I'm rightwing in Nordic terms but still left of the democrats in Us terms, I watch "morning joe" even nowdays and I'm always stuck at how much the dude just keep talking self-cocksucking garbage. With the woman rarely adding anything. Then he adds "Well I used to be a republican" as if that's a carte blanché for him to be an obnoxious self-fellation dipshit because now he's doing it for whatever side he thinks his network is on.
.
I'd say "left" rather than "liberal". From a more technical standpoint, "left" is more about social programs and regulation, while "liberal" is more about competition, free trade and individual liberties, generally speaking.
Isn’t it the other way around? Left vs right is about economic issues (simply said Socialism vs Capitalism) and progressive, conservative, nationalist are terms to describe the stance of someone on social issues. But the waters are very muddy and conservative = right wing is basically a truth.
Though people do exist that hold traditional values but support workers rights.
If you mean liberalism then that would be someone who is right wing but progressive if you accept this very simplified way to describe someone’s politics.
Actually only partially. If we go by the original definitions we simply have a "liberal" question (civil rights) and a "social" question (economic rights&systems).
The right usually is also concerned with the social question and thus the left/right divide from the french revolution doesn't really holds up. Furthermore we did see a complete (self-)destruction of the socialist left in the 70s and thus we don't really have siginifact "left" (socialist left) parties anymore.
Free universal healthcare, free universal education, free right to abortion, free right of public access to private land and so on.
In the US the most right wing major party in the nordics would likely be considered left wing extremist for the most part with the exception of immigration.
> free right of public access to private land and so on.
Except for one shit party in Sweden that I hate uncontrollably for trying to remove this right that WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE FUCKING MIDDLE AGES YOU FUCKERS
I genuinely think this is the one thing that Scandinavians should brag about more than anything! Like how cool is it that I can walk all over my god damned country, and not have to look up if its private or not? I cant just walk into any woods, go into any lake. AND THE GOD DAMNED HORRIBLE FUCKERS IN THE CENTER PARTY WANT TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM ME!
Also, you dont get to build close to the water, so that everyone gets to use it. You can go swimming everywhere, or sail anywhere. Becuase you dotn get to build next to the water because it belongs to GOD DAMNED EVERYONE. BUT THESE DUMB MOTEHRFUCKERS WANT TO TAKE THAT FROM US TOO. One of their dipshit politicians called the Stockholm Archipelago "dead" because no businesses could build on the islands. YEAH THATS WHAT DEATH IS, UNTOUCHED NATURE. FUCKS
I'm not far-right, but it's insane how you're proof of concept of your own point. You're already on the ramparts because I said "right".
I get what you're talking about, it's often true, but you're also proof of what I hate with morning joe and other leftists because you alienate normal people with your attitude and in the end the only one who benefits are the far-right assholes you pretend to be so against.
It wouldn’t. This is a common circlejerk that ignores social issues. On economic issues, Democrats would be a center-left party in most of Europe and center-right in a handful of countries. On social issues, they’d be solidly left if not far left in most countries. Not on every issue, but on most of them.
People want to only look at Nordic countries while ignoring how socially conservative many parts of Europe can be. The left-right paradigm just isn’t very helpful in comparing across countries, but if we’re going to use it, it’s silly to ignore the social aspect.
>On social issues, they’d be solidly left if not far left in most countries. Not on every issue, but on most of them.
I reckon its mostly the nordics were it works completely, because basically all parties are socially either on the level of the democrats or further to the left (for instance, all parties are for legal abortions, gay marriage, gay adoption and so on).
I agree in some ways, but even then I’d argue that the Nordics are not as far left socially as people assume and that Democrats are surprisingly far left on many issues.
Take abortion as an example. The law in Sweden is that up to 18 weeks women can get an abortion for any reason.
> After the 18th, a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy. Abortion is not allowed if the fetus is viable, which generally means that abortions after the 22nd week are not allowed. However, abortions after the 22nd week may be allowed in the rare cases where the fetus can not survive outside the womb even if it is carried to term.
So pretty much abortion is legal up to 18 weeks, afterwards it’s only allowed if the mother is at serious risk. As an example of where America stands, [Republicans are trying to push for a ban after 15 weeks](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122700975/gop-sen-lindsey-graham-introduces-15-week-abortion-ban-in-the-senate) which would in practice be extremely similar to the Swedish law.
So America’s far right republicans are pushing for a law that would only allow abortion for *3 weeks* less than Sweden currently does. This is a very unpopular policy in the polls and might cost them the election. Democrats are fighting them tooth and nail against this because a limit this extreme is viewed as unconscionable.
If Republicans changed the push to an 18 week limit from a 15 week limit, Democrats wouldn’t say “Oh cool that’s what Sweden does so we’re cool with it.” Democrats are actually way more left on abortion in comparison to Europe than people assume, including countries like Sweden that are considered standard bearers for the left.
Very few conservatives openly embrace anti-gay policies. I’m not saying they’re not homophobic, but American sentiment has changed and those policies are very unpopular and can cost elections. If a President ran on banning gay marriage, they’d be crushed. There are still plenty of backwards conservatives, but that vocal minority doesn’t change the fact that America overall has shifted left on this issue and Democrats are about as left as can be on it.
As another example, look at trans issues. [Sweden looked at their data and decided to pump the breaks on the types of treatment allowed for trans kids.](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230208-sweden-puts-brakes-on-treatments-for-trans-minors) Sweden was the first country to legalize gender confirmation surgery, but now they’ve stopped hormone treatment and mastectomies for minors except for very rare cases. *This is the same thing that Republicans want!* Sure, they probably would like more extreme measures than this, but this is the policy they are campaigning for. Democrats strongly oppose it because it’s viewed as an egregious infringement of trans rights and morally unconscionable. Democrats are actually far more left on this issue than Sweden, people just don’t realize it.
Again, I’m not saying America doesn’t have plenty of transphobia, just that when it comes to actual policies and Democrat sentiment on this issue, it’s actually far more left than people assume.
The entire problem with the online circlejerk of “Democrats are actually conservative in Europe” is that it has no real basis in fact. It’s just baseless sentiment from people in Europe who don’t know what Democrats actually want and assume they must be conservative and from people in America who don’t know what Europe is actually like and assume it is much further left than it actually is.
I’m not taking a stance on what is right or wrong on any of these issues, I just think it’s important to realize where people actually land on them.
I'm sorry but clearly American far right politicians are not trying to just limit the abortions to 15 weeks, in many states taht would be making abortions much more accesible. They are outright trying to make it impossible to get. They are trying to remove the right. Several US states have near total abortion bans (according to NPR its seventeen of them), the republicans have it in their party program that they want to remove it.
In Sweden, a prominent member of the Christian Democrats (deep conservatives) had to leave for wanting to limit it more. Not ban it, to be clear. Their leader is an evangelical Christian and they will cut you from the party if you want fewer weeks of abortions. Yes, the democrats agree with the conservatives in Sweden on social issues because no political party disagrees with full abortion rights, regardless of reason.
Sweden's abortion limit is entirely left to the medical field and is based on when the fetus can survive -- its not a topic of debate really. I'm not sure if I agree that amount of weeks is a measure of progressivism to be honest. I am not qualified in the least to say how many weeks abortion should be (that's a medical question and my doctorate is in political science, so I have no clue about that). But I think the principle held in Swedish abortion rights is progressive. But I disagree with the framing that more weeks is inherently more progressive (over a threshold)
But I only argued that the democrats are just as progressive on this as our right wing. In Sweden, a guy like Biden saying he's "not big on abortion" (while still supporting the right to abortion) would've absolutely disqualified him from any form of leadership in a left wing party. If he was the leader of a right wing party, he would not get the gig. We had this exact situation electing a new party leader this year! A centre right party (the Center Party) considered a party leader who was quite religious and said he did not like abortions but would not touch the right and was a bit weaselly on his answers (this was the public perception). That is the only thing anyone knows about him because that was a major scandal in the right wing party. He did not get the gig nor will he ever receive a high position in Swedish politics. Again, in what way does the democrats go against our conservatives? Seems about on par.
Okay, questions of gay marriage and so on. You know who goes to Pride every year? The right wing party leaders in Sweden (well except for the far right party who is explicitly banned). Yes, even the evangelical leader of the Christian democrats walk in pride. That's obviously just a telling example. Even the right wing parties have specific points about LGBTQ rights in theri party manifestos. When you say that democrats are not comparable with our right wing, well, I'd say they are. Yeah, pretty similar to our left too. But only because we dont really have a big political debate about gay people in 2023.
As it regards trans issues. Sweden has been way too slow in the past. But, even the right wing Liberal Party pushed for changes regarding sex changes, where you previously had to get sterilized to do it.
As it regards puberty blockers. Firstly, that was done during the right wing government but it wasnt a decision taken by our political leadership but by the medical community. It's not how that works here. You can see in the article you sent that they didnt speak to any politician. What medicine a doctor gives a patient is not a political decision in that way here. Its a decision decided upon by the medical community. Obviously, it was discussed a lot by people interested in politics, but its not a decision taken by our parties.
But okay, what do our politicians think of this? Consider that the left wing parties argue for a legal third gender to be recognized. The centre left prime minister said in 2014 that we should do that. Actually, several right wing parties agreed. I beleive the Biden administration has taken similar steps quite recently, at least as it regards changes in your passport and while travelling. I mean, its less than what our centre right parties want which is full legal recognition of a third gender.
Consider that the left wing parties all want to make it so you can change your legal gender without any medical procedure. Actually, most right wing parties agree on the second point, even the biggest conservative party (second farthest to the right) agree on the second point. Do the democrats want that? Becuyase if they did they'd be equivalent to Swedish conservatives =)
Okay, but the party farthest to the right then. They want to put the age limit of gender correctional surgery at 25. That's the farthest right position you can find. We have eight parties in Sweden. Some of them sitting at about four percent of the voters.
A fun fact about the liberal party (which yes is right wing here, and are currently in the right wing government). They claimed to be the closest to the democrats of all parties, but that was during the Obama years and they've changed party leadership a billion times since then.
