SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[mr friendly guy]

No matter who wins, US intelligence already knows who to blame.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/us-inte ... trump.html

If Trump wins its those dastardly Russians helping him. If Biden wins, its because of China. Its brilliant really. Both sides now have "the other" to blame instead of their own failings. It also provides an excuse to ramp up hostilities against the two biggest geopolitical rivals the US has. Of course, people might say, why trust US intelligence uncritically, after all, they also gave us WMDs in Iraq. But hey, everyone has a bad day once in a while.... even if that mistake led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying, but hey who cares. Certainly not the US who seems hell bent on blaming everyone but their own politicians for their failings.

Not surprised to see you peddling "Both Sides" and Collusion Denialism, to go with your usual Whataboutism and dictator apologism.

Not surprise you attack me rather than the point, to go along with your usual racism and double standards.

Ok loser, lets see you back up your points.
1. Which part of this specific post denies collusion? We both know you're going to run away like the coward you are.
2. How is this both sides when the criticism is against ONE side only, ie US intelligence agencies. Did you even read? Oh wait, of course you didn't. I said US intelligence has given both sides an excuse you stupid shit for brains.

[The Romulan Republic]

No matter who wins, US intelligence already knows who to blame.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/us-inte ... trump.html

If Trump wins its those dastardly Russians helping him. If Biden wins, its because of China. Its brilliant really. Both sides now have "the other" to blame instead of their own failings. It also provides an excuse to ramp up hostilities against the two biggest geopolitical rivals the US has. Of course, people might say, why trust US intelligence uncritically, after all, they also gave us WMDs in Iraq. But hey, everyone has a bad day once in a while.... even if that mistake led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying, but hey who cares. Certainly not the US who seems hell bent on blaming everyone but their own politicians for their failings.

Not surprised to see you peddling "Both Sides" and Collusion Denialism, to go with your usual Whataboutism and dictator apologism.

Not surprise you attack me rather than the point, to go along with your usual racism and double standards.

Yes, I'm racist. I regret it, and I wish it were not so, but I can't honestly deny it. I'm doubtlessly less racist than some and, I'm sorry to say, more racist than some, but there is no way for anyone to honestly claim that they are free of racial prejudice, or for anyone white to claim that they are not a party to and beneficiary of systemic racism, because racism is so ingrained in our world that it is impossible to entirely escape its influence.

However, I do not believe that I am racist because I disagree with you, or because I call our your dishonest debating and apologism for non-Western dictators.

Unfortunately, however, because it is essentially impossible to refute a general, non-specific accusation of racism, the hypocritical and manipulative can use accusations of racism as a way to discredit or intimidate anyone who voices criticism of a non-Western/non-Anglo dictator or regime.

As to "double standards", we all have those to an extent as well. But an accusation of hypocrisy is pretty ironic coming from someone who accuses me of racism while routinely propagandizing for a regime that currently has some hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities in concentration camps, where they are reportedly being subject to forced sterilization.

As to personal attacks, your post is full of them. I also haven't forgotten the recent occassion where you (falsely) mocked me as an unemployed loser, an action which was a) libel, b) classist, and c) an extremely cruel and profoundly immoral thing to say to anyone who was or had been unemployed, especially in the middle of a global pandemic/economic crisis where vast numbers of people are unemployed through absolutely no fault of their own.

Ok loser, lets see you back up your points.
1. Which part of this specific post denies collusion? We both know you're going to run away like the coward you are.

How dare I use personal attacks! Clearly you would never stoop to such behaviour.

I'm not going to quote your post back at you. We all know what these kinds of sweeping attacks on intelligence agencies' claims of election interference are for, and what they mean.

2. How is this both sides when the criticism is against ONE side only, ie US intelligence agencies. Did you even read? Oh wait, of course you didn't. I said US intelligence has given both sides an excuse you stupid shit for brains.

"Both sides now have "the other" to blame instead of their own failings."

The clear implication of this, to me, is that both Democrats and Republicans are comparably at fault, and that they will both employ the same tactics to excuse a defeat.

But if we're going to make this about our larger history and personal failings rather than the topic at hand, then all of this is frankly secondary to the fact that you are an apologist for a regime that currently has hundreds of thousands of living, sentient beings locked up in concentration camps where they are reportedly sexually abused and forcibly sterilized because of their ethnicity and religion.

I say this deliberately, with consideration, and without a trace of hyperbole: I consider you no better than a Nazi.

[The Romulan Republic]

In actual election news, a partial speaker list for the Democratic Convention is out.

Night one will include Bernie Sanders and John Kasich, presenting the full Left-to-Right spectrum of the Biden coalition in a display of unity.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Pelosi and Jill Biden, as will VP contenders Warren, Harris, Whitmer, Grisham, and Duckworth. I'm not sure if their being listed separately from the VP slot suggests none of them got it (in which case its almost certainly Rice).

Whether AOC will get a major speaking slot remains unknown at this time, though she will apparently play some role.

https://politico.com/news/2020/08/07/wh ... dnc-392533

Bernie Sanders and John Kasich will share a night in the spotlight, and both Clintons are slated to have prominent speaking roles at the all-virtual Democratic National Convention in less than two weeks, multiple people familiar with the plans told POLITICO.

Others who've been tapped for coveted speaking slots during an event that's been shrunk down to eight prime-time hours over four nights are Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Jill Biden. And it goes without saying that the party's two most popular figures, Barack and Michelle Obama, will be featured prominently.

