A Political Thread pt. 2

[AlRums]

Politicians to be banned from presenting news after Farage row

Ofcom’s crackdown threatens to reignite a clash with GB News over using MPs as presenters

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Which Tyler]

DOJ 'weaponization' group will shame individuals it can't charge with crimes, new head says

As Jeanine Pirro prepares to become U.S. attorney in D.C., Trump loyalist Ed Martin is taking over the Justice Department's effort to investigate Trump's investigators.

www.nbcnews.com

So if you've done nothing wrong, but it hurt Donald's ego, then you'll be named and shamed, and we'll let Trumps' vigilantes do their thing - they've been pardoned once already, after all.

 

[General Melchett]

Israel continuing to strike hospitals in Gaza. I could believe Hamas might have had some presence in a hospital somewhere but find the idea that basically all hospitals also function as Hamas command centres a ridiculous stretch.

This on top of Israel starving the entire population, this is looking extremely like a genocide whilst trying to maintain a feeble plausible deniability.

Unfortunately there have been so many incidents like this that the shock factor is wearing off. Genocide needs to be redefined IMO and there should be some independent body or court that rules whether or not something is genocide. Politicians band the word about irresponsibly and inconsistently to suit their own agendas.

Hamas and Iran having a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map is completely wrong and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But a country's leader should not be able to deny that their actions amount to genocide (or any war crimes for that matter) due to a technicality e.g. just because they don't have a stated aim to wipe out a country's population.

Hamas are a cowardly scummy terrorist organisation but Netanyahu and his far right cronies have opted to stoop to their level rather than respecting international law when it comes to war and administering aid. Unfortunately Netanyahu seems to be enjoying even more protection and immunity from prosecution by the ICC since Trump took office. At least Starmer and EU leaders (other than Orban) are refusing to host Netanyahu or visit him in Israel which is quite telling.

 

[dirty harry]

Well look, if you can come up with any pro Trump arguments other than he's tee total and is apparently a good dad then go for it. We're all waiting.

When have I shown any pro Trump sentiment?!?!

I've said it a million times, you can't beat Trump by playing Trump's game, hysteria and mistruths encourage more support for him, embolden him and empower him...

As proved over and over in the last decade, he has consistently grown in support, including gaining millions of votes after an 'insurrection'. Let me ask you why you think that is?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Unfortunately there have been so many of these incidents like this that the shock factor is wearing off. Genocide needs to be redefined IMO and there should be some independent body or court that rules whether or not something is genocide. Politicians band the word about irresponsibly and inconsistently to suit their own agendas.

Hamas and Iran having a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map is completely wrong and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But a country's leader should not be able to deny that their actions amount to genocide (or any war crimes for that matter) due to a technicality e.g. just because they don't have a stated aim to wipe out a country's population.

Hamas are a cowardly scummy terrorist organisation but Netanyahu and his far right cronies have opted to stoop to their level rather than respecting international law when it comes to war and administering aid. Unfortunately Netanyahu seems to be enjoying even more protection and immunity from prosecution by the ICC since Trump took office. At least Starmer and EU leaders (other than Orban) are refusing to host Netanyahu or visit him in Israel which is quite telling.

Agreed on all points. I even think it's got to the point where Hamas are largely irrelevant when judging Israel's actions in this conflict. Hamas, as they are, are a direct product of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Would they still exist if the two existed in relative peace and Palestinians hadn't been denied human rights for decades? Probably but nowhere near to the extent they do currently, not many people are going to choose a life of terrorism when they can hold a job, have a family or even move abroad and find prosperity elsewhere. As it is, Palestinian men see fighting as their only way out.

 

[dirty harry]

Seems like Legal Eagle saw Dirty Harry's comments.

Youtuber in 'we are totally bi partisan we only make constant Trump videos because he's literally Hitler and you are so clever for noticing' shocker hahahaha

 

[dirty harry]

Unfortunately there have been so many incidents like this that the shock factor is wearing off. Genocide needs to be redefined IMO and there should be some independent body or court that rules whether or not something is genocide. Politicians band the word about irresponsibly and inconsistently to suit their own agendas.