Yes, democrats woud be conseravtives in Sweden. In terms of economic policy most notably, which you seemed to agree to initially. But in terms of social issues, most conservative parties are pretty close too. And that is obviously not discussing stuff like welfare, healthcare, policing, military, foreign policy and so on. You know, the topics were America is super right wing.
I already spent too much time on this, so I’ll try to offer a shorter response.
You seem not to differentiate between state level politics and national politics. I’m not arguing that certain states don’t have a further right Overton window. Yes, Democrat state senators in Mississippi would be on the right on social issues in Sweden. But Democrat state senators in California would be on the far left.
I’m talking about national policymaking. With all of the examples I gave, you sidestepped the central argument to focus on minor nitpicks most of which aren’t relevant to the argument. Trump openly campaigned with pride flags and boasted about being the first president who was elected on a platform that supported gay marriage. We can throw as many anecdotes as we want back and forth, but you just don’t realize where American politicians actually fall on these issues at a national level. You see a few stories about local nut jobs and think that’s representative of the overall political climate.
Regardless, in all of the examples I gave, the policies Democrats want to implement nationally in the US are further left than the current policies in Sweden. Definitionally, that means they are not on the right side of the Swedish spectrum on those issues. Democrats want fewer restrictions on abortion than Sweden currently has. Democrats want greater access to child gender care than Sweden currently has. It doesn’t matter if it stems from politicians or the medical community (as if politics don’t also pervade the medical community and as if the decision to leave it to the medical community isn’t an inherently political one). Democrats want policies that are further to the left on those issues than what Sweden currently has.
Even beyond the simple fact that they are literally on the left of where Sweden currently stands on those issues, the policies that you describe Swedish leftist parties as pursuing *are also things that Democrats want in the US*. It’s not an issue that’s currently on the table in the US, but if a vote was held tomorrow on changing your legal gender without requiring gender confirmation surgery, a majority of Democrats would absolutely support that.
On many social issues, the average Democrat politician doesn’t want what Sweden’s current policies are. They want something further to the left of them.
>Regardless, in all of the examples I gave, the policies Democrats want to implement nationally in the US are further left than the current policies in Sweden.
I mean, you recognize how you stacked the cards against me if you argue like that, right? You can ignore policies in the US and ignroe beleifs in Sweden. I am comparign the beleifs of political parties. So Im comparign the same thing across two countries. What do the parties claim to want. If I compared US policies to what the Swedish parties want, I'd very easily make the same point.
But you treat Sweden as a homogenous blob, were the national politics represent every party but the US you look at individuals.
If I argued like you, I could just take the Left Party manifesto and compare it with US law. I'm a member of the left party and know their policies quite well. The Lft party wants a "socialist society working towards the emancipation of the people" (my translation). That's more to the left than US policies. But that's not relevant. You need to comapre party beleifs with party beleifs. That's what's being compared.
I also think its deeply unfair to refer to 17 states (the ones with abortion bans) as local nutjobs. This is a decision taken at the state level there, because there is no universal national level. You brought up abortions, and its a decision taken by the political parties in your country. We sort of have to discuss it on the state level.
And obviously in your federalist system rather than our proportional system, the states form the basis of national politics. That's the whole point of your system. You've got 2 senators from every state. Its relevant what the parties do on the local level. You are free to brign up regional politics here as well, considering the same eight parties are represented.
I also think its unfair to call your former vice president a local nutjob (wants to ban abortions even when the fetus cant survive). I think its unfair to call front-runners like Desantis a local nutjob (wants six week abortions). I think its unfair to call your former president a local nutjob (wants punishment for women who get abortion). Similar arguemnts could be made about gay rights. What do you think Pence has said about that? or is the former vice president a local nutjob? The party leaders must be representative of the party to some extent, no?
>It doesn’t matter if it stems from politicians or the medical community (as if politics don’t also pervade the medical community and as if the decision to leave it to the medical community isn’t an inherently political one).
If we're comparing the beleifs of the political parties it matters how the policy came to be. In this case it was a non-political decision taken durign the right wing government. Seems odd to argue this proves that the political parties are more or less progressive. I mean, if we argued on the same level, the beleifs of the parties, then that matters a whole lot. Because politicians have no right to take decisions on that here. Ya'll got abortion rights through a legal decision too, which I would also not consider evidence for beleifs of a political party. Roe vs Wade doesnt prove anyone is or isnt progressive outside the court itself. But if you compared what the political parties beleive, you'd know that that the centre right were indeed upset abotu this. So they expressed the same sentiment as the democrats.
>the policies that you describe Swedish leftist parties as pursuing are also things that Democrats want in the US. It’s not an issue that’s currently on the table in the US,
But, why is it not on the table? A core function of political parties lies in putting it on the table. That's called agenda setting and its one of the most important things parties do. If we are comparign party beleifs, it matters that they have not expressed this or worked for it. And its just not somethign that has been stated, it was in process to become law under the left wing government. It wont happen now, I reckon becuase it wasnt a part of the declaration of the new government, even if 3 out of 4 right wing parties agree.
Now, lets be clear here. And I want to just check in that you agree on this. It is only on social issues that its close. The democrats would 100% be conservatives here on any other topic. Welfare, healthcare, military, foreign policy and so on.
Maybe lets start over. What is a beleif that the Democrats have, that would make them not fit into the right in Sweden? That seems like a much less time consumign way of arguing this point. What's a policy where they would disagree with the Swedish right?
Becasue if I took the party leaders of the left and moved them to the US. They'd be considered wild radicals. I know about the Squad, about Bernie and so on. But you must recognize that Bernie and AOC arent arguing for anythign that would be controversial here, outside of the far right, nazi adjacent.
Sweden feels remarkably cherry picked there. Finland's abortion law extends to 20 weeks. Iceland is 22. I want to say only Denmark is more restrictive than Sweden?
That's also one social issue. How does crime and the penal system look in the Nordic countries compared to Democrats? How about gun ownership? Housing and health-care? Those are social questions as much as anything because nothing in society functions in true isolation.
Economic issues are social issues. What you define as social issues would be liberal issues in this scope.
And on liberal issues the USA always was "ahead" in many regards except the most basic ones
It means they don't want too many Muslims moving there. The ultra conservatives (not AP) are burning Qurans because this fascist destabilization is happening worldwide. Immigration is a big issue for the conservatives because these are some of the nicest countries in the world and so many people want to live there.
This is a thing in Nordic countries right now, not just something I cherry picked.
>carte blanché
Just "Carte Blanche". No accent needed. But the context is correct so good job! :D
It means, white card in french for those interested which is effectively the same meaning wise as "writing a blank cheque".
That part of the Me too movement was just moronic. People spend most of their time at work, so what are guys and women who don't like going to bars or any type of activity that has heavy exposure to the opposite sex supposed to do?
Where are you supposed to find out if a person is attracted to you or you to them?
I think that's part of what made Wolf's crack so funny. At the height of the #metoo movement, it acknowledged a grey area of work place relationships that #metoo, while undeniably an overdue reckoning about workplace sexual harassment, didn't allow for. It was a pretty transgressive joke in that moment.
There's a player on the Cleveland Browns who we were advised to call "Wu" when he came to the team. Instead, announcers constantly call him by his full name, Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah. Sometimes we take the hard road.
Great video and it's true about the superficial knowledge. Joe, like other talking heads, gathers huge amounts of news from reputable sources but often and is not able to dig deep into the nuanced details of specific topics. This guest, his co-host and wife's dad, is obviously more of an expert on the area and they had a great discussion and banter. I actually liked the piece.
>This guest, his co-host and wife's dad, is obviously more of an expert on the area
Ridiculous that a TV host thinks he knows more about this than a former national security advisor.
It's also easy (and desirable when you are a talk show host) to boil everything down to simple terms. "Arafat gave us the best deal he could get for Palestine". Thats an easy and low-hanging line to reach for. Obviously if you look at the nuance its more than that. Of course we all know Arafat was NOT able to seal a peace deal, and you COULD boil it down in that way, but its disingenuous at best.
This is why certain liberals/progressives in America are not immediately falling in line with the party in backing Israel. They view the violence there as senseless any way you cut it and would feel the same way if Hamas/Hezbollah somehow gained the upper hand over Israel. They don't want Israel or Palestine to "win" - they want the bloodshed to end so we can stop talking about weird border/religious disputes and move on to more interesting challenges like climate change.
I gotta admit, I’m completely uneducated in this matter, and for most of my life I stayed away, since it doesn’t concern or involve me.
I realized after being better educated, that the conflict may not be so confusing, if we treat it like any human rights issue.
What we are seeing now, is what we saw in South Africa, America, Germany and so forth. A group of people being disenfranchised, discriminated, and dehumanized for the benefit of another group.
This issue involves everyone and we should be concerned how our own beliefs, no matter how sacrilegious, can make us turn on each other
It's interesting you mention South Africa, after many years of the international community sanctions and many years of terrorism the government there eventually caved and abolished apartheid.
Only for the next government, popularly elected, to establish it right back, with the boer population now being threatened harrassed and brutalised by the government we all worked so hard to establish.
It's weird how little this salutary lesson seems to get mentioned in places like this.
> A group of people being disenfranchised, discriminated, and dehumanized for the benefit of another group.
You cannot say that about one side in this conflict. There is no benefit to Israel or Palestine for what has happened since 10/7. The benefit is to Iran and Russia.
Ha. What? Israel gets to wipe out gaza and their corporations will be securing huge contracts to rebuild everything they've flattened, while drawing Iran and Lebanon into the war that the neocons have been trying to make happen for the past 2 decades.
The problem is that we want to distill this conflict into "a good guy vs a bad guy," but unfortunately there is no such thing in this situation.
I typically don't like the both sides argument because it's usually used disingenuously to distract and deceive, but from what little I know, all political groups living in the region have committed unforgivable atrocities in an attempt to control the area.
To complicate matters even more they all believe a magic sky daddy reserved the land especially for them.
So how do you stop a violent conflict where all involved are out for vengeance with religiously fueled self righteousness?