One source said Kasich — the former Republican governor of Ohio and a major critic of President Donald Trump — would appear on the same night as Sanders early in the week in a demonstration of unity. The duo would be designed to showcase a broad anti-Trump coalition that is backing Biden.

Democrats are also reaching out to well-known military veterans and Republicans known for their national security expertise for a portion of the convention devoted to foreign policy.

Convention organizers warned that planning is still in flux and details about themes, dates and speakers could still change, even though the event is only 10 days away.

Planning a Democratic convention without Democrats who are actually convening is the main challenge for the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign, and organizers are under intense pressure to produce a four-day television event that is engaging and entertaining but one that also conveys the gravity of the choice for voters in November.

"There won't be the hoopla. There won't be the cheering and yelling,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a friend of Biden. “But people are interested and I think they'll listen. And because we have so many people who've been in the public eye this year and so many in the past, like the Obamas and the Clintons and people like that, we have a terrific lineup."

On Friday afternoon, a fellow House member said people close to Ocasio-Cortez said she will get a primetime speaking role and deserves one because she is leading climate change policy for Biden, referring to the “unity” task force created by the former vice president and Sanders that she co-chaired. In response, Ocasio-Cortez spokeswoman Lauren Hitt declined to confirm or deny Ocasio-Cortez’s inclusion in the virtual program, but said, “No one close to the congresswoman said that.”

But early this evening, the drama over whether Ocasio-Cortez was in or out was settled. A source familiar with convention planning confirmed to POLITICO that the congresswoman “will have some role.”

The names of other participants continued to leak out. Danica Roem, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates who is a transgender woman, will also have a role at the convention, according to multiple sources. Other Democrats briefed on convention planning added the names of three women considered to be potential Biden running mates. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth will all speak at the convention.

Other prominent Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will have roles. But given the time constraints — two hours of programming each night from August 17-20 — the Biden campaign is making some ruthless cuts. Some high-profile Democrats do not yet have confirmed roles.

At recent conventions, when there was more than six hours of daily programming, lower-level elected officials filled the afternoon schedule. But this year, securing a speaking spot is a unique status symbol, and convention planners say they have had to turn down some big names.

“We want to have as few elected officials as possible,” said one Biden adviser. “Every one of these politicians — they give them three minutes but then they take 15. We are trying to avoid that. There will be a lot of video and a lot of regular people.”

Because the coronavirus pandemic has pushed planning to the last minute — convention organizers announced only this week that Biden would give his keynote speech in Delaware instead of Milwaukee — some aspects of the event are still being negotiated.

The news that Warren and fellow vice presidential contender Harris have already been given speaking roles at the convention, according to multiple sources, might lead to speculation that they have been crossed off of Biden’s list of running mates. But some Democrats said it is not unusual to set aside spots for vice presidential finalists.

“Historically, we slotted everyone who was a VP contender into the program. Then you switch them out if they are picked,” said a person familiar with the lineup. “How deep you go is a question. There are 10 people on the Biden list. But if they are a serious contender, they would have a spot. And my understanding is that they have already been slotted.”

Harris spokesperson Sabrina Singh said, “I have nothing to add at the moment.”

There has been significant chatter in Democratic circles about whether the Clintons, who are both close to Biden, would have speaking roles. Some Democrats have grumbled that if Hillary Clinton earned a spot, then it’s hard to turn down other unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominees such as Al Gore and John Kerry, who is a close Biden friend.

Bill and Hillary Clinton
Both Clintons are expected to deliver their remarks live from their home in Chappaqua, N.Y. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Others have worried about showcasing Bill Clinton, who has spoken at every Democratic convention since 1980, in the #MeToo era. But several sources confirmed that both Clintons will speak.

“I was curious how they were going to deploy the Clintons,” said David Brock, a Clinton ally who created a pro-Clinton super PAC in 2016. “Seems an all-hands-on-deck approach, which is good because they still have a strong fan base.”

Both Clintons are expected to deliver their remarks live from their home in Chappaqua, N.Y., where they have had a studio, similar to Biden’s modest basement setup, since April.

The Clintons will face the same unusual pandemic-related challenges as their fellow speakers. Is it safe to bring in tech teams to set up satellites and cameras? Will living rooms and home office studios look sufficiently august on TV? Perhaps, most important, how will speakers make up for the loss of a live crowd?

“You don’t have an audience to feed off," said one Democrat involved in preparations. “You’re not going to stand at a podium in the middle of your living room. On the other hand, it’s not a fireside chat. You are trying to tell people we are in an existential crisis and need to get this guy out of office, and you can’t do that from your La-Z-Boy.”

Television networks are still unsure about coverage plans and concerned about how the speeches will look. Several people involved with planning either the convention or the news coverage pointed to the annual State of the Union as an instructive example. After the president delivers his address before Congress that features a roaring crowd and standing ovations, the opposition party typically serves up a politician standing stiffly behind a lectern or desk and delivering a teleprompter speech alone in a room with no audience feedback.

“A convention has always been both about the candidates and the event — balloons dropping, people cheering, debates on the floor,” said an executive at one of the big three networks. "All of that is going away.”

He added, “Watch the late-night shows to get a sense. Without an audience things feel different. … It’s why they invented laugh tracks for sitcoms and why comedians are funnier doing stand-up.”

The networks are under no obligation to carry the nightly two hours of programming from 9 to 11. “We will probably only cover one hour, 10 to 11,” said the executive. “We’ll take the main speech each night.”

Said another network official, “We are not just going to say, ‘Here’s the feed,’ and let it roll.”

