ironstone

Perhaps you and MH should retreat to your 'safe space'.

You're all over the place and ignoring some unpleasant facts. The US has a rather long history of meddling in Ukraine, and Russia did not take kindly to that, just as the Americans did not tolerate Russian missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Whether we like it or not, it's what the major powers have always done, exercising a measure of control over less powerful nations. I have no admiration for Putin who is among the most dangerous leaders of our time. You're also ignoring the fact that it was relatively peaceful while Trump was president. Perhaps a coincidence, but I tend to think the world's dictators had a certain level of fear and/or respect for Trump and that's why they were much less aggressive during that time. Putin's invasion is not unprecedented post ww2 either. Korean war 1950? The Arabs attacking Israel? You guys are all gung ho to keep the Ukraine/Russia war going while at the same time wanting to completely restrain Israel from taking (justified) military action against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. https://reason.com/2022/02/25/how-the-past-4-american-presidents-helped-escalate-tensions-in-ukraine/

Where does it say 'Poland's war in peaceful Hitler's Germany' in his 4 points? And you say my brain is turned off? 😮

What is there in WCM's 4 points that are incorrect? I think he is spot on.

How big a role does race/gender/ethnicity play into that? Does it ultimately tip the balance for or against a candidate?

I make this claim because I have a close relative that got into the government last year. I personally think this person is qualified but the father told me how she really got in. Her friend's father, who happened to be involved in the hiring process in some capacity, made sure to 'flag' her resume and bingo, she get's hired. I'm happy for her, now in her early 20's, she can look at a calendar and know almost to the day when she can retire. A former coworker had a serious legal matter ended up with a plum government job. He told me that his neighbor, who also happened to be very involved in the hiring process, gave him a copy of some test in advance so he had an unfair advantage. I'm not suggesting that this happens 100% of the time, but it sure can't hurt to know someone that works in the government.

More accurately, government jobs are open to people that 'know someone' and 'designated groups'. I did briefly have a summer job at a government building when I was a teenager. I remember employees taking a lot of stuff. My dad worked for the government. He loved to go on benders on weekends and he missed an awful lot of Mondays because he was too hung over to go to work. As a child, I often wondered how on earth he never lost his job after missing to much time. Only when I was older did I realize that this kind of behavior isn't a big deal in government. My dad never saved a dime, never had much money in the bank because he spent a lot on booze and new cars. But he didn't have to save, he had a very good pension to rely on.

Are you trying to say there is 'nothing to see here' or this never happened? It seems to be a rather large case of fraud from what I've read. A lot of names mentioned... https://www.startribune.com/defendants-charged-feeding-our-future-fraud-2022-federal-prosecutors-meals-usda/600258471

Governments don't create wealth, they take it from those who do(private sector). Then there are the other well known perks with government. The ironclad job security as layoffs or firings are extremely rare. It is pretty much like a salary for life. Benefits for life too. Typically more vacation time and way more sick leave than their private sector counterparts. Let's be honest, anyone that gets into government at a young age is pretty much set for life. https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/compensation-and-benefits/report-shows-huge-divide-between-public-private-sector-perks/373126

Donald Trump's sexual history is fair game. So why is it so unfair to look at his opponent's history? https://www.megynkelly.com/2024/07/23/kamala-harris-willie-brown-relationship/ As Megyn explained, Harris was 30 years old and a prosecutor in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office when she became linked to the then-60-year-old Brown. “He is like the godfather of San Francisco politics and very well known,” she noted. “And sure enough, that relationship paid dividends for Harris in more ways than one.” Spiering, whose book offers a deep dive into Harris’ rocky tenure as vice president, agreed that the relationship between Harris and Brown is “completely fair game” to talk about because “it is how Kamala Harris went from a relatively unknown Alameda County prosecutor to the forefront of San Francisco social life and politics.” As he explained, Brown was “the most powerful politician in California” when the two started dating. He was married at the time but reports indicate that he and his wife were separated. “He also gave [Harris] a number of positions… that paid her lucratively,” he said. “He gave her the keys to a BMW, and he went around the most powerful and most wealthy circles of San Francisco and California politics with her on his arm, opening up the doors to her professional and political future.” In a 2019 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle titled “Willie Brown: Sure, I Dated Kamala Harris. So What?“, Brown acknowledged that he “may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.” And Megyn pointed out that he is also on the record saying he helped her get elected to her position as district attorney of San Francisco. You lefties really take the cake. When it comes to attacking Trump, it's no holds-barred, anything goes. But when his opponent's history comes under scrutiny, you guys are crying that it's unfair because she's a woman.

Willie Brown would surely vouch for Kamala's abilities.😉

I don't think Walz should have gotten any praise for this :

There are other things to bring up about Walz. The issue here seems to be that he embellished his military record. He should also be called out for letting rioters run wild in his own state, or for pushing the trans agenda onto children, tampons in men's washrooms😵. He is far-left, no denying that.

You didn't watch the short video link I put up. There was a shooting at the parade and authorities did not want to release details about the shooters until photos were made public. They were hesitant to release details because the shooters were both black. There was even a case where a man (black) drove a car into a Christmas parade and one media outlet reported about the car, but not about the race of the suspect. For the umpteenth time, my position is that the public has a right to know about all the suspects in these horrific crimes. Photos, names, motives. Young offenders are different, but the public should still have a right to know about their motives.

A couple of examples. The Pulse Nightclub shooting in Florida, 49 killed, 53 wounded. The story vanished rather quickly once they found out the shooter was a Middle Eastern man. Didn't fit the narrative. The Nashville school shooting. Down the memory hole as soon as it was determined that the shooter was trans. Authorities refused to release the shooter's manifesto. It has since been leaked by someone. The shooting after the most recent Super Bowl. Race and religion play a role in how a story gets covered, or not covered.

It's not the kind of thing he should be saying no matter what we may think of Justin Trudeau. However, it can't be disputed that all of the Trudeau's were huge admirers of Fidel Castro and what he did while he was alive.

We don't know yet, perhaps nothing at all. The public may never know the full story because the media and the current UK government want to control the narrative. This is nothing new, we've seen this kind of news coverage before, or lack thereof. If the alleged perpetrator is a white male, the story will get a lot more coverage and the public will find out more information about that person and possible motives. It's a different story if an alleged perpetrator is non-white or of a certain religion, or perhaps transgender or something like that. In those cases, the story tends to go down the memory hole rather quickly. Keir Starmer was quick to condemn rioters that he deemed far-right, but 'other' rioters were treated differently, far fewer arrests, if any. And a drastic difference in the amount of police assigned to each group. That's why he already earned the nickname 'two tier Steir'. And again, I condemn the use of violence by all sides.

It's more about the religion actually. And religion isn't a race either. Again, I would condemn anyone carrying out acts of violence in the name of religion, but let's be real, there is one religion that does have a rather serious issue with extremism, more so than the rest.

I would condemn any and all riots. However, it's kind of naive to suggest that those hundreds of thousands pouring in to the UK annually are integrating seamlessly into British society. There are 'native born' individuals in the UK that went to fight for ISIS or engaged in terrorist attacks on home soil, so what's your point? (Associated with a certain religion)

Are there any issues or tensions in the UK because of mass immigration? Let's see what's going on in Birmingham...mostly peaceful according to the mainstream media in the UK. Notice anything about who appears to be doing the 'bad behavior'?

Is he as good as Harris is at 'code-switching'?