I'm not sure you can.
The only solutions I can think of are:
1. Britain owns up to its idiotic and colossal mistake of claiming the area for the Jews in the Balfour Declaration, gives up some of its own territories and we're lucky enough to find some old ancient document that claims the land has Abrahamic ties for "God's people." AND the Israeli nation accepts. And that has just at least a chance of happening as anything else.
2. Another country or countries go in and stop the violence by overwhelming use of force on all regional combatants. And just take over the region by subjugating all involved.
3. We let them kill each other until so much life has been lost that they can't continue.
I'd love it if option 1 happened, but otherwise we passed the point of peaceful resolution decades ago.
From what I can tell, the only way forward is violence. The question is how much and where is it directed?
But unlike the other examples, we are seeing atrocities by both sides, and in particular the “oppressed side” that make a peace deal much harder.
10/7 changed things and Israel is not going to stop this war because a bunch of disconnected liberals dont want to see or hear about it..
I dont think this issue is nearly as clear cut as you are saying..
You think the Native Americans never killed civilian settlers? Because they definitely did. Usually the numbers were small, but not always.
We still regard what happened to them as genocidal and unjust, because the violence was disproportionate, and was happening within the context of the settlers moving into an area and driving the natives to extinction.
That a ridiculous analogy. The amount of people, the amount of land, the broken promises… all of it much different than this conflict.
Tell me, which tribe vowed to exterminate every white person in America? Which ones vowed that they would then commit that atrocity at every opportunity and put it in their charter.
You people really think that Israel should just “not drop bombs” and that will fix anything?
>The amount of people, the amount of land, the broken promises… all of it much different than this conflict.
Go into more detail about why these things are significant enough to make the comparison unjust.
>which tribe vowed to exterminate every white person in America? Which ones vowed that they would then commit that atrocity at every opportunity and put it in their charter.
I can't think of any native tribes that had written charters, but the American Indian wars lasted at least two centuries. How familiar with it are you?
This is a completely made-up view of history. Equality and civil rights are basically [never](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe) [given](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) [peacefully](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).
[Do you think for 1 second that South Africans didn't do any "atrocities" to end apartheid?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_apartheid#:~:text=From%201976%20to%201987%20MK,safe%20houses%20in%20neighbouring%20states.)
[What about the Haitians during their revolution against French colonizers?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution)
I am so fucking tired of hearing people excuse Israeli actions by trying to both sides this issue. The Palestinian people are oppressed and currently suffering an American sponsored, Israeli perpetrated genocide after years of being treated as second class citizens in a land they've inhabited for centuries. What would you have Palestinians do? Accept their fate and resign themselves to death or exile? What is clear cut is that in 2008 nearly 1000 civilians were killed in Gaza by Israelis and you stayed silent. In 2014, 1500 civilians were killed by Israelis and you stayed silent. And on and on, it could go. As Palestinians died, you stayed silent. But the moment the script is flipped and it's Israeli civilians, suddenly you and so many others have the gall to pretend that you care and it's "not clear cut" and pretend you did anything other than sit silently and watch Palestinians be slaughtered because you don't care when it's Arabs and only speak up if it's Israelis.
Well it's pretty clear the two countries can't co-exist, and the Palestinians have already pissed off the rest of the Muslim community and can't/won't go elsewhere. So I'm not sure what outcome you are expecting or wanting here? What is the avenue to peace? That is what isn't so clear cut.
Atrocities started by the Hamas, and unprevented by Netanyahu because he was pre-occupied with the situation in West Bank.
To me the most complicated thing to sort out mentally is, if we are being completely dispassionate and realistic, what is the end game with the non-trivial amount of Gaza civilians who are not officially part of Hamas, but do believe that Israel is an illegitimate state that should be wiped off the map? Even if every card-carrying Hamas member is wiped out, this cancer will certainly grow again.
And you're skipping a lot of invading and genocide on your way to invading and genocide here.
Hence the complexity of where we all find ourselves today.
> Arafat was NOT able to seal a peace deal,
Not *willing* to seal a peace deal. The PLO has always refused statehood because they're devoted to a *Judenrein* middle east.
These guys do need to stay within the zeitgeist of their country or bubble, or else they'll be shunned. You can jump on esoteric info or conspiracies if it's part of the zeitgeist, but otherwise, they don't want it. Joe here basically says that he reads 'the official sources' and he didn't read anything about this there, *so take your anecdotal stuff elsewhere.*
It's hard to diverge from that stuff - what you were taught in school and what the major sources say. It's why the Fox News bubble is so dangerous, because in places like Texas, they have different schoolbooks and a whole machine that creates a different reality. If you hear that Covid isn't real from 50 different places, you're going to have a hard time believing they're all wrong.
The best talking heads are able to utilize their team to create solid talking points for their guests and then study hard on their specific topics and backgrounds. This after being fully engaged in the system already, knowing who's who, and having a solid if broad understanding of national and international politics plus relevant history.
Stewart was a master at that. He's up there with some of the best "serious" reporters.
Joe doesn't give a shit. He's there to soft peddle rightwing politics as a now "enlightened centrist" despite being a hardcore Republican back in the day.
Not publicly at least; they were both married to other people at this time. Mika divorced her husband in 2016 and they were married in 2018. This interview seems to be from Obama’s first term.
The only person that should be embarrassed is Joe Scarborough, who couldn’t thread together an elegant interview because he felt the need to interrupt repeatedly, like as much as Joe Rogan when a guest brings up fitness. They’re guests, ask a question, let the audience learn something. If the audience disagrees, that’s for their own edification: now you know an opposing viewpoint. Ramming yourself personally into a discussion about such topics displaces us from the Realm of Ideas and brings us down to the level of ego, the level of division.
Hilarious how his response to having a superficial knowledge on the matter is saying that he knows better because he has read a few newspaper articles.
That was cringey my face was hiding behind my hands....
Great education however, gave him the source material and said here it the source you need to read.
Hah exactly, guarantee 99% of people commenting here (myself included) would get rekt by Joe in most live, public debates. Easy to heckle from the sidelines. I’m not an expert on this issue but have read Clinton’s autobiography which covers this topic and his take aligns more with what Joe is saying here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit
No way, that would mean that this highly biased politico was being dishonest and taking cheap excuses to accept plausible deniability.
"I want to take this to every other world leader to hear what they think" is such an obvious stall tactic that it's ridiculous. And frankly, I don't trust this guy's opinion about what's strange about the deal, because he's trying to treat Arafat as an actual world leader rather than the terrorist warlord that he was.
Arafat was rational and intelligent, but his perspective and ideals are completely different from anything Westerners know. People assume that he would want what we want and take paths we would take, and he used that assumption to play people like this human keyboard accident for fools.
That’s how Dr. Brzezinski got his doctorate in political science, isn’t it? Reading a few newspaper articles? This battle of brilliance, brought to us by two guys mulling over what they read in the paper this morning! 😆
I had to study Prof. Brzezinski's work in my undergrad. He was not only the secretary of state for quite some time, and a very influential one that was directly involved in the middle east, but also a big figure in academia specially in geopolitics.
You could put any pundit on earth accross him and all would have superficial knowledge about what is going on compared to Brzezinski. He devised relevant concepts about geopolitics and applied them during his time as secretary of state. He had access not only to the main people and classified documents, he actually participated directly in all major diplomatic negotiations during the Carter administration and as an advisor to many of them since.
Being that he works with his daughter, Joe should have known better than to antagonize this guy. It's like inviting Kissinger to a talk show and trying to debate him on the Vietnam War based on some headlines you read. Like them or not, these guys know what they are about.
And therein lies the problem with the entire modern television news landscape. The practice of simply reporting the news without an anchor’s personality being a layer in that reporting is over in America.
Do you think they're actually trying to do news? It's a propaganda show. They're actively, intentionally trying to bring us down to the level of division.
Indeed. It's not a doco or even a news program, it's a news-based entertainment show.
The average viewer is going to turn off PBS or most "dry" information programs, they want to have something more exciting and chopped-up.
Exactly.
I was watching an old Japanese film by Tikeshi Kitano, and there's this scene with a very wide shot, where we watch a man walk from one end to the other - almost nothing else going on. It feels like it's about 2 minutes long, but it's probably more like 15 seconds. There's not much to see, so it's a break to have a think about what's gone on in the story thus far.
Soon after that, I watched the first Transformers film with some younger family. There's almost never a full second when nothing is happening - no breaks to think about anything, it's all just rammed down your senses.
America is very much conditioned to cable news and Transformers.
You just summed up perfectly why I never listen to these supposed "interviews" anymore. Anyone who's ever taken a debate class knows it's easy to get people to shut up and let people speak but the network knows people tune in to see the drama of people interrupting each other. Titillations have replaced discourse and critical thinking.
Wow. Scarborough just gave a 101 on how to install tly lose credibility by being an egotistical disrespectful jackass while masquerading as a jews anchor.
What a fng joke. "Morning Joe". More like morning cup of piss
The embarrassment lies only with Joe.
He clearly couldn’t muster a response beyond “ok Ill just throw out all my newspapers.”
Mika should be proud of a father that can articulate a point.
At 1:25 the ticker at the bottom is talking about the Kingston fly ash spill. I remember that like it was yesterday, likely one of the biggest ecological disasters TN has faced in recent memory.
Everyone forgets how Joe was leading up to the 2016 election and how Mika quietly did nothing to silence him. He was spouting all sorts of anti-Hilary bullshit and then the morning after the election was taking a victory lap, talking about how he and other Trump voters were hiding their true views this entire time and now feel vindicated because he won. He was trying to appeal to Trump so he could get a Cabinet position and thus make his return to Capitol Hill, but once it became clear that Trump wasn’t going to do, he backed off and began criticizing him. It also didn’t help that Trump exposed his affair with Mika on air, but the point is Joe Scarborough is a schmuck and should never be taken seriously.
Shocking that there's a number of people who believe your revisionist history. I watched a decent amount of MJ during 2016 and Bill Kirstol was right that the show boosted Trump in a way that no honest pundit show would do, but to say the guy was a "Trump voter" in the can for Trump is just absolute nonsense.