Convention planners are trying to translate the main set pieces of a party convention for the quarantine era. The roll call of the states is being designed as an iconic virtual roll call that sweeps across the country but that is highly dependent on the absence of technological glitches.

But without the pyrotechnics, convention planners fear the networks will cut away. “Are we going to put on our network a Zoom call with 50 boxes?” asked the network executive.

Democrats said a handful of citizens, such as a grocery store worker or nurse on the front lines of the pandemic, might also speak at the event. A portion of the convention devoted to the climate crisis will feature young activists.

Earlier this week, the question of Ocasio-Cortez’s role set off a debate among Democrats. Progressive activists said she would help energize the base and bring young people behind Biden. They also noted she already served as the co-chair of Biden’s “unity” task force with Sanders focusing on climate change.

“It would be stupid not to give her” a slot, said Corbin Trent, a former top adviser to Ocasio-Cortez. “She’s one of the best speakers the Democratic Party’s got.”

But some moderate Democrats said privately that it would be harmful to the party if she got a prime-time speaking position at the same time Trump is trying to link Biden to her in an effort to paint him as an “empty vessel” for the progressive left.

Rendell said it wouldn’t be representative of the 2018 freshman class if Ocasio-Cortez got a prime-time speaking role, but moderate lawmakers who helped win back the House didn’t.

“I don’t think so,” he said Thursday when asked whether Ocasio-Cortez would get a slot. “I think Bernie and Warren will speak, and they’ll represent the progressive wing of the party very ably." Referring to more moderate members of Ocasio-Cortez's House class, he added, "If you picked AOC, why wouldn’t you pick Katie Porter or why wouldn’t you pick Madeleine Dean or Mary Gay Scanlon?”

Sanders is expected to speak on Monday, said two people familiar with the lineup. One Democrat said he is “going to have a big speaking role.”

“I’m confident he will get his due,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, Sanders’ 2020 campaign co-chair. “And I’m confident that the Biden campaign has treated both Sen. Sanders and his supporters with respect and given us a seat at the table.”

They absolutely should give AOC a slot. Not only is she one of their best speakers, she's exciting, and as noted above, its going to be hard enough to drum up anything like the usual convention excitement and spectacle this year.

As to why her and not some other first term Rep? Because AOC has a national profile and following and is a major political player, and they're not.

[mr friendly guy]

Yes, I'm racist. I regret it, and I wish it were not so, but I can't honestly deny it. I'm doubtlessly less racist than some and, I'm sorry to say, more racist than some, but there is no way for anyone to honestly claim that they are free of racial prejudice, or for anyone white to claim that they are not a party to and beneficiary of systemic racism, because racism is so ingrained in our world that it is impossible to entirely escape its influence.

However, I do not believe that I am racist because I disagree with you, or because I call our your dishonest debating and apologism for non-Western dictators.

Unfortunately, however, because it is essentially impossible to refute a general, non-specific accusation of racism, the hypocritical and manipulative can use accusations of racism as a way to discredit or intimidate anyone who voices criticism of a non-Western/non-Anglo dictator or regime.

No you're racist because you hold a double standard to Asian people. Literally you think a white male accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty while a Chinese woman requires people to prove her innocence. You demand proof of innocence, not once, but twice mate. Don't deny it. You're so full of your own shit about how "progressive" you are, you struggle to see your own racism and double standards.

As to "double standards", we all have those to an extent as well. But an accusation of hypocrisy is pretty ironic coming from someone who accuses me of racism while routinely propagandizing for a regime that currently has some hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities in concentration camps, where they are reportedly being subject to forced sterilization.

No one said that was ok idiot. I do question the source of the claim though, which is a different kettle of fish, and you know it. And you know my argument has been the source ie the US government was dubious, but you keep on pretending otherwise because you're a dishonest twat.

As to personal attacks, your post is full of them. I also haven't forgotten the recent occassion where you (falsely) mocked me as an unemployed loser, an action which was a) libel, b) classist, and c) an extremely cruel and profoundly immoral thing to say to anyone who was or had been unemployed, especially in the middle of a global pandemic/economic crisis where vast numbers of people are unemployed through absolutely no fault of their own.

No shit I use personal attacks against you moron. However I do you the courtesy of pointing where I disagree with your argument, whereas you just have personal attacks in lieu of an argument. Can you not tell the difference?

"Both sides now have "the other" to blame instead of their own failings."

And how is to saying both sides (the Left and Right) are just as bad? No seriously. The US intelligence agencies provide an excuse, but I never once mentioned either side (yet alone both) will take it. The main thrust of my criticism was against the US intelligence agencies. Troll harder mate.

The clear implication of this, to me, is that both Democrats and Republicans are comparably at fault, and that they will both employ the same tactics to excuse a defeat.

When you lose, apparently you're not at fault. Okay, I guess that's why you remain a loser then. Inability to take responsibility. Again I said the intelligence agencies provide both an excuse and made no comment on who will take it. But since you insist, I will elaborate. If Biden is like Hilary, then yes he will use an excuse. Trump, well will blame others as per usual.

But if we're going to make this about our larger history and personal failings rather than the topic at hand, then all of this is frankly secondary to the fact that you are an apologist for a regime that currently has hundreds of thousands of living, sentient beings locked up in concentration camps where they are reportedly sexually abused and forcibly sterilized because of their ethnicity and religion.

As oppose to you, an apologist for lying media? You literally defended CNN for confusing dildos with ISIS symbols. You defend western media who can't fucking tell cause from effect (in one of the COVID threads).

