’s ability to fire nuclear warheads at Western targets and protect Russia from possible counter-strikes. The Russian president has even shown his willingness to bring Belarus into the nuclear equation. Such brinkmanship has contributed to the return of nuclear arms into the power competition on a global stage.
With or without a nuclear threat dimension, Russia’s neighbours already have valid reasons to fear the Russian predator. They feel that, if not stopped in and by Ukraine, Putin may entertain aggression against other territories. The historic decision by both Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership points to the gravity of this threat. Small countries, such as Moldova and Georgia, but also Moscow’s formal allies such as Kazakhstan, may fear becoming Putin’s next target. The Kremlin has not made any attempt to assuage these fears, but has instead amplified them via direct menaces, propaganda and intimidation levers. Latest examples include curtailing gas supplies for political reasons, violating the airspace of a NATO country, threatening Lithuania, and using economic blackmail against Collective Security Treaty Organization member, Kazakhstan.
Entire article:
NATO Review - The consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for international security – NATO and beyond
February 24, 2022, is likely to engrave itself on the history template of the contemporary world. Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is not only a manifestation of a huge security danger that has shattered peace in Europe.
www.nato.int
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
Raytheon and company are doing a pretty good job of winning. Everything else is white noise.
Hüsker Dü
DA
“white noise”, how apropos.
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
white noise, pink noise, brown noise...you pick.
I prefer white noise, it spans mulitiple bands. Maybe you should try out white noise, it helps with whining and crying, may improve work performance, and helps to focus...give it a shot..
fourteenknots
BRONZE
You got that right my brother. The evidence amassed against Biden is staggering. I’ll give you an example. I heard Biden personally was involved in encouraging thousands of Antifa to dress up as MAGA supporters to storm into the Capitol and try to stop brave congressmen and senators like Josh Hawley and Jim Jordan who were going to successfully reject the fake electors that tried to steal Trump’s landslide 2020 victory.
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
In search of GOP candidates willing to stand up for democracy
As we survey the field of Republican candidates across the state, we are struggling to identify those who are not an active threat to American democracy. ...
lasvegassun.com
"The Editorial Board, and Nevadans as a whole, are facing an agonizing problem. We have endorsed Republicans in the past and might do so again in the future. Yet as we survey the field of Republican candidates across the state, we are struggling to identify those who are not an active threat to American democracy or the institutions of government that have sustained our republic for 250 years. "
"As it stands right now, voters are faced with a slate of GOP candidates — nearly across the board — who aren’t fit for elective office because they buy into the Big Lie and its attempt to derail democracy. We hate finding people in the public sphere who want to destroy the very elections they now seek to win. We hate efforts to disenfranchise voters and rig future elections. We yearn for a dignified, honest and pro-democracy Republican leadership. We yearn for the Republicans of years past. Patriots, not insurrectionists. "
The Inflation Reduction Act is aimed at tackling a host of problems, from climate change to catching tax cheats, but there's one issue it may not solve: reducing inflation.
That's the conclusion of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a group of economists and data scientists at University of Pennsylvania who analyze public policies to predict their economic and fiscal impacts. Its analysis, published Friday, comes as inflation remains near a 40-year high, crimping the budgets of consumers and businesses alike.
The Inflation Reduction Act would invest nearly $400 billion in energy security and climate change proposals, aimed at reducing carbon emissions by approximately 40% by 2030. It also would allow Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers on prescription prices, and would limit out-of-pocket drug expenses for seniors to $2,000 annually. The bill also directs $80 billion in funding to the IRS, aimed at helping the underfunded agency hire more auditors and beef up its customer service and technology.
But the impact on inflation "is statistically indistinguishable from zero," the Penn Wharton Budget Model said on Friday.
The legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on Friday and is headed to President Biden's desk to be signed into law, has wide-ranging goals yet does little to directly tackle the underlying causes of inflationary pressures pushing up the cost of everything from food to housing, the economists predict. Still, the bill could help some Americans lower their health care costs, through its provisions for seniors' prescriptions and another item that would lower what consumers pay for some Affordable Care Act plans.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model isn't alone in predicting that the Inflation Reduction Act won't measurably affect inflation, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluding last week that the changes would have a "negligible" impact on inflation this year and next. However, the CBO expects the bill to help lower inflation in later years.