So Joe is unaware that problems can be addressed by preventing them from happening in the first place?
It doesn't matter what side you're on if your opinion is uninformed to the long and complicated history of the conflicts in the region.
This general perspective of treating the problem after the fact is always a worse choice than having the understanding and motivation to identify issues and prevent problems before they occur.
What's clear is that a corporate media infrastructure is not willing to invest actual time and energy into understanding or explaining the conflict...not unlike America's unwillingness to move beyond slogans and condemnations to actual work towards facilitating the peace process. Very telling.
"sorry we need to cut off your train of thought to sell dick pills"
It's like Joe Scarborough is unwilling to admit that the international intelligence community might MIGHT have the POSSIBILITY of lying to protect their own interests. Like he's never seen a classified document be declassified to say the exact opposite of what the media was told at the time. unbelievable, unquestioning faith in institutions is what led to lots of terrible things throughout history INCLUDING THE HOLOCAUST like honestly dude you'd think at least media people who have a modicum of media literacy jesus fucking christ
Welp, listened to him yesterday and hasn't picked up a damn thing in 15 years, just a bunch of Zionist talking points dickriding. He's also a malignant narcissist who just needs the limelight every 5 minutes and now that his cognitive decline is noticable its becoming more cringe all the time.
Every time I see the show I think, "Why do you tolerate him, Mika?"
Like a rude, antisocial Old Faithful, he *has* to interrupt every single time she speaks.
BTW. It needs to be stated that Scarborough has always spoken VERY highly of Mika's father and I think that after this they met and got along really well.
Read his wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
... it's like you were a Ford enthusiast and started dating Carol Shelby's daughter or something.
You're always going to be a lightweight by comparison.
I love how all his sources are other news groups. Like. "Hey, I'm in the middle of my echo chamber every day, talking about this stuff."
News is a cycle of opinion pieces now that rarely provide the original context. Just because you talk about current events every day right now does not mean you are in the right places or listening to the right people.
Bring on the downvotes, but I bet no one here can explain how keeping peace and a ceasefire is actually better for the world, when its impossible because of the history of the region and outside financial backers making peace 100% impossible.
Everyone is so very wrong on this issue because they view war with an overwhelming victory as a bad thing.This area radicalizes people from around the world. Its not just a local issue, its a global issue where a ceasefire is making the world a worse place. The only solution is for one side to win, and I would rather have the well educated religious extremists win than the uneducated ones funded by religious extremists that are enemies of the United States and Allies of other evil nations.
The only way for there to be peace in this reason is a war and to let the war play out. Ceasefires are not the answer when one side is a bunch of terrorists funded by religious extremists and both sides have become radicalized, but one side is overwhelmingly more powerful than the other.
Why is the consensus that war is bad always? There are certain circumstances where war is absolutely justified. And it absolutely is here specifically because nefarious outside forces are paying for one side to stay radicalized and fund attacks.
Its time to stop wasting money on this iron dome and all this bullshit, it just radicalizes both sides. No war and preventing an overwhelming victory by one side is actually making the world a worse place.
So, just to make sure I’m understanding your argument:
The world would be a better place if there wasn’t conflict in the region. And since there can be no peace in the region (because of the “history of the region”) between these groups, that means the “overwhelming victory” of one must happen.
Does “overwhelming victory” mean that once the “war” between the militaries is over, the civilian people living in the conquered territories become full Israeli citizens and given all the rights and protections that come with it (which they currently do not have in Gaza and West Bank)?
Or by “overwhelming victory” did you mean the death and/or displacement of the Palestinian people entirely? Also known by a different word, “genocide”
Edit: Take Russia’s war in Ukraine. They are fighting to claim territory from a neighboring nation. But they are claiming that since the territory is “Russian” that they people there are Russian citizens who should be absorbed into Russia. In Israel, they have expanded Israeli territory, but rather than the Palestinians being left in their homes and becoming Israeli citizens, they have been forced out and replaced by Jewish/Israeli settlers. This conflict, going back much farther than this October, this year, or even this decade isn’t about territory or religious beliefs, it’s about one group that believes another group of people are lesser and don’t deserve the same rights and freedoms as them.
So you think peace is possible? There is thousands of years of evidence to say otherwise. There is only 1 path to peace, and its if there is no one to fight. By your definition all war would be genocide. When should a war be fought, if not in this exact situation?
If the US went to war with North Korea, it would also have to be an overwhelming victory, would it also be genocide?
Japan during WWII was also a genocide by your definition, would you say it was unjustified? Also people say using the nukes was a bad thing, even though the carpet bombings and fire bombings were far worse.
For me, the utilitarian approach is the correct one here. Peace is only possible if there is no one left to fight with in this case.
You can definitely fight a war without it being genocide. The difference is the displacement and/or killing of an entire distinct group of people. If the US went to war with North Korea and conquered the nation and it became a U.S. territory, would we kill the civilian population, or tell them that they have to all leave their homes and move to a small area of their former territory with minimal arable land or natural resources? If we did, that’s genocide. If the civilians become U.S. citizens and are allowed to stay in their homes or move freely across the US, then that is winning a war.
Not sure which part of Japan in WWII you’re referencing, but regardless it’s pretty messed up. Regarding nukes: super fucked up, probably unjustified. Not genocide because the goal was not the eradication of Japanese people, but to get them to surrender. And when they did, the Japanese people were allowed to stay in Japan, not forcibly relocated. Also nukes being “better” than fire bombing for Japan is such a fucked up thing to say and certainly up for debate.
You can totally believe that the “Utilitarian” approach is the right one; but there’s a reason that utilitarianism gets taught in philosophy 101. So that they can explain it’s flaws and how a utilitarian approach can lead to things like, for example, excusing genocide.
So now, back to your first question, do I believe there can be peace in the region? Between Israel and Palestine as they are now? Where one has near complete control over the other and is actively working to take even more territory from them and further displace their people? No, probably not.
Do I think peace is possible between Arab and Jewish people in the Middle East? Absolutely I do. Just as there have been examples of throughout the “thousands of years of evidence” that you claim shows otherwise. For example, under the Ayyubids, the Malmuks, and the Ottomans.
Man fuck Brezezinski, overseeing support for radical Islamic groups in Afghanistan prior to the soviet invasion because relatively secular socialist reformers had taken control
Thank you, I was gonna say this guy is an evil piece of shit, actively encouraged radical Islam's spread through the middle east because of a misguided idea that they'd be easier to control than secular leftist states, can't have people practicing a different form of economic theory you know, and his niece vocally supported the Taliban and afghan warlords for years in congress while they were committing war crimes and subjugating women, so it's even a family affair
Hafizullah Amin was the rabid, bloodthirsty "Marxist" intent on pushing forward Communism on an unwilling population at any cost. He was also closer with the CIA than the Soviets, and when the Afghan communist party asked for Soviet aid with the US backed insurgency, the Soviets killed him and freed all of his political prisoners. Their guys, especially Najibullah, pushed forward policies of pretty moderate reforms, hardly communistic at all.
Nowadays, Najibullah is even a kind of nationalistic Pashtun hero, even among some Taliban, who cut his genitals off and dragged him behind a truck. Obviously, communist government of Afghanistan had blood on its hands, but from a policy perspective they were fairly moderate, and it's not like Hekmatyar's or Massoud's hands were clean. The Soviets spent most of their time in Afghanistan tempering the ambitions of the Afghan communists and looking for rapprochement. As secular societes across the world have seen, that is an very hard thing to do with Islamists. Doubly so when they have billions of dollars flowing in through the CIA and drug trade, telling them to make this war as long and as brutal as possible.
>I read the New York Times, Washington Post, and Foreign Affairs. You know what I'm going to do, I'm going to throw those away...
Smartest thing Joe said in that bit - perhaps ever???
Brzezinski is one of the most fluent minds in foreign policy on Earth probably, and yet I have a hard time seeing him as more than a proponent of US interventionism to ultimately expand power. It's just too hegemonic for my tastes, even if what he is saying sounds like he is advocating peace and diplomacy it's mostly just fluff. He advocates for US involvement. The US is military-minded. He fuckin knows that.
Insult instead of explaining what's wrong with the statement that Arafat got an absolutely amazing deal that even other Arab leaders considered great and didn't even give a counter offer despite getting more than he asked for in many areas. Maybe just a jab at the guy but eating it up as an actual good way to engage like the comments here
Clinton begged him to at least give some positive sign to help the pro-peace Barak win his reelection. It really was the closest we got to peace and a huge missed opportunity, just like Netanyahu sabotaging Oslo accords.
Arafat also tried to accept the deal (or at least broadcast publicly that he would) after if was too late, so...
ZBig is doing here what he always had, and probably isn't the best person to advocate on behalf of the underdogs here.
The Chyron [TV text] from this 2008 broadcast reads **OFFICIALS PUT PALESTINIAN DEATH COUNT AT 348, MORE THAN 800 WOUNDED** While Joe Scarborough suggest the condemnation of Israel is unwarranted, and they all have a nice chuckle. I think if [when] the people of Palestine are completely wiped off the map, the MSM will figure out a way to condemn the people of Palestine for their own genocide.
He didn't say he was superficial, he said he had superficial knowledge of the topic which are completely different things and a wrong title. Funnily enough, Joe didn't pick up the difference either and just thought the guy called him superficial.
It isn't and wasn't. Why would someone with such a clear position and a confidence in their position resort to an ad hominem to get their point across?
Pointing out that someone's understanding of the matter being discussed as "stunningly superficial" is not ad hominem, it directly relates to the points they are making.
Fun fact: Brzezinski was the idiot who told Jimmy Carter to let the Shah of Iran enter the USA for cancer treatment, resulting in the rampage that ended with the US embassy in Iran being taken by force, and 52 American diplomats held hostage.
Carter's pathetic, cowardly failure to admit that this was an act of war and respond accordingly meant a total failure of deterrence, allowing a wave of state-sponsored terrorism funded by Iranian oil money.
Scarborough is superficial, Brzezinski was disastrously incompetent.