As oppose to you, an apologist for torturing a Chinese journalist as long its done by the side shouting "freedom" and "democracy" right. Don't deny it. I posted a link with the relevant video and next time you just pretended the event never happened.

I say this deliberately, with consideration, and without a trace of hyperbole: I consider you no better than a Nazi.

Ok racist. Whatever you say mate. BTW - I think both Chinese woman and a white male accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. I guess I must be a Nazi in your book. However will I live with myself?

[Ralin]

Ok racist. Whatever you say mate. BTW - I think both Chinese woman and a white male accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. I guess I must be a Nazi in your book. However will I live with myself?

Look guy, an ethnically Chinese man left unchaperoned overnight with a minority woman will inevitably rape her. That's just basic sociology. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[The Romulan Republic]

You fucked up.

As long as you restrained yourselves to vague, general accusations of racism, no defense was possible, because no one can honestly refute such an allegation. But now you have gone further, and put specific views in my mouth which I demonstrably never expressed. Views which repel me to my core. Maybe my reputation has been so thoroughly defamed on this board that these lies will all be accepted without criticism, and I will be banned for the words you put in my mouth. But in that case this board is a place of zero value, and I shall not regret leaving it.

mr friendly guy and Ralin reported for hate speech, namely racism and genocide apologism.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have reported both mr friendly guy for defamation, dishonest debate, thread-jacking and genocide denial/apologism. I have reported Ralin for defamation and genocide denialism/apologism.

I have also requested that, if the moderators feel my complaints are unwarranted, that I be banned immediately. I will not participate on a board which tolerates genocide apologism.

[mr friendly guy]

Shall we have a look TRR?
When an american is charged

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=170033

Just to be clear and state what I'd hope would be obvious, if a Republican were arrested ,they'd still be entitled to a fair trial. I still want TRUMP to get a fair trial, if only to reassert the legal norms he tried to destroy, and to make a public example of him rather than a martyr.

When Julian Assange is called a rapist. Note TRR detests, Julian Assange but still applies the innocent until proven guilty thing.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... i&start=75

I hate to say this, because it makes me feel mildly ill to say anything even suggestive of defending that piece of pond scum (by which I mean both Assange and Elfdart), but Assange hasn't actually been convicted of rape. I think the charges (and all rape charges) should be taken seriously, I think he should have to answer to Swedish investigators and not get a pass because he managed to piss off the US government, but he hasn't technically been convicted of rape. So I think that calling Assange a "known rapist" and arguing for Elfdart to be banned on that basis is a bit of a leap. Just my personal, non-mod, opinion, because I like to think that I at least try to be fair, even to assholes and scumbags.

Now what happens if its a Chinese woman being accused of a crime.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... i#p4069305

Show me that the charges are false, or that the arrest is in violation of the proper legal procedure. If you do any of that, I will immediately agree that Meng should be released.

And just for good measure, he brings it up again.

I also expect you to back up the insinuation that the charges against Meng are unjustified, however. And no, showing that some other person got off on the same crime in the past doesn't count. I am asking you to provide evidence that the charges are false.

That's right folks, if a Chinese woman is being accused (not charged yet) of a crime, people have to prove her innocence. White men are innocent until proven guilty, but Chinese women are guilty until their defenders can prove charges false. That's a double standard, and the only difference is, one isn't white. So yeah, you're a racist. Game,set, match, thanks for playing loser.

[The Romulan Republic]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I have always expressed my support for that view, regardless of race or gender. When I said "Show me that the charges are false", my point was that if you're going to argue for her immediate release, then you need to show that there was no basis for her arrest. To claim that I was arguing that Chinese women should be presumed guilty in court is simply untrue, and ridiculous.

I will add that going through my posting history looking for off-topic things to cherry-pick to smear me is blatant thread derailment and vendetta. Are you trying to break every single board rule on a single page?

[mr friendly guy]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I have always expressed my support for that view, regardless of race or gender. When I said "Show me that the charges are false", my point was that if you're going to argue for her immediate release, then you need to show that there was no basis for her arrest. To claim that I was arguing that Chinese women should be presumed guilty in court is simply untrue, and ridiculous.

Sure you did mate, and I am secretly a Nigerian prince who will help you earn $1 million bucks as soon as you send me your life savings.

PS people argued that the charges were politically motivated and taints the process idiot. No one argued the charges are false or true because, the case hasn't proceeded yet and all the evidence hasn't been submitted. The very fact you felt you had to add prove the charges false, just shows that for her, you think she is guilty until proven innocent. Fuck your racism mate.

I will add that going through my posting history looking for off-topic things to cherry-pick to smear me is blatant thread derailment and vendetta. Are you trying to break every single board rule on a single page?

The hypocrisy. You started this thread derail accusing me of supporting off topic things remember? This isn't the first time it happened either. When I returned the favour in kind, you said I was putting words in your mouth so I used your own words to condemn you racist. Then you whine that I am looking at your posting history. Well genius, how am I supposed to defend myself from your false claims of "putting words in your mouth" if I don't look at your posting history to show you actually said those things? Oh wait, I forgot. You sit up high on your imaginary pedestal where you can accuse anyone here of being x,y,z and how dare someone provides evidence to defend themselves. Whats the word again to describe this behaviour... oh that's right, authoritarian.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is nothing more to say. You and Ralin have done your best to smear and attack me in every way you can, including putting words in my mouth which would be sufficient to destroy a reputation, end a career, or possibly even subject someone to threat of vigilante violence. This sort of conduct I have sadly become acostomed to on this board, probably far more acostomed than I should. What I cannot overlook, however, is your attempts to downplay or call into question the crimes of the Chinese government, in particular the ongoing genocide against the Uighur people.