Hamas and Iran having a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map is completely wrong and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But a country's leader should not be able to deny that their actions amount to genocide (or any war crimes for that matter) due to a technicality e.g. just because they don't have a stated aim to wipe out a country's population.

Hamas are a cowardly scummy terrorist organisation but Netanyahu and his far right cronies have opted to stoop to their level rather than respecting international law when it comes to war and administering aid. Unfortunately Netanyahu seems to be enjoying even more protection and immunity from prosecution by the ICC since Trump took office. At least Starmer and EU leaders (other than Orban) are refusing to host Netanyahu or visit him in Israel which is quite telling.

Agree with this, but why is Netanyahu deemed 'far right' by you, and Hamas not deemed the same?

 

[dirty harry]

Agreed on all points. I even think it's got to the point where Hamas are largely irrelevant when judging Israel's actions in this conflict. Hamas, as they are, are a direct product of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Would they still exist if the two existed in relative peace and Palestinians hadn't been denied human rights for decades? Probably but nowhere near to the extent they do currently, not many people are going to choose a life of terrorism when they can hold a job, have a family or even move abroad and find prosperity elsewhere. As it is, Palestinian men see fighting as their only way out.

It's a difficult situation, and not as simple as right and wrong, the argument about whether Isreal deserves to exist is at its core, if it does deserve to exist then it is fighting for it's survival, amongst those neighbours who are fighting a holy war to eradicate every Jewish person on the planet, and the state itself, If it doesn't have the right to exist then it is committing genocide, and all other atrocities claimed of it in Gaza... it would take real hubris to make that determination.

This is the explanation given to me by a far smarter person than I.

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say TO Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

the same person made the claim he'd like to think what would happen if each side laid down their arms:

what do we think would happen of Hamas seized fighting and waved the white flag?

now what do we think would happen if Isreal did the same?

(I think this is a Douglas Murray idea as well).

 

[General Melchett]

Agree with this, but why is Netanyahu deemed 'far right' by you, and Hamas not deemed the same?

Hamas aren't democratically elected and are designated as a terrorist organisation by many countries including the UK. I also called Hamas a cowardly scummy terrorist organisation but didn't use the same adjectives when describing Netanyahu's Govt. I have said many times that there are no good guys in this conflict and I agree it is a very difficult and complex situation with a lot of history. There are only innocent civilians caught in the middle. Israeli hostages have been used as political pawns by Netanyahu to drag out the war and save his own skin.

 

[dirty harry]

Hamas aren't democratically elected and are designated as a terrorist organisation by many countries including the UK. I also called Hamas a cowardly scummy terrorist organisation but you didn't seem to have an issue with the inconistency of not labelling Netanyahu's Govt as the same (well, Govt instead of terrorist organisation). I have said many times that there are no good guys in this conflict - only innocent civilians caught in the middle. Israeli hostages have been used as political pawns by Netanyahu to drag out the war and save his own skin.

Now I'm no scholar, but weren't Hamas elected in 2006?

Didn't recent research just make the claim that more than half the population want the dissolution of the Isreali state, to become under Palestinian and Islamic power? And that more than 25% agreed with Hamas violent tactics?

I mean, your right, Hamas is cowardly and scummy, and id lend part of that descriptor to Netinyahu, but I'd only add the caveat that this newest version of violence wasn't instigated by him (directly).

So I wasn't disagreeing, I was just interested in why you thought the slur 'far right' was appropriate to use on Netinyahu and not Hamas, there's arguments to be made Hamas are far more right than Netinyahu no?

I only ask because I hear the term 'far right' bandied around the west constantly, and noone seems to know what it means, it's just a way of saying Nazi without using the term.

I mean, I agree Ntinyahu is in a deep place, but he can escape it by 'liberating' Palestinians from their oppressive Hamas no?