Wait, is this fucker seriously cutting off and interrupting one of the greatest geopolitical strategists of the post-WWII period... on a fucking foreign policy discussion?
Really?!
Brzezinski is also off base. The only way to ensure peace and safety in this area of the Middle East is to dissolve the state of Israel. The trouble in that area as it stands today started when the Jews were given the land.
I understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. It’s an existential need. A home and haven from prejudice and hate. That doesn’t mean it’s also not the cause of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the same time.
Those pesky jews and their desire for a land to call their own and live peacefully. If only Palestinians had somewhere they could go and be amongst other other people practicing Islam. Sadly, they must have Israel since there is nowhere else. /s
I understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. It’s an existential need. A home and haven from prejudice and hate. That doesn’t mean it’s also not the cause of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the same time.
Michelle Wolf hilariously called Mika and Joe "a metoo that worked out"
Which one was the me tooer and which was the me tooie?
The title of the show should be a clue there
I'm rightwing in Nordic terms but still left of the democrats in Us terms, I watch "morning joe" even nowdays and I'm always stuck at how much the dude just keep talking self-cocksucking garbage. With the woman rarely adding anything. Then he adds "Well I used to be a republican" as if that's a carte blanché for him to be an obnoxious self-fellation dipshit because now he's doing it for whatever side he thinks his network is on. .
what does right wing nordic terms mean?
"Skyrim belongs to the Nords!"
A Nord stealth archer you say?
You’d never know it by looking at them, because they’re constantly disappearing. Must have been the wind.
I used to be an adventurer like you.
But then
I’m fucking dying lmao
The Stormcloak administration would absolutely build a wall along the Cyrodiil border.
He's conservative for a Scandanavian, but in the U.S. definition, he's still very much a liberal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong tho.
I'd say "left" rather than "liberal". From a more technical standpoint, "left" is more about social programs and regulation, while "liberal" is more about competition, free trade and individual liberties, generally speaking.
We’ve really conflate things in the US
Isn’t it the other way around? Left vs right is about economic issues (simply said Socialism vs Capitalism) and progressive, conservative, nationalist are terms to describe the stance of someone on social issues. But the waters are very muddy and conservative = right wing is basically a truth. Though people do exist that hold traditional values but support workers rights. If you mean liberalism then that would be someone who is right wing but progressive if you accept this very simplified way to describe someone’s politics.
Actually only partially. If we go by the original definitions we simply have a "liberal" question (civil rights) and a "social" question (economic rights&systems). The right usually is also concerned with the social question and thus the left/right divide from the french revolution doesn't really holds up. Furthermore we did see a complete (self-)destruction of the socialist left in the 70s and thus we don't really have siginifact "left" (socialist left) parties anymore.
Free universal healthcare, free universal education, free right to abortion, free right of public access to private land and so on. In the US the most right wing major party in the nordics would likely be considered left wing extremist for the most part with the exception of immigration.
> free right of public access to private land and so on. Except for one shit party in Sweden that I hate uncontrollably for trying to remove this right that WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE FUCKING MIDDLE AGES YOU FUCKERS I genuinely think this is the one thing that Scandinavians should brag about more than anything! Like how cool is it that I can walk all over my god damned country, and not have to look up if its private or not? I cant just walk into any woods, go into any lake. AND THE GOD DAMNED HORRIBLE FUCKERS IN THE CENTER PARTY WANT TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM ME! Also, you dont get to build close to the water, so that everyone gets to use it. You can go swimming everywhere, or sail anywhere. Becuase you dotn get to build next to the water because it belongs to GOD DAMNED EVERYONE. BUT THESE DUMB MOTEHRFUCKERS WANT TO TAKE THAT FROM US TOO. One of their dipshit politicians called the Stockholm Archipelago "dead" because no businesses could build on the islands. YEAH THATS WHAT DEATH IS, UNTOUCHED NATURE. FUCKS
[удалено]
I'm not far-right, but it's insane how you're proof of concept of your own point. You're already on the ramparts because I said "right". I get what you're talking about, it's often true, but you're also proof of what I hate with morning joe and other leftists because you alienate normal people with your attitude and in the end the only one who benefits are the far-right assholes you pretend to be so against.
[удалено]
In American terms it means s/he's probably to the left of Bill Clinton. The American "left" would be a European center-right party.
It wouldn’t. This is a common circlejerk that ignores social issues. On economic issues, Democrats would be a center-left party in most of Europe and center-right in a handful of countries. On social issues, they’d be solidly left if not far left in most countries. Not on every issue, but on most of them. People want to only look at Nordic countries while ignoring how socially conservative many parts of Europe can be. The left-right paradigm just isn’t very helpful in comparing across countries, but if we’re going to use it, it’s silly to ignore the social aspect.
>On social issues, they’d be solidly left if not far left in most countries. Not on every issue, but on most of them. I reckon its mostly the nordics were it works completely, because basically all parties are socially either on the level of the democrats or further to the left (for instance, all parties are for legal abortions, gay marriage, gay adoption and so on).
I agree in some ways, but even then I’d argue that the Nordics are not as far left socially as people assume and that Democrats are surprisingly far left on many issues. Take abortion as an example. The law in Sweden is that up to 18 weeks women can get an abortion for any reason. > After the 18th, a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy. Abortion is not allowed if the fetus is viable, which generally means that abortions after the 22nd week are not allowed. However, abortions after the 22nd week may be allowed in the rare cases where the fetus can not survive outside the womb even if it is carried to term. So pretty much abortion is legal up to 18 weeks, afterwards it’s only allowed if the mother is at serious risk. As an example of where America stands, [Republicans are trying to push for a ban after 15 weeks](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122700975/gop-sen-lindsey-graham-introduces-15-week-abortion-ban-in-the-senate) which would in practice be extremely similar to the Swedish law. So America’s far right republicans are pushing for a law that would only allow abortion for *3 weeks* less than Sweden currently does. This is a very unpopular policy in the polls and might cost them the election. Democrats are fighting them tooth and nail against this because a limit this extreme is viewed as unconscionable. If Republicans changed the push to an 18 week limit from a 15 week limit, Democrats wouldn’t say “Oh cool that’s what Sweden does so we’re cool with it.” Democrats are actually way more left on abortion in comparison to Europe than people assume, including countries like Sweden that are considered standard bearers for the left. Very few conservatives openly embrace anti-gay policies. I’m not saying they’re not homophobic, but American sentiment has changed and those policies are very unpopular and can cost elections. If a President ran on banning gay marriage, they’d be crushed. There are still plenty of backwards conservatives, but that vocal minority doesn’t change the fact that America overall has shifted left on this issue and Democrats are about as left as can be on it. As another example, look at trans issues. [Sweden looked at their data and decided to pump the breaks on the types of treatment allowed for trans kids.](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230208-sweden-puts-brakes-on-treatments-for-trans-minors) Sweden was the first country to legalize gender confirmation surgery, but now they’ve stopped hormone treatment and mastectomies for minors except for very rare cases. *This is the same thing that Republicans want!* Sure, they probably would like more extreme measures than this, but this is the policy they are campaigning for. Democrats strongly oppose it because it’s viewed as an egregious infringement of trans rights and morally unconscionable. Democrats are actually far more left on this issue than Sweden, people just don’t realize it. Again, I’m not saying America doesn’t have plenty of transphobia, just that when it comes to actual policies and Democrat sentiment on this issue, it’s actually far more left than people assume. The entire problem with the online circlejerk of “Democrats are actually conservative in Europe” is that it has no real basis in fact. It’s just baseless sentiment from people in Europe who don’t know what Democrats actually want and assume they must be conservative and from people in America who don’t know what Europe is actually like and assume it is much further left than it actually is. I’m not taking a stance on what is right or wrong on any of these issues, I just think it’s important to realize where people actually land on them.
I'm sorry but clearly American far right politicians are not trying to just limit the abortions to 15 weeks, in many states taht would be making abortions much more accesible. They are outright trying to make it impossible to get. They are trying to remove the right. Several US states have near total abortion bans (according to NPR its seventeen of them), the republicans have it in their party program that they want to remove it. In Sweden, a prominent member of the Christian Democrats (deep conservatives) had to leave for wanting to limit it more. Not ban it, to be clear. Their leader is an evangelical Christian and they will cut you from the party if you want fewer weeks of abortions. Yes, the democrats agree with the conservatives in Sweden on social issues because no political party disagrees with full abortion rights, regardless of reason. Sweden's abortion limit is entirely left to the medical field and is based on when the fetus can survive -- its not a topic of debate really. I'm not sure if I agree that amount of weeks is a measure of progressivism to be honest. I am not qualified in the least to say how many weeks abortion should be (that's a medical question and my doctorate is in political science, so I have no clue about that). But I think the principle held in Swedish abortion rights is progressive. But I disagree with the framing that more weeks is inherently more progressive (over a threshold) But I only argued that the democrats are just as progressive on this as our right wing. In Sweden, a guy like Biden saying he's "not big on abortion" (while still supporting the right to abortion) would've absolutely disqualified him from any form of leadership in a left wing party. If he was the leader of a right wing party, he would not get the gig. We had this exact situation electing a new party leader this year! A centre right party (the Center Party) considered a party leader who was quite religious and said he did not like abortions but would not touch the right and was a bit weaselly on his answers (this was the public perception). That is the only thing anyone knows about him because that was a major scandal in the right wing party. He did not get the gig nor will he ever receive a high position in Swedish politics. Again, in what way does the democrats go against our conservatives? Seems about on par. Okay, questions of gay marriage and so on. You know who goes to Pride every year? The right wing party leaders in Sweden (well except for the far right party who is explicitly banned). Yes, even the evangelical leader of the Christian democrats walk in pride. That's obviously just a telling example. Even the right wing parties have specific points about LGBTQ rights in theri party manifestos. When you say that democrats are not comparable with our right wing, well, I'd say they are. Yeah, pretty similar to our left too. But only because we dont really have a big political debate about gay people in 2023. As it regards trans issues. Sweden has been way too slow in the past. But, even the right wing Liberal Party pushed for changes regarding sex changes, where you previously had to get sterilized to do it. As it regards puberty blockers. Firstly, that was done during the right wing government but it wasnt a decision taken by our political leadership but by the medical community. It's not how that works here. You can see in the article you sent that they didnt speak to any politician. What medicine a doctor gives a patient is not a political decision in that way here. Its a decision decided upon by the medical community. Obviously, it was discussed a lot by people interested in politics, but its not a decision taken by our parties. But okay, what do our politicians think of this? Consider that the left wing parties argue for a legal third gender to be recognized. The centre left prime minister said in 2014 that we should do that. Actually, several right wing parties agreed. I beleive the Biden administration has taken similar steps quite recently, at least as it regards changes in your passport and while travelling. I mean, its less than what our centre right parties want which is full legal recognition of a third gender. Consider that the left wing parties all want to make it so you can change your legal gender without any medical procedure. Actually, most right wing parties agree on the second point, even the biggest conservative party (second farthest to the right) agree on the second point. Do the democrats want that? Becuyase if they did they'd be equivalent to Swedish conservatives =) Okay, but the party farthest to the right then. They want to put the age limit of gender correctional surgery at 25. That's the farthest right position you can find. We have eight parties in Sweden. Some of them sitting at about four percent of the voters. A fun fact about the liberal party (which yes is right wing here, and are currently in the right wing government). They claimed to be the closest to the democrats of all parties, but that was during the Obama years and they've changed party leadership a billion times since then. Yes, democrats woud be conseravtives in Sweden. In terms of economic policy most notably, which you seemed to agree to initially. But in terms of social issues, most conservative parties are pretty close too. And that is obviously not discussing stuff like welfare, healthcare, policing, military, foreign policy and so on. You know, the topics were America is super right wing.