I've taken the matter to the mods. Either they will concur with me, or they will concur with you, in which case I will depart this board for good. I will not participate in a community which condones genocide apologism, because whatever my offenses, at least I am not a fucking genocide denier.

[loomer]

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, one more thing:

I support a democratic world government. No, not imposed by an imperialist occupier, but one which I hope that, in some distant day, nations will voluntarily choose to join.

I support this knowing that that means the single largest national/ethnic voting block in the world would be Chinese people. And that an actual majority of the world's voters would be Asian.

My utopia is literally one where every single Chinese person has as much say in the affairs of my country, my city, and our world as I do.

Make of that what you will.

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

Besides constantly defending the PRC government, accusing me of racism whenever I criticize it, and constantly trying to deflect and derail the thread?

I do question the source of the claim though, which is a different kettle of fish, and you know it. And you know my argument has been the source ie the US government was dubious, but you keep on pretending otherwise because you're a dishonest twat.

Imagine instead he had said "I do question the source of the claim that six million Jews were killed... And you know my argument has been the source ie the Israeli government was dubious..."

Now do you see where I'm coming from here?

[loomer]

Oh, one more thing:

I support a democratic world government. No, not imposed by an imperialist occupier, but one which I hope that, in some distant day, nations will voluntarily choose to join.

I support this knowing that that means the single largest national/ethnic voting block in the world would be Chinese people. And that an actual majority of the world's voters would be Asian.

My utopia is literally one where every single Chinese person has as much say in the affairs of my country, my city, and our world as I do.

Make of that what you will.

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

Besides constantly defending the PRC government, accusing me of racism whenever I criticize it, and constantly trying to deflect and derail the thread?

None of those are genocide denial. Like, if you're staking your continued presence on the board with those as proof of genocide denialism it seems foolish.

I do question the source of the claim though, which is a different kettle of fish, and you know it. And you know my argument has been the source ie the US government was dubious, but you keep on pretending otherwise because you're a dishonest twat.

Imagine instead he had said "I do question the source of the claim that six million Jews were killed... And you know my argument has been the source ie the Israeli government was dubious..."

Now do you see where I'm coming from here?

It's standard practice in analyzing any contentious claim between superpowers to be skeptical and look into available evidence and corroboratory accounts from unbiased third parties - so, has MFG been denying the credibility of HRW and Amnesty as well, or just the American government's account? Shit, I know I've seen you express genuine skepticism of American government sources on other issues, so I don't know that we can really advance an argument here that the claims of American sources during realpolitik towards China are necessarily unimpeachably reliable and that being dubious about them is genocide denial. So, I don't really see how you're spinning out a policy of generally good practice (take all claims by the American government with a grain of salt) into specific genocide denial.

[mr friendly guy]

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

I defended the speed at which the Chinese constructed a hospital from TRR's racist stereotype of shoddy Asian construction. I guess that's genocide denial because I accused him of racism.

I defended the Chinese action on lockdowns, which the Left now hypocritically complains about the Right not doing conveniently forgetting they and TRR I might add, labelled it authoritarian at the beginning. I guess that's genocide denial because I pointed out double standards as applied to China in the covid threads.

Accusing someone else of being supportive of dictators is his favourite tactic. The problem is, he is too stupid to realise that when its used multiple times, its lost its edge. I am not the only one who he used that tactic on and I suspect those other posters don't care either.

It's standard practice in analyzing any contentious claim between superpowers to be skeptical and look into available evidence and corroboratory accounts from unbiased third parties - so, has MFG been denying the credibility of HRW and Amnesty as well, or just the American government's account? Shit, I know I've seen you express genuine skepticism of American government sources on other issues, so I don't know that we can really advance an argument here that the claims of American sources during realpolitik towards China are necessarily unimpeachably reliable and that being dubious about them is genocide denial. So, I don't really see how you're spinning out a policy of generally good practice (take all claims by the American government with a grain of salt) into specific genocide denial.

The claim was from Radio Free Asia, funded by the US state department. Even if we took the claim as 100% true, it didn't describe genocide, just a government worker sleeping with someone they were assigned to help, which while is inappropriate is not genocide. The extrapolation to genocide is based from posters feeling there is something more to it, ie its more than just one case and that all of them were coerced even if the article was smart enough to not say that.

[loomer]

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

I defended the speed at which the Chinese constructed a hospital from TRR's racist stereotype of shoddy Asian construction. I guess that's genocide denial because I accused him of racism.

I defended the Chinese action on lockdowns, which the Left now hypocritically complains about the Right not doing conveniently forgetting they and TRR I might add, labelled it authoritarian at the beginning. I guess that's genocide denial because I pointed out double standards as applied to China in the covid threads.

Accusing someone else of being supportive of dictators is his favourite tactic. The problem is, he is too stupid to realise that when its used multiple times, its lost its edge. I am not the only one who he used that tactic on and I suspect those other posters don't care either.

It's standard practice in analyzing any contentious claim between superpowers to be skeptical and look into available evidence and corroboratory accounts from unbiased third parties - so, has MFG been denying the credibility of HRW and Amnesty as well, or just the American government's account? Shit, I know I've seen you express genuine skepticism of American government sources on other issues, so I don't know that we can really advance an argument here that the claims of American sources during realpolitik towards China are necessarily unimpeachably reliable and that being dubious about them is genocide denial. So, I don't really see how you're spinning out a policy of generally good practice (take all claims by the American government with a grain of salt) into specific genocide denial.