 

[Welsh Exile]

When have I shown any pro Trump sentiment?!?!

I've said it a million times, you can't beat Trump by playing Trump's game, hysteria and mistruths encourage more support for him, embolden him and empower him...

As proved over and over in the last decade, he has consistently grown in support, including gaining millions of votes after an 'insurrection'. Let me ask you why you think that is?

I know you're a " both sides" guy so I'm asking for arguments from the other side. You're keen to criticise content without actually stating what is factually wrong about whatever it is you're criticising.

It's a difficult question to answer and the short one would be I don't know. If I was to guess I would say that his core support probably hasn't changed that much but the non MAGA that voted for him probably did so thinking he would put more money in their pocket. As has been shown, a lot of people don't seem to care about his moral character or the fact he instigated a insurrection which I can understand from MAGA types as they just deny it but I've conversed with more sensible right leaning people that voted Trump and their arguments against the fake elector plot and Jan 6th is either "well we have checks and balances that prevent this stuff so even though he tried he failed" or "you don't know what is really in Trumps mind, he is so narcissistic that he probably thought he really did win the election and if you do genuinely think that you have recourse to act in a way that he did"

I imagine there's other ways people kid themselves into voting for such an authoritarian who hates the constitution.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I hate "both sides" arguments but the one it does really apply is Isreal/Palestine.

October 7th was not resistance. It was not ANC or IRA or anything else. It's terrorism.

I still believe Isreal is engaged in a war not a genocide but like in any war there are war crimes but I still don't believe it's a genocide. Ethnic cleansing is much more plausible and in some instances undeniable.

Gaza has had a blockade for good reasons to be fair but there was nothing stopping Hamas from using the billions they received to help their people prosper instead of using them as shields to hide behind when they slaughter Isreali citizens. War is ****, we all hate it but there is a careful balancing act that has to be struck between letting countries being able to engage in war otherwise you'll have a free for all where more war crimes will be committed.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Agree with this, but why is Netanyahu deemed 'far right' by you, and Hamas not deemed the same?

He's far right because he's corrupt, ultra nationalist and is authoritarian in how he is hanging onto power when should be in jail

Hamas were elected to power (though not exactly legitimate election) but I wouldn't call them far right. They're a religious extremist death cult.

 

[dirty harry]

I know you're a " both sides" guy so I'm asking for arguments from the other side. You're keen to criticise content without actually stating what is factually wrong about whatever it is you're criticising.

It's a difficult question to answer and the short one would be I don't know. If I was to guess I would say that his core support probably hasn't changed that much but the non MAGA that voted for him probably did so thinking he would put more money in their pocket. As has been shown, a lot of people don't seem to care about his moral character or the fact he instigated a insurrection which I can understand from MAGA types as they just deny it but I've conversed with more sensible right leaning people that voted Trump and their arguments against the fake elector plot and Jan 6th is either "well we have checks and balances that prevent this stuff so even though he tried he failed" or "you don't know what is really in Trumps mind, he is so narcissistic that he probably thought he really did win the election and if you do genuinely think that you have recourse to act in a way that he did"

I imagine there's other ways people kid themselves into voting for such an authoritarian who hates the constitution.

I mean fairnplaynto you acknowledging you don't know, I'm probably in the same category as you, we can theories, but ultimately research is so biased researchers get the anti or pro MAGA outcomes they are looking for.

You last point is key though i think, he is viewed as authoritarian by his detractors, but fundamentally his supporters are not the authoritarian types, they're the doomsday prepping, gun toting, anti big government, free speech advocates, who frame the star spangled banner and constitution on their walls, infact statistically speaking they're anti government, but hold right leaning views.

I've spoken to many Americans, and the shame of voting Trump seems to have dissipated, and they constantly talk about the 'swamp'. I think they care less about the rule of law, the swamp infested corrupt rule of law and more about the constitution as a surface level guide for life type thing.
I genuinely think they see Trump's curtailing of due process as smashing the system, by any means necesary. Look at DOGE, they mistrust government so much, the idea of cutting fraud, and corruption is so exciting they don't care who or how it's being done.