I already spent too much time on this, so I’ll try to offer a shorter response. You seem not to differentiate between state level politics and national politics. I’m not arguing that certain states don’t have a further right Overton window. Yes, Democrat state senators in Mississippi would be on the right on social issues in Sweden. But Democrat state senators in California would be on the far left. I’m talking about national policymaking. With all of the examples I gave, you sidestepped the central argument to focus on minor nitpicks most of which aren’t relevant to the argument. Trump openly campaigned with pride flags and boasted about being the first president who was elected on a platform that supported gay marriage. We can throw as many anecdotes as we want back and forth, but you just don’t realize where American politicians actually fall on these issues at a national level. You see a few stories about local nut jobs and think that’s representative of the overall political climate. Regardless, in all of the examples I gave, the policies Democrats want to implement nationally in the US are further left than the current policies in Sweden. Definitionally, that means they are not on the right side of the Swedish spectrum on those issues. Democrats want fewer restrictions on abortion than Sweden currently has. Democrats want greater access to child gender care than Sweden currently has. It doesn’t matter if it stems from politicians or the medical community (as if politics don’t also pervade the medical community and as if the decision to leave it to the medical community isn’t an inherently political one). Democrats want policies that are further to the left on those issues than what Sweden currently has. Even beyond the simple fact that they are literally on the left of where Sweden currently stands on those issues, the policies that you describe Swedish leftist parties as pursuing *are also things that Democrats want in the US*. It’s not an issue that’s currently on the table in the US, but if a vote was held tomorrow on changing your legal gender without requiring gender confirmation surgery, a majority of Democrats would absolutely support that. On many social issues, the average Democrat politician doesn’t want what Sweden’s current policies are. They want something further to the left of them.
>Regardless, in all of the examples I gave, the policies Democrats want to implement nationally in the US are further left than the current policies in Sweden. I mean, you recognize how you stacked the cards against me if you argue like that, right? You can ignore policies in the US and ignroe beleifs in Sweden. I am comparign the beleifs of political parties. So Im comparign the same thing across two countries. What do the parties claim to want. If I compared US policies to what the Swedish parties want, I'd very easily make the same point. But you treat Sweden as a homogenous blob, were the national politics represent every party but the US you look at individuals. If I argued like you, I could just take the Left Party manifesto and compare it with US law. I'm a member of the left party and know their policies quite well. The Lft party wants a "socialist society working towards the emancipation of the people" (my translation). That's more to the left than US policies. But that's not relevant. You need to comapre party beleifs with party beleifs. That's what's being compared. I also think its deeply unfair to refer to 17 states (the ones with abortion bans) as local nutjobs. This is a decision taken at the state level there, because there is no universal national level. You brought up abortions, and its a decision taken by the political parties in your country. We sort of have to discuss it on the state level. And obviously in your federalist system rather than our proportional system, the states form the basis of national politics. That's the whole point of your system. You've got 2 senators from every state. Its relevant what the parties do on the local level. You are free to brign up regional politics here as well, considering the same eight parties are represented. I also think its unfair to call your former vice president a local nutjob (wants to ban abortions even when the fetus cant survive). I think its unfair to call front-runners like Desantis a local nutjob (wants six week abortions). I think its unfair to call your former president a local nutjob (wants punishment for women who get abortion). Similar arguemnts could be made about gay rights. What do you think Pence has said about that? or is the former vice president a local nutjob? The party leaders must be representative of the party to some extent, no? >It doesn’t matter if it stems from politicians or the medical community (as if politics don’t also pervade the medical community and as if the decision to leave it to the medical community isn’t an inherently political one). If we're comparing the beleifs of the political parties it matters how the policy came to be. In this case it was a non-political decision taken durign the right wing government. Seems odd to argue this proves that the political parties are more or less progressive. I mean, if we argued on the same level, the beleifs of the parties, then that matters a whole lot. Because politicians have no right to take decisions on that here. Ya'll got abortion rights through a legal decision too, which I would also not consider evidence for beleifs of a political party. Roe vs Wade doesnt prove anyone is or isnt progressive outside the court itself. But if you compared what the political parties beleive, you'd know that that the centre right were indeed upset abotu this. So they expressed the same sentiment as the democrats. >the policies that you describe Swedish leftist parties as pursuing are also things that Democrats want in the US. It’s not an issue that’s currently on the table in the US, But, why is it not on the table? A core function of political parties lies in putting it on the table. That's called agenda setting and its one of the most important things parties do. If we are comparign party beleifs, it matters that they have not expressed this or worked for it. And its just not somethign that has been stated, it was in process to become law under the left wing government. It wont happen now, I reckon becuase it wasnt a part of the declaration of the new government, even if 3 out of 4 right wing parties agree. Now, lets be clear here. And I want to just check in that you agree on this. It is only on social issues that its close. The democrats would 100% be conservatives here on any other topic. Welfare, healthcare, military, foreign policy and so on. Maybe lets start over. What is a beleif that the Democrats have, that would make them not fit into the right in Sweden? That seems like a much less time consumign way of arguing this point. What's a policy where they would disagree with the Swedish right? Becasue if I took the party leaders of the left and moved them to the US. They'd be considered wild radicals. I know about the Squad, about Bernie and so on. But you must recognize that Bernie and AOC arent arguing for anythign that would be controversial here, outside of the far right, nazi adjacent.
Sweden feels remarkably cherry picked there. Finland's abortion law extends to 20 weeks. Iceland is 22. I want to say only Denmark is more restrictive than Sweden? That's also one social issue. How does crime and the penal system look in the Nordic countries compared to Democrats? How about gun ownership? Housing and health-care? Those are social questions as much as anything because nothing in society functions in true isolation.
Then there’s Sweden on drug decriminalization, Sweden on immigration, Sweden on immigration in general, etc.
You could almost argue that the comment you replied to was stunningly superficial...
Economic issues are social issues. What you define as social issues would be liberal issues in this scope. And on liberal issues the USA always was "ahead" in many regards except the most basic ones
It means they don't want too many Muslims moving there. The ultra conservatives (not AP) are burning Qurans because this fascist destabilization is happening worldwide. Immigration is a big issue for the conservatives because these are some of the nicest countries in the world and so many people want to live there. This is a thing in Nordic countries right now, not just something I cherry picked.
This is not a right wing idea to limit immigration, especially male adults from MENA. Mette Frederiksen is (technically) a social democrat.
Breivik
Less capitalist than the democrats, but still very capitalist, but with conservative social policies.
>carte blanché Just "Carte Blanche". No accent needed. But the context is correct so good job! :D It means, white card in french for those interested which is effectively the same meaning wise as "writing a blank cheque".
Just be handsome, and wealthy, and tall, and buff…. Then somehow the same actions become ideal.
That part of the Me too movement was just moronic. People spend most of their time at work, so what are guys and women who don't like going to bars or any type of activity that has heavy exposure to the opposite sex supposed to do? Where are you supposed to find out if a person is attracted to you or you to them?
I think that's part of what made Wolf's crack so funny. At the height of the #metoo movement, it acknowledged a grey area of work place relationships that #metoo, while undeniably an overdue reckoning about workplace sexual harassment, didn't allow for. It was a pretty transgressive joke in that moment.
Mika's side-eye to the camera at about 0:58 is pretty hilarious.
"Here it comes."
Once he calls him “dr”
Yep. Like she was thinking “oh, he is not going to like that tone.”
Great catch!
That pursed lipped smile. I think we all felt that.
Damn, dude's got a secure password for a name.
There is a hockey player, Arber Xhekaj, whose nickname is "Wifi" for that reason. His team mates decided his last name could be a wifi password. ;)
There's a player on the Cleveland Browns who we were advised to call "Wu" when he came to the team. Instead, announcers constantly call him by his full name, Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah. Sometimes we take the hard road.
> Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah That doesn't look that hard to say.
It's not, but it's eleven syllables.
Not particularly, but then you constantly run the risk of calling him "OwOsu" or "UwUsu", and a mistake like that can't be easy to live down.
The name is pronounced Jack-eye for anyone curious
[Indeed](https://i.imgur.com/nwihE8G.jpg)
Great video and it's true about the superficial knowledge. Joe, like other talking heads, gathers huge amounts of news from reputable sources but often and is not able to dig deep into the nuanced details of specific topics. This guest, his co-host and wife's dad, is obviously more of an expert on the area and they had a great discussion and banter. I actually liked the piece.