The claim was from Radio Free Asia, funded by the US state department. Even if we took the claim as 100% true, it didn't describe genocide, just a government worker sleeping with someone they were assigned to help, which while is inappropriate is not genocide. The extrapolation to genocide is based from posters feeling there is something more to it, ie its more than just one case and that all of them were coerced even if the article was smart enough to not say that.

In the context of Xinjiang, the rape of Uighur women actually could be a genocidal act as part of a broader pattern of genocidal conduct that is manifestly present - it's an established piece of law that rape (and it is not possible to interpret that story differently due to the power differential and ongoing actions that, at best, constitute severe state repression against an ethnic group amounting to crimes against humanity if not outright genocide) is, in fact, genocide. That said, I get being skeptical of Radio Free Asia - the whole international realpolitik angle - but I can also see why TRR has interpreted that skepticism thus since rape can be and is a tool of genocide.

[Gandalf]

In actual election news, a partial speaker list for the Democratic Convention is out.

Night one will include Bernie Sanders and John Kasich, presenting the full Left-to-Right spectrum of the Biden coalition in a display of unity.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Pelosi and Jill Biden, as will VP contenders Warren, Harris, Whitmer, Grisham, and Duckworth. I'm not sure if their being listed separately from the VP slot suggests none of them got it (in which case its almost certainly Rice).

Whether AOC will get a major speaking slot remains unknown at this time, though she will apparently play some role.

So theocratic scumbag Kasich gets an opening night role, and AOC is unconfirmed?

I get the push for scummy Republicans to swap over from Trump in some weird act of moral redemption, but putting Kasich on a platform seems way too far.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wait, when exactly did MFG do a genocide denial? Because I don't see it in here??

I defended the speed at which the Chinese constructed a hospital from TRR's racist stereotype of shoddy Asian construction. I guess that's genocide denial because I accused him of racism.

Note how he tries to facetiously conflate "any instance where he accuses me of racism" with "genocide denialism". This is, of course, part of the genocide denialism- by equating any attempt to call him out on the genocide denialism with racism.

I defended the Chinese action on lockdowns, which the Left now hypocritically complains about the Right not doing conveniently forgetting they and TRR I might add, labelled it authoritarian at the beginning. I guess that's genocide denial because I pointed out double standards as applied to China in the covid threads.

And again.

Accusing someone else of being supportive of dictators is his favourite tactic. The problem is, he is too stupid to realise that when its used multiple times, its lost its edge. I am not the only one who he used that tactic on and I suspect those other posters don't care either.

Not my fault he keeps doing it. Maybe the problem is the person who keeps defending genocidal dictators, not the person who keeps pointing it out.

The claim was from Radio Free Asia, funded by the US state department. Even if we took the claim as 100% true, it didn't describe genocide, just a government worker sleeping with someone they were assigned to help, which while is inappropriate is not genocide. The extrapolation to genocide is based from posters feeling there is something more to it, ie its more than just one case and that all of them were coerced even if the article was smart enough to not say that.

Funny how the one Radio Free Asia story is not the sole source of information on the Uighur genocide, or the presence of torture, forced sterilization, and rape. Multiple survivors have testified to multiple media outlets and in front of Congress.

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/201 ... -humanity/

Opinion by Elizabeth M. Lynch
Oct. 21, 2019 at 11:07 a.m. PDT
Elizabeth M. Lynch is founder and editor of China Law & Policy.

Sitting in a hearing room in Congress, in a gray plaid hijab, her dark blond hair poking out, Mihrigul Tursun begins to cry. She is there to share the plight of her fellow Uighurs in Xinjiang. Her translator reads aloud Tursun’s prepared statement about her three separate detentions by the Chinese government in Xinjiang’s internment camps. As the translator recounts Tursun’s first detention — upon her release, she learned that one of her 4-month-old triplets had died — Tursun struggles to hold back tears. But when the translator recounts the torture — little food, a tiger chair, electric shock treatment and a liquid that stopped her menstrual cycle and likely resulted in her sterilization, which has been confirmed by U.S. doctors — Tursun can’t hold back any longer. She starts to sob.

As Tursun’s translator, Zubayra Shamseden, who is also the outreach coordinator for the U.S.-based Uyghur Human Rights Project, wrote in an essay back in April, the Chinese government “wants to erase Uighur culture and identity by remaking its women.” Shamseden’s take — that if you want to eradicate a people, you must destroy its women — was not lost on the drafters of the Genocide Convention or the lawyers who shaped the doctrine of crimes against humanity. Both include nonlethal atrocities that are disproportionately perpetrated against women. Acts designed to prevent births and forcibly transfer children from their families could constitute genocide. Similarly, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization and sexual violence each constitute a crime against humanity.

Though international law recognizes the gendered nature of mass atrocities, the world has paid little attention to the gender disparities of China’s campaign against the Uighurs. While women likely make up only an estimated 27 percent of the 1.5 million Uighur and other Turkic Muslims detained in Xinjiang’s internment camps, their treatment has an outsize impact on Uighur culture. By targeting women, China is attempting to dilute the Uighur population and destroy its culture.