The constant barrage of anti Trump messaging hasn't swayed the core for a decade, and has actually attracted millions more, the idea he gained 3 million voters after an 'insurrection' is a wild idea noone predicted, or seems to have any idea, but if you look at insurrection coverage it starts to make sense.

And this is why I'm so adamant that we need to criticise Trump honestly and rationally, so much sensationalist news have erupted over the last decade, there are easy flaws to near every story that will allow a MAGA fan to discredit it, without the integrity and honesty specifically of reporting (I think social media creators are extremely harmful is separations context).

As I was discussing with ragey the children deported case, arguing for and against the deportation, I found a great Guardian peice that covered the story really well, I posted a link. Not only did noone on this thread mention that link, it fell into obscurity because it wasn't sensationalised enough for public interest. This type of rational, and factual reporting would have faded Trump into obscurity IMO by 2019, honest, trustworthy news, instead we get 3 stories a week that are proved factually wrong over and over, and content creators like Legal Eagle above, who make contradicting comments in videos talking about impartiality like 'Trump is a convict, he's been convicted multiple times, record indictments...' and in the next breath 'Trump is weaponising the DOJ..'

 

[dirty harry]

He's far right because he's corrupt, ultra nationalist and is authoritarian in how he is hanging onto power when should be in jail

Hamas were elected to power (though not exactly legitimate election) but I wouldn't call them far right. They're a religious extremist death cult.

Can't argue with your previous post, and I'm not saying he isn't far right, but surely Hamas as you said weren't elected fully transparently, and are essentially falangist in nature, definately fascist, ultra authoritarianism, conservative, and supremacist...

It's always interesting to me how extreme Islam doesn't receive the same definition as others do, it's kind of racistly used as a tool to ride the political wings on of the 'left'. I mean look at all the city wide Palestine demonstrations in the UK, super left wing middle class white people, and Muslims combined chanting from the river to the sea. It's a strange mix of people who are essentially ideologically opposed, except when convenient. I find that fascinating. You could use Jeremy Corbyn as an example of someone who misjudged the line, and was punished and backstabbed by his own.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I mean fairnplaynto you acknowledging you don't know, I'm probably in the same category as you, we can theories, but ultimately research is so biased researchers get the anti or pro MAGA outcomes they are looking for.

You last point is key though i think, he is viewed as authoritarian by his detractors, but fundamentally his supporters are not the authoritarian types, they're the doomsday prepping, gun toting, anti big government, free speech advocates, who frame the star spangled banner and constitution on their walls, infact statistically speaking they're anti government, but hold right leaning views.

I've spoken to many Americans, and the shame of voting Trump seems to have dissipated, and they constantly talk about the 'swamp'. I think they care less about the rule of law, the swamp infested corrupt rule of law and more about the constitution as a surface level guide for life type thing.
I genuinely think they see Trump's curtailing of due process as smashing the system, by any means necesary. Look at DOGE, they mistrust government so much, the idea of cutting fraud, and corruption is so exciting they don't care who or how it's being done.

The constant barrage of anti Trump messaging hasn't swayed the core for a decade, and has actually attracted millions more, the idea he gained 3 million voters after an 'insurrection' is a wild idea noone predicted, or seems to have any idea, but if you look at insurrection coverage it starts to make sense.

And this is why I'm so adamant that we need to criticise Trump honestly and rationally, so much sensationalist news have erupted over the last decade, there are easy flaws to near every story that will allow a MAGA fan to discredit it, without the integrity and honesty specifically of reporting (I think social media creators are extremely harmful is separations context).