At the same time, the White House has trumpeted a letter signed by more than 120 economists, including several Nobel Prize winners and former Treasury secretaries, that highlights the bill's long-term effects, saying it would put "downward pressure on inflation by reducing the government's budget deficit by an estimated $300 billion over the next decade."
In theory, lower deficits can reduce inflation. That's because lower government spending and higher taxes, which help shrink the deficit, both reduce demand in the economy, thereby easing pressure on companies to raise prices.
entire article:
The Inflation Reduction Act may not lower inflation: analysis (msn.com)
That's the conclusion of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a group of economists and data scientists at University of Pennsylvania who analyze public policies to predict their economic and fiscal impacts. Its analysis, published Friday, comes as inflation remains near a 40-year high, crimping the budgets of consumers and businesses alike.
The Inflation Reduction Act would invest nearly $400 billion in energy security and climate change proposals, aimed at reducing carbon emissions by approximately 40% by 2030. It also would allow Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers on prescription prices, and would limit out-of-pocket drug expenses for seniors to $2,000 annually. The bill also directs $80 billion in funding to the IRS, aimed at helping the underfunded agency hire more auditors and beef up its customer service and technology.
But the impact on inflation "is statistically indistinguishable from zero," the Penn Wharton Budget Model said on Friday.
The legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on Friday and is headed to President Biden's desk to be signed into law, has wide-ranging goals yet does little to directly tackle the underlying causes of inflationary pressures pushing up the cost of everything from food to housing, the economists predict. Still, the bill could help some Americans lower their health care costs, through its provisions for seniors' prescriptions and another item that would lower what consumers pay for some Affordable Care Act plans.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model isn't alone in predicting that the Inflation Reduction Act won't measurably affect inflation, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluding last week that the changes would have a "negligible" impact on inflation this year and next. However, the CBO expects the bill to help lower inflation in later years.
At the same time, the White House has trumpeted a letter signed by more than 120 economists, including several Nobel Prize winners and former Treasury secretaries, that highlights the bill's long-term effects, saying it would put "downward pressure on inflation by reducing the government's budget deficit by an estimated $300 billion over the next decade."
In theory, lower deficits can reduce inflation. That's because lower government spending and higher taxes, which help shrink the deficit, both reduce demand in the economy, thereby easing pressure on companies to raise prices.
entire article:
The Inflation Reduction Act may not lower inflation: analysis (msn.com)
Hüsker Dü
DA
I’m fine with Rudy’s “raid everyone of Biden’s houses” or Greene and Boebert investigating the current administration as long as the actual work of investigating and raiding is done by professionals like has been done by the FBI and the DOJ. Probably the new norm.
www.businessinsider.com
GOP Rep. James Comer says Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have shown interest in being on Oversight Committee in a Republican-controlled House
"This isn't a committee where everybody's gonna scream and be outraged and try to make the witnesses look like fools," Rep. Comer told Politico.
www.businessinsider.com
The ramblings of two fools...Rudy and Daffy...I’m fine with Rudy’s “raid everyone of Biden’s houses” or Greene and Boebert investigating the current administration as long as the actual work of investigating and raiding is done by professionals like has been done by the FBI and the DOJ. Probably the new norm.
GOP Rep. James Comer says Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have shown interest in being on Oversight Committee in a Republican-controlled House
"This isn't a committee where everybody's gonna scream and be outraged and try to make the witnesses look like fools," Rep. Comer told Politico.
It looks like Lindsey Graham's choices before the Georgia grand jury are narrowed down to
-admit having committed a crime
-commit another crime by perjury
-plead the 5th, which is pretty unusual before a grand jury. If the prosecutor is after a bigger fish, he can grant him immunity from any implications of his testimony and ask the same questions again
-admit having committed a crime
-commit another crime by perjury
-plead the 5th, which is pretty unusual before a grand jury. If the prosecutor is after a bigger fish, he can grant him immunity from any implications of his testimony and ask the same questions again