Tursun’s testimony was the first time the international community heard that women in Xinjiang’s camps were forced to undergo treatment that disrupts their menstrual cycles. Since then, others have said the same thing. Gulbahar Jelilova, a businesswoman and another Uighur internment victim who was held in a cell with 40 other women, also stated that female inmates were injected weekly with a substance that stopped their periods.

Allegations of rape in the camps have surfaced, too. Sayragul Sauytbay, an ethnic Kazakh who was forced to work in one of the women’s camps in Xinjiang, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that every evening, the guards would take the pretty inmates with them, returning them in the morning. She also saw incidents of gang rape, including of one female inmate while other inmates were forced to watch. Shamseden told me that she too has heard that rape is common in the camps — as well as outside of the camps, where Uighur women are forced into situations where sexual harassment and sexual assault by their Han Chinese male bosses are prevalent.

In 2018, the government ramped up a program for Communist Party cadres to stay with a Uighur’s family home for five days every two months to “teach” the Uighurs about national unity. But this is another opportunity for Han Chinese men to take advantage of Uighur women. When I told Australian genocide expert Deborah Mayersen about these home visits, she immediately likened the situation to Ottoman Empire soldiers staying in Armenian homes prior to the Armenian genocide, where they were able to rape Armenian women with impunity.

Then there are the Chinese government’s efforts to minimize Uighur births and remove their children from their care. As gender studies expert Leta Hong Fincher highlighted in her recent book, the government has offered incentives for Uighur couples to have fewer children and for Uighur women to marry outside of their race. A large number of Uighur children have also been removed from their families and placed in boarding schools, according to a recent report, leaving the Chinese state to raise them.

The sexual violence against and forced sterilization of Uighur women and removal of Uighur children constitute crimes against humanity. So why isn’t the international community taking a stand? Why isn’t more attention paid to eyewitness accounts from women held in different camps that are eerily similar and mounting up? Especially since China has resisted international attempts to freely investigate what is happening in Xinjiang.

The United States is one of the few countries trying to do something. Last month, in a rare show of bipartisan support, the Senate passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, and this month the administration issued a flurry of sanctions on Chinese companies and citizens. But there has been no mention of the stories of rape, forced sterilization or sexual harassment in any of these responses.

Even if the camps are disbanded, China’s gendered policies would remain. In addition to demanding that the Chinese government close the internment camps, the U.S. government — and the rest of the world — must insist that the government end the abuse of Uighur women as well.

But I guess those women are all just racist US plants, right?

[The Romulan Republic]

In actual election news, a partial speaker list for the Democratic Convention is out.

Night one will include Bernie Sanders and John Kasich, presenting the full Left-to-Right spectrum of the Biden coalition in a display of unity.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Pelosi and Jill Biden, as will VP contenders Warren, Harris, Whitmer, Grisham, and Duckworth. I'm not sure if their being listed separately from the VP slot suggests none of them got it (in which case its almost certainly Rice).

Whether AOC will get a major speaking slot remains unknown at this time, though she will apparently play some role.

So theocratic scumbag Kasich gets an opening night role, and AOC is unconfirmed?

I get the push for scummy Republicans to swap over from Trump in some weird act of moral redemption, but putting Kasich on a platform seems way too far.

I think there is a value to showing off just how broad Biden's support is, and division in Republican ranks.

However, that message is incomplete if by far the foremost rising star of the Left wing of the party is excluded. Bernie is all well and good, and its entirely right that he should speak, but Bernie is now the past of the American Left. AOC might be its future.

[mr friendly guy]

Not my fault he keeps doing it. Maybe the problem is the person who keeps defending genocidal dictators, not the person who keeps pointing it out.

Dude you accused Aerius and Loomer of doing the same thing. Elfdart becomes a rape apologist to you even though you are the one telling Americans to vote for Joe Biden, someone who you admit is most likely a rapist. Here is a hint mate, when everyone else turns out to be comic book evil, chances are the problem is with your perception.

Funny how the one Radio Free Asia story is not the sole source of information on the Uighur genocide, or the presence of torture, forced sterilization, and rape. Multiple survivors have testified to multiple media outlets and in front of Congress.

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/201 ... -humanity/

Buddy, trace the sources where they get this information from. Go on, do some work for once. Most of them comes one way from another from the US either from their department or NGOs funded by the US state department. Your own link you stupid shit for brains talks about the "U.S.-based Uyghur Human Rights Project." Do you seriously think just because numerous outlets repeat the same thing, the original source is different? After the WMDs in Iraq I would have thought people just have a little bit of scepticism, but no. I am not saying no human rights violations go on in China, but when you have serious accusations, you have to provide a whole heap of evidence.

Funny how if I post from RT you will chuck a fit, yet you accepted an article from a US backed entity RFA without batting an eyelid, and if I dare cast doubt on it, I become a genocide denier. I wonder why? Do you think US government backed propaganda is more reliable than Russian?

Notice how TRR now changes from accusing me to a genocide apologist, to a denier. I guess it finally got through his thick head people don't say genocide is ok, but we doubt its necessary occurring based on say realpolitik considerations.

[Darth Yan]

Not my fault he keeps doing it. Maybe the problem is the person who keeps defending genocidal dictators, not the person who keeps pointing it out.

Dude you accused Aerius and Loomer of doing the same thing. Elfdart becomes a rape apologist to you even though you are the one telling Americans to vote for Joe Biden, someone who you admit is most likely a rapist. Here is a hint mate, when everyone else turns out to be comic book evil, chances are the problem is with your perception.