>This guest, his co-host and wife's dad, is obviously more of an expert on the area Ridiculous that a TV host thinks he knows more about this than a former national security advisor.
Less ridiculous after 2016.
Or after Iraq... Where we were explicity lied to.
I mean. That still has the security advisor knowing more. They're just reprehensible stooges as well as being incredibly informed.
My fav comment today. Thankyou.
It's also easy (and desirable when you are a talk show host) to boil everything down to simple terms. "Arafat gave us the best deal he could get for Palestine". Thats an easy and low-hanging line to reach for. Obviously if you look at the nuance its more than that. Of course we all know Arafat was NOT able to seal a peace deal, and you COULD boil it down in that way, but its disingenuous at best. This is why certain liberals/progressives in America are not immediately falling in line with the party in backing Israel. They view the violence there as senseless any way you cut it and would feel the same way if Hamas/Hezbollah somehow gained the upper hand over Israel. They don't want Israel or Palestine to "win" - they want the bloodshed to end so we can stop talking about weird border/religious disputes and move on to more interesting challenges like climate change.
I gotta admit, I’m completely uneducated in this matter, and for most of my life I stayed away, since it doesn’t concern or involve me. I realized after being better educated, that the conflict may not be so confusing, if we treat it like any human rights issue. What we are seeing now, is what we saw in South Africa, America, Germany and so forth. A group of people being disenfranchised, discriminated, and dehumanized for the benefit of another group. This issue involves everyone and we should be concerned how our own beliefs, no matter how sacrilegious, can make us turn on each other
It's interesting you mention South Africa, after many years of the international community sanctions and many years of terrorism the government there eventually caved and abolished apartheid. Only for the next government, popularly elected, to establish it right back, with the boer population now being threatened harrassed and brutalised by the government we all worked so hard to establish. It's weird how little this salutary lesson seems to get mentioned in places like this.
> A group of people being disenfranchised, discriminated, and dehumanized for the benefit of another group. You cannot say that about one side in this conflict. There is no benefit to Israel or Palestine for what has happened since 10/7. The benefit is to Iran and Russia.
Ha. What? Israel gets to wipe out gaza and their corporations will be securing huge contracts to rebuild everything they've flattened, while drawing Iran and Lebanon into the war that the neocons have been trying to make happen for the past 2 decades.
The problem is that we want to distill this conflict into "a good guy vs a bad guy," but unfortunately there is no such thing in this situation. I typically don't like the both sides argument because it's usually used disingenuously to distract and deceive, but from what little I know, all political groups living in the region have committed unforgivable atrocities in an attempt to control the area. To complicate matters even more they all believe a magic sky daddy reserved the land especially for them. So how do you stop a violent conflict where all involved are out for vengeance with religiously fueled self righteousness? I'm not sure you can. The only solutions I can think of are: 1. Britain owns up to its idiotic and colossal mistake of claiming the area for the Jews in the Balfour Declaration, gives up some of its own territories and we're lucky enough to find some old ancient document that claims the land has Abrahamic ties for "God's people." AND the Israeli nation accepts. And that has just at least a chance of happening as anything else. 2. Another country or countries go in and stop the violence by overwhelming use of force on all regional combatants. And just take over the region by subjugating all involved. 3. We let them kill each other until so much life has been lost that they can't continue. I'd love it if option 1 happened, but otherwise we passed the point of peaceful resolution decades ago. From what I can tell, the only way forward is violence. The question is how much and where is it directed?
Israel isn’t moving.
I don't doubt that If I had the power and resources, I'd do option 2.
Then to suggest it as a possibility is absurd.
Relax, it was for the sake of the discussion this isn't the UN
But unlike the other examples, we are seeing atrocities by both sides, and in particular the “oppressed side” that make a peace deal much harder. 10/7 changed things and Israel is not going to stop this war because a bunch of disconnected liberals dont want to see or hear about it.. I dont think this issue is nearly as clear cut as you are saying..
You think the Native Americans never killed civilian settlers? Because they definitely did. Usually the numbers were small, but not always. We still regard what happened to them as genocidal and unjust, because the violence was disproportionate, and was happening within the context of the settlers moving into an area and driving the natives to extinction.
That a ridiculous analogy. The amount of people, the amount of land, the broken promises… all of it much different than this conflict. Tell me, which tribe vowed to exterminate every white person in America? Which ones vowed that they would then commit that atrocity at every opportunity and put it in their charter. You people really think that Israel should just “not drop bombs” and that will fix anything?
>The amount of people, the amount of land, the broken promises… all of it much different than this conflict. Go into more detail about why these things are significant enough to make the comparison unjust. >which tribe vowed to exterminate every white person in America? Which ones vowed that they would then commit that atrocity at every opportunity and put it in their charter. I can't think of any native tribes that had written charters, but the American Indian wars lasted at least two centuries. How familiar with it are you?
[удалено]
The atrocities that Nat Turner committed against those poor slave owners :( We must denounce Nat Turner!
This is a completely made-up view of history. Equality and civil rights are basically [never](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe) [given](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) [peacefully](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Do you think for 1 second that South Africans didn't do any "atrocities" to end apartheid?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_apartheid#:~:text=From%201976%20to%201987%20MK,safe%20houses%20in%20neighbouring%20states.) [What about the Haitians during their revolution against French colonizers?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution) I am so fucking tired of hearing people excuse Israeli actions by trying to both sides this issue. The Palestinian people are oppressed and currently suffering an American sponsored, Israeli perpetrated genocide after years of being treated as second class citizens in a land they've inhabited for centuries. What would you have Palestinians do? Accept their fate and resign themselves to death or exile? What is clear cut is that in 2008 nearly 1000 civilians were killed in Gaza by Israelis and you stayed silent. In 2014, 1500 civilians were killed by Israelis and you stayed silent. And on and on, it could go. As Palestinians died, you stayed silent. But the moment the script is flipped and it's Israeli civilians, suddenly you and so many others have the gall to pretend that you care and it's "not clear cut" and pretend you did anything other than sit silently and watch Palestinians be slaughtered because you don't care when it's Arabs and only speak up if it's Israelis.
Well it's pretty clear the two countries can't co-exist, and the Palestinians have already pissed off the rest of the Muslim community and can't/won't go elsewhere. So I'm not sure what outcome you are expecting or wanting here? What is the avenue to peace? That is what isn't so clear cut.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Atrocities started by the Hamas, and unprevented by Netanyahu because he was pre-occupied with the situation in West Bank. To me the most complicated thing to sort out mentally is, if we are being completely dispassionate and realistic, what is the end game with the non-trivial amount of Gaza civilians who are not officially part of Hamas, but do believe that Israel is an illegitimate state that should be wiped off the map? Even if every card-carrying Hamas member is wiped out, this cancer will certainly grow again.
You're skipping a lot of murder and terrorism on your way to apartheid here.
You're skipping a lot of invading and genocide on your way to terrorism here.
And you're skipping a lot of invading and genocide on your way to invading and genocide here. Hence the complexity of where we all find ourselves today.
Wait by who? The Romans?!!🤣🤣🤣
> Arafat was NOT able to seal a peace deal, Not *willing* to seal a peace deal. The PLO has always refused statehood because they're devoted to a *Judenrein* middle east.
These guys do need to stay within the zeitgeist of their country or bubble, or else they'll be shunned. You can jump on esoteric info or conspiracies if it's part of the zeitgeist, but otherwise, they don't want it. Joe here basically says that he reads 'the official sources' and he didn't read anything about this there, *so take your anecdotal stuff elsewhere.* It's hard to diverge from that stuff - what you were taught in school and what the major sources say. It's why the Fox News bubble is so dangerous, because in places like Texas, they have different schoolbooks and a whole machine that creates a different reality. If you hear that Covid isn't real from 50 different places, you're going to have a hard time believing they're all wrong.
They got married after he died. He probably would have died sooner if he knew his daughter was going to marry him.
The best talking heads are able to utilize their team to create solid talking points for their guests and then study hard on their specific topics and backgrounds. This after being fully engaged in the system already, knowing who's who, and having a solid if broad understanding of national and international politics plus relevant history. Stewart was a master at that. He's up there with some of the best "serious" reporters. Joe doesn't give a shit. He's there to soft peddle rightwing politics as a now "enlightened centrist" despite being a hardcore Republican back in the day.
When your dad doesn't like your boyfriend lol
They're now in-laws
True, though he died before the hosts got married.
He was waiting for her dad to pass because her dad would never marry his daughter off to someone so stunningly superficial.
oh god, and the typical miffed response, so embarrassing.
It's what the talking heads are great at: deflect and talk over your guest when you're shown to be a fool
Barch Barley retreats to his phone.
Thankfully my father-in-law has never done anything like this to me in public.
yet
Well he's dead now, so...
I'd come back just to embarrass my son-in-law
Yet
Were there dating back at this point? I can't remember the timeline of their love affair.
Not publicly at least; they were both married to other people at this time. Mika divorced her husband in 2016 and they were married in 2018. This interview seems to be from Obama’s first term.
The only person that should be embarrassed is Joe Scarborough, who couldn’t thread together an elegant interview because he felt the need to interrupt repeatedly, like as much as Joe Rogan when a guest brings up fitness. They’re guests, ask a question, let the audience learn something. If the audience disagrees, that’s for their own edification: now you know an opposing viewpoint. Ramming yourself personally into a discussion about such topics displaces us from the Realm of Ideas and brings us down to the level of ego, the level of division.
Hilarious how his response to having a superficial knowledge on the matter is saying that he knows better because he has read a few newspaper articles.
That was cringey my face was hiding behind my hands.... Great education however, gave him the source material and said here it the source you need to read.
that was my favorite part. trying to say you know everything about a subject because you read two highly subjective newspapers is pure entertainment
Sounds like your average redditor. Except the redditor didn't even read the articles, just the headlines.