As I was discussing with ragey the children deported case, arguing for and against the deportation, I found a great Guardian peice that covered the story really well, I posted a link. Not only did noone on this thread mention that link, it fell into obscurity because it wasn't sensationalised enough for public interest. This type of rational, and factual reporting would have faded Trump into obscurity IMO by 2019, honest, trustworthy news, instead we get 3 stories a week that are proved factually wrong over and over, and content creators like Legal Eagle above, who make contradicting comments in videos talking about impartiality like 'Trump is a convict, he's been convicted multiple times, record indictments...' and in the next breath 'Trump is weaponising the DOJ..'

Well there's plenty of stuff out there in court documents and what not to show that it was indeed an insurrection so no need to put insurrection in quotation marks.

People just don't care. Even Chicago kid admitted he has an authoritarian streak to put it mildly. For the hardcore MAGA lot they don't care, they'll believe what their cult leader tells them to believe, even if it goes against what they've believed all their lives.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Can't argue with your previous post, and I'm not saying he isn't far right, but surely Hamas as you said weren't elected fully transparently, and are essentially falangist in nature, definately fascist, ultra authoritarianism, conservative, and supremacist...

It's always interesting to me how extreme Islam doesn't receive the same definition as others do, it's kind of racistly used as a tool to ride the political wings on of the 'left'. I mean look at all the city wide Palestine demonstrations in the UK, super left wing middle class white people, and Muslims combined chanting from the river to the sea. It's a strange mix of people who are essentially ideologically opposed, except when convenient. I find that fascinating. You could use Jeremy Corbyn as an example of someone who misjudged the line, and was punished and backstabbed by his own.

Hamas and any over jihadists are just different. I mean, if your sole, stated political aim is to wipe out a race of people then what do you call that? Not a political party as they have no interest in governing in the interests of their people. They just want to kill Jews.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's a difficult situation, and not as simple as right and wrong, the argument about whether Isreal deserves to exist is at its core, if it does deserve to exist then it is fighting for it's survival, amongst those neighbours who are fighting a holy war to eradicate every Jewish person on the planet, and the state itself, If it doesn't have the right to exist then it is committing genocide, and all other atrocities claimed of it in Gaza... it would take real hubris to make that determination.

This is the explanation given to me by a far smarter person than I.

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say TO Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

the same person made the claim he'd like to think what would happen if each side laid down their arms:

what do we think would happen of Hamas seized fighting and waved the white flag?

now what do we think would happen if Isreal did the same?

(I think this is a Douglas Murray idea as well).

Now I'm no scholar, but weren't Hamas elected in 2006?

Didn't recent research just make the claim that more than half the population want the dissolution of the Isreali state, to become under Palestinian and Islamic power? And that more than 25% agreed with Hamas violent tactics?

I mean, your right, Hamas is cowardly and scummy, and id lend part of that descriptor to Netinyahu, but I'd only add the caveat that this newest version of violence wasn't instigated by him (directly).

So I wasn't disagreeing, I was just interested in why you thought the slur 'far right' was appropriate to use on Netinyahu and not Hamas, there's arguments to be made Hamas are far more right than Netinyahu no?

I only ask because I hear the term 'far right' bandied around the west constantly, and noone seems to know what it means, it's just a way of saying Nazi without using the term.

I mean, I agree Ntinyahu is in a deep place, but he can escape it by 'liberating' Palestinians from their oppressive Hamas no?

Both of these statements imply that Palestinians are in a position to think rationally based on the wider world's values. There's virtually no Palestinians who have had access to human rights or anything resembling freedom for their lifetime and it's a direct consequence of Israeli occupation / interference. The current conflict can't be viewed through any normal lens.

Hamas are what they are because they've been treated like caged rats their entire lives. They haven't been able to travel or trade like Israeli citzens or citizems of any other country. Times of anything resembling peace were generally ended by Israeli land grabs. I could go on but essentially they see their only path to freedom being to destroy Israel. Is this rational or even realistic? Obviously not, is their viewpoint and the continued radicalisation understandable? I think so.