Funny how the one Radio Free Asia story is not the sole source of information on the Uighur genocide, or the presence of torture, forced sterilization, and rape. Multiple survivors have testified to multiple media outlets and in front of Congress.

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/201 ... -humanity/

Buddy, trace the sources where they get this information from. Go on, do some work for once. Most of them comes one way from another from the US either from their department or NGOs funded by the US state department. Your own link you stupid shit for brains talks about the "U.S.-based Uyghur Human Rights Project." Do you seriously think just because numerous outlets repeat the same thing, the original source is different? After the WMDs in Iraq I would have thought people just have a little bit of scepticism, but no. I am not saying no human rights violations go on in China, but when you have serious accusations, you have to provide a whole heap of evidence.

Funny how if I post from RT you will chuck a fit, yet you accepted an article from a US backed entity RFA without batting an eyelid, and if I dare cast doubt on it, I become a genocide denier. I wonder why? Do you think US government backed propaganda is more reliable than Russian?

Notice how TRR now changes from accusing me to a genocide apologist, to a denier. I guess it finally got through his thick head people don't say genocide is ok, but we doubt its necessary occurring based on say realpolitik considerations.

Elfdart tried to defend Julian Assange and say he shouldn't be extradited even though he's likely a rapist. He also cheerfully ignored that Assange fleeing the country was the reason the investigation stalled. And given that plenty of other people are accusing China of committing genocide I wouldn't dismiss it outright.

As for Biden.....as disgusting as it is you have to choose between a shit sandwich and a sandwich with nails in it. When you have two rapists you go for the least awful one even though you'd rather not. That's all he was saying.

TRR can be overwrought at times but he does make a lot of fair points.

[The Romulan Republic]

Anyhoo, here's a possible speaker list for the Democratic convention, sourced from Morning Joe:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293140821907312641

Monday:

First Lady Michelle Obama
Senator Bernie Sanders
Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Governor Andrew Cuomo
House Whip Jim Clyburn
Governor John Kasich
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Cortez Masto
Rep. Bennie Thompson
Senator Doug Jones
Rep. Gwen Moore

Tuesday:

Dr. Jill Biden
President Bill Clinton
Secretary John Kerry
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester

Wednesday:

President Barack Obama
VP Candidate
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Secretary Hillary Clinton
Senator Elizabeth Warren
Rep. Gabby Giffords
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
Governor Evers

Thursday:

Vice President Joe Biden
The Biden Family
Senator Kamala Harris
Senator Corey Booker
Governor Gavin Newsom
Mayor Keisha Bottoms
Senator Tammy Baldwin
Senator Tammy Duckworth
Senator Chris Coons

Of great interest is the fact that numerous possible VP candidates have spots: Whitmer, Harris, Warren, Duckworth, Lujan Grisham, Bottoms. But Karen Bass and Susan Rice fairly conspicuously do not*... unless one of them is filling that vacant VP slot.

Yeah, its almost certainly one of them, and after recent revelations, far more likely Rice.


*Neither does Stacey Abrams, but she no longer seems to be a serious contender.

[The Romulan Republic]

Unfortunately, due to the scaled-back nature of this convention, some news outlets reportedly likely won't cover the whole thing, possible only the "main" speech each night. So..

Monday: Probably Michelle Obama. Bernie may get cut away from, in the long tradition of mainstream news denying him coverage.

Tuesday: Probably Jill or Bill.

Wednesday: Barack Obama/the VP. Definitely the VP.

Thursday: Joe and his family.

Everyone else may only get shown as clips, or must be viewed online.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think the lineup does a very nice job of showcasing the depth and breadth of the opposition to Trump. A convention which has Bernie Sanders and AOC speaking alongside Doug Jones and John Kasich sends a strong message of unity.

[The Romulan Republic]

They're once again saying a VP decision this week. Biden has reportedly finished interviewing his top choices for VP, and plans for the announcement are in place. Somewhat bizarely, they plan to forgo a video announcement and release the decision by text message. However, the decision, if there is one, remains a secret, seemingly unknown even by aids in charge of announcing the decision:

https://cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-vice ... -imminent/

The former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has interviewed top finalists to fill the role he once held and an announcement of his choice is still expected this week, according to multiple people familiar with the search.

Joe Biden has interviewed his top choices either in person or remotely. Last week, for example, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer flew to Delaware to meet with him in person. Other meetings have been held either by telephone or video conferencing, said the people familiar with the process who were granted anonymity to speak frankly.

Aides to several of the contenders, including Whitmer, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Representative Karen Bass and senators Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren declined to comment on Monday. Most of the contenders remained in the Washington area on Monday given their day jobs.

Plans to unveil Biden's running mate choice are in place for whenever he is ready to announce. His campaign has encouraged supporters to sign up for text message alerts that they claim will be the first way people learn of the decision. Top aides continue to insist that a text message is the way that the world will first officially learn of the decision.

Meanwhile, campaign staff and Secret Service personnel were seen on Monday checking into downtown Wilmington, Delaware, hotels next to a minor league ballpark from where Biden is expected to deliver formal remarks during the Democratic National Convention next week.

One senior aide said late Monday, "I've got my Day 0 and Day 1 and beyond plans [to announce the pick] in place. Now, we just need to know who it is."

Another senior staffer said the decision remains a closely-guarded secret. "Honestly, they've done a pretty remarkable job of keeping this fully under wraps internally," said the staffer.

Both aides were granted anonymity to speak frankly about the ongoing search.

Tim Perry, Jack Turman and Zak Hudak contributed to this report.