It's quite clear that we're at a stage where destroying Hamas isn't possible without something resembling genocide. It's also clear that they can't be left to their own devices because they'll only dig in deeper (literally and metaphorically) to ensure control of the country.

I can't see any peaceful solution but I think more pressure needs to be applied to Israel (this obviously requires no displacement) to find a peaceful resolution to all this. An incredibly difficult problem to have but one of their own creation. I won't hold my breath in any case.

 

[dirty harry]

Well there's plenty of stuff out there in court documents and what not to show that it was indeed an insurrection so no need to put insurrection in quotation marks.

People just don't care. Even Chicago kid admitted he has an authoritarian streak to put it mildly. For the hardcore MAGA lot they don't care, they'll believe what their cult leader tells them to believe, even if it goes against what they've believed all their lives.

I genuinely thought we were going to reach a bit of middle ground here, but you defaulted back to 'Trump is literally Hitler'. I don't understand why there is 0 empathy for MAGA voters here, we can sit here and discuss some of the most heinous crimes in history, and theories empathetically about the rational for those actions, but in 2025 Trump and hisnvoters invoke such emotional rage, all reasoning goes out the window.

I know some very good Trump voters, they foster children, contribute to their community, vokunteer their time and absolutely make the local community and world a better place, they are smart, articulate and unbelievably loving, but they are anti corruption and fraud, and they are exhausted of decades of the system being against them. They hate the food regulations, fraudulent spending, corrupt politicians, and they want a better, healthier more prosperous USA, their intentions are good, and their reasoning valid, they've voted independent a lot historically.
Take one of their concerns, the health system and food issues, they welcomed RFK looking into banning dies and bad nutritional practice, and especially the GRAS loophole of the FDA, and rasing consumer awareness. Who the hell could argue against that?

Well CNN did, they applauded it as a nice idea, and then interviewed 2 doctors, one a CNN contributor, the FDA former commissioner who resigned on Trump's inauguration, and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, all of which gave reasons as to why it wouldn't work under Trump lol. This is what I'm talking about, good things that everyone agrees with, like DOGE btw, that was proposed by Schumer, Pelosi, and Obama (ironically when they were the opposition), absolutely railed against because of an emotional disregulation to the name Trump.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I genuinely thought we were going to reach a bit of middle ground here, but you defaulted back to 'Trump is literally Hitler'. I don't understand why there is 0 empathy for MAGA voters here, we can sit here and discuss some of the most heinous crimes in history, and theories empathetically about the rational for those actions, but in 2025 Trump and hisnvoters invoke such emotional rage, all reasoning goes out the window.

I know some very good Trump voters, they foster children, contribute to their community, vokunteer their time and absolutely make the local community and world a better place, they are smart, articulate and unbelievably loving, but they are anti corruption and fraud, and they are exhausted of decades of the system being against them. They hate the food regulations, fraudulent spending, corrupt politicians, and they want a better, healthier more prosperous USA, their intentions are good, and their reasoning valid, they've voted independent a lot historically.
Take one of their concerns, the health system and food issues, they welcomed RFK looking into banning dies and bad nutritional practice, and especially the GRAS loophole of the FDA, and rasing consumer awareness. Who the hell could argue against that?

Well CNN did, they applauded it as a nice idea, and then interviewed 2 doctors, one a CNN contributor, the FDA former commissioner who resigned on Trump's inauguration, and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, all of which gave reasons as to why it wouldn't work under Trump lol. This is what I'm talking about, good things that everyone agrees with, like DOGE btw, that was proposed by Schumer, Pelosi, and Obama (ironically when they were the opposition), absolutely railed against because of an emotional disregulation to the name Trump.

I'm sorry, can you point me to where I said Trump is literally Hitler? I'll wait.

Secondly, I already admitted the economy was probably a big factor in a lot of Trump voters who weren't MAGA and you conveniently ignored the part of my post where I said the "hardcore MAGA" don't care. Do you think all Trump voters are hardcore MAGA? I certainly don't.