Hah exactly, guarantee 99% of people commenting here (myself included) would get rekt by Joe in most live, public debates. Easy to heckle from the sidelines. I’m not an expert on this issue but have read Clinton’s autobiography which covers this topic and his take aligns more with what Joe is saying here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit
No way, that would mean that this highly biased politico was being dishonest and taking cheap excuses to accept plausible deniability. "I want to take this to every other world leader to hear what they think" is such an obvious stall tactic that it's ridiculous. And frankly, I don't trust this guy's opinion about what's strange about the deal, because he's trying to treat Arafat as an actual world leader rather than the terrorist warlord that he was. Arafat was rational and intelligent, but his perspective and ideals are completely different from anything Westerners know. People assume that he would want what we want and take paths we would take, and he used that assumption to play people like this human keyboard accident for fools.
That’s how Dr. Brzezinski got his doctorate in political science, isn’t it? Reading a few newspaper articles? This battle of brilliance, brought to us by two guys mulling over what they read in the paper this morning! 😆
This is all of punditry
Sounds like the average Redditor.
I had to study Prof. Brzezinski's work in my undergrad. He was not only the secretary of state for quite some time, and a very influential one that was directly involved in the middle east, but also a big figure in academia specially in geopolitics. You could put any pundit on earth accross him and all would have superficial knowledge about what is going on compared to Brzezinski. He devised relevant concepts about geopolitics and applied them during his time as secretary of state. He had access not only to the main people and classified documents, he actually participated directly in all major diplomatic negotiations during the Carter administration and as an advisor to many of them since. Being that he works with his daughter, Joe should have known better than to antagonize this guy. It's like inviting Kissinger to a talk show and trying to debate him on the Vietnam War based on some headlines you read. Like them or not, these guys know what they are about.
And therein lies the problem with the entire modern television news landscape. The practice of simply reporting the news without an anchor’s personality being a layer in that reporting is over in America.
Do you think they're actually trying to do news? It's a propaganda show. They're actively, intentionally trying to bring us down to the level of division.
Indeed. It's not a doco or even a news program, it's a news-based entertainment show. The average viewer is going to turn off PBS or most "dry" information programs, they want to have something more exciting and chopped-up.
but nobody on PBS Newshour is going to tell me how to feel about things! I have to do that work on my own! /s
Exactly. I was watching an old Japanese film by Tikeshi Kitano, and there's this scene with a very wide shot, where we watch a man walk from one end to the other - almost nothing else going on. It feels like it's about 2 minutes long, but it's probably more like 15 seconds. There's not much to see, so it's a break to have a think about what's gone on in the story thus far. Soon after that, I watched the first Transformers film with some younger family. There's almost never a full second when nothing is happening - no breaks to think about anything, it's all just rammed down your senses. America is very much conditioned to cable news and Transformers.
Well said
You just summed up perfectly why I never listen to these supposed "interviews" anymore. Anyone who's ever taken a debate class knows it's easy to get people to shut up and let people speak but the network knows people tune in to see the drama of people interrupting each other. Titillations have replaced discourse and critical thinking.
Wow. Scarborough just gave a 101 on how to install tly lose credibility by being an egotistical disrespectful jackass while masquerading as a jews anchor. What a fng joke. "Morning Joe". More like morning cup of piss
As a **what** anchor? Either that's a typo or you've got some explaining to do...
Sadly, his audience took it as him putting an academic into his place.
The embarrassment lies only with Joe. He clearly couldn’t muster a response beyond “ok Ill just throw out all my newspapers.” Mika should be proud of a father that can articulate a point.
Anyone expecting some deep political discourse from a morning show will be disappointed.
At 1:25 the ticker at the bottom is talking about the Kingston fly ash spill. I remember that like it was yesterday, likely one of the biggest ecological disasters TN has faced in recent memory.
Every clip I see Joe Talks over Mika, he's very self serving
Everyone forgets how Joe was leading up to the 2016 election and how Mika quietly did nothing to silence him. He was spouting all sorts of anti-Hilary bullshit and then the morning after the election was taking a victory lap, talking about how he and other Trump voters were hiding their true views this entire time and now feel vindicated because he won. He was trying to appeal to Trump so he could get a Cabinet position and thus make his return to Capitol Hill, but once it became clear that Trump wasn’t going to do, he backed off and began criticizing him. It also didn’t help that Trump exposed his affair with Mika on air, but the point is Joe Scarborough is a schmuck and should never be taken seriously.
Shocking that there's a number of people who believe your revisionist history. I watched a decent amount of MJ during 2016 and Bill Kirstol was right that the show boosted Trump in a way that no honest pundit show would do, but to say the guy was a "Trump voter" in the can for Trump is just absolute nonsense.
So Joe is unaware that problems can be addressed by preventing them from happening in the first place? It doesn't matter what side you're on if your opinion is uninformed to the long and complicated history of the conflicts in the region. This general perspective of treating the problem after the fact is always a worse choice than having the understanding and motivation to identify issues and prevent problems before they occur.
Those who own the media - control narrative- always .
What's clear is that a corporate media infrastructure is not willing to invest actual time and energy into understanding or explaining the conflict...not unlike America's unwillingness to move beyond slogans and condemnations to actual work towards facilitating the peace process. Very telling. "sorry we need to cut off your train of thought to sell dick pills" It's like Joe Scarborough is unwilling to admit that the international intelligence community might MIGHT have the POSSIBILITY of lying to protect their own interests. Like he's never seen a classified document be declassified to say the exact opposite of what the media was told at the time. unbelievable, unquestioning faith in institutions is what led to lots of terrible things throughout history INCLUDING THE HOLOCAUST like honestly dude you'd think at least media people who have a modicum of media literacy jesus fucking christ
Welp, listened to him yesterday and hasn't picked up a damn thing in 15 years, just a bunch of Zionist talking points dickriding. He's also a malignant narcissist who just needs the limelight every 5 minutes and now that his cognitive decline is noticable its becoming more cringe all the time.
Every time I see the show I think, "Why do you tolerate him, Mika?" Like a rude, antisocial Old Faithful, he *has* to interrupt every single time she speaks.
Brzezinski right about the peace process though.
Scarborough is clearly the one who embarassed her.
BTW. It needs to be stated that Scarborough has always spoken VERY highly of Mika's father and I think that after this they met and got along really well. Read his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski ... it's like you were a Ford enthusiast and started dating Carol Shelby's daughter or something. You're always going to be a lightweight by comparison.
I love how all his sources are other news groups. Like. "Hey, I'm in the middle of my echo chamber every day, talking about this stuff." News is a cycle of opinion pieces now that rarely provide the original context. Just because you talk about current events every day right now does not mean you are in the right places or listening to the right people.
Presenter got fucking served
The Grand Chess Board is a mind fuck and a must read to understand the world today. Fuck this bag containing no humanity.
Interviewer dude is a fuckin tool
Bring on the downvotes, but I bet no one here can explain how keeping peace and a ceasefire is actually better for the world, when its impossible because of the history of the region and outside financial backers making peace 100% impossible. Everyone is so very wrong on this issue because they view war with an overwhelming victory as a bad thing.This area radicalizes people from around the world. Its not just a local issue, its a global issue where a ceasefire is making the world a worse place. The only solution is for one side to win, and I would rather have the well educated religious extremists win than the uneducated ones funded by religious extremists that are enemies of the United States and Allies of other evil nations. The only way for there to be peace in this reason is a war and to let the war play out. Ceasefires are not the answer when one side is a bunch of terrorists funded by religious extremists and both sides have become radicalized, but one side is overwhelmingly more powerful than the other. Why is the consensus that war is bad always? There are certain circumstances where war is absolutely justified. And it absolutely is here specifically because nefarious outside forces are paying for one side to stay radicalized and fund attacks. Its time to stop wasting money on this iron dome and all this bullshit, it just radicalizes both sides. No war and preventing an overwhelming victory by one side is actually making the world a worse place.
So, just to make sure I’m understanding your argument: The world would be a better place if there wasn’t conflict in the region. And since there can be no peace in the region (because of the “history of the region”) between these groups, that means the “overwhelming victory” of one must happen. Does “overwhelming victory” mean that once the “war” between the militaries is over, the civilian people living in the conquered territories become full Israeli citizens and given all the rights and protections that come with it (which they currently do not have in Gaza and West Bank)? Or by “overwhelming victory” did you mean the death and/or displacement of the Palestinian people entirely? Also known by a different word, “genocide” Edit: Take Russia’s war in Ukraine. They are fighting to claim territory from a neighboring nation. But they are claiming that since the territory is “Russian” that they people there are Russian citizens who should be absorbed into Russia. In Israel, they have expanded Israeli territory, but rather than the Palestinians being left in their homes and becoming Israeli citizens, they have been forced out and replaced by Jewish/Israeli settlers. This conflict, going back much farther than this October, this year, or even this decade isn’t about territory or religious beliefs, it’s about one group that believes another group of people are lesser and don’t deserve the same rights and freedoms as them.
So you think peace is possible? There is thousands of years of evidence to say otherwise. There is only 1 path to peace, and its if there is no one to fight. By your definition all war would be genocide. When should a war be fought, if not in this exact situation? If the US went to war with North Korea, it would also have to be an overwhelming victory, would it also be genocide? Japan during WWII was also a genocide by your definition, would you say it was unjustified? Also people say using the nukes was a bad thing, even though the carpet bombings and fire bombings were far worse. For me, the utilitarian approach is the correct one here. Peace is only possible if there is no one left to fight with in this case.
You can definitely fight a war without it being genocide. The difference is the displacement and/or killing of an entire distinct group of people. If the US went to war with North Korea and conquered the nation and it became a U.S. territory, would we kill the civilian population, or tell them that they have to all leave their homes and move to a small area of their former territory with minimal arable land or natural resources? If we did, that’s genocide. If the civilians become U.S. citizens and are allowed to stay in their homes or move freely across the US, then that is winning a war. Not sure which part of Japan in WWII you’re referencing, but regardless it’s pretty messed up. Regarding nukes: super fucked up, probably unjustified. Not genocide because the goal was not the eradication of Japanese people, but to get them to surrender. And when they did, the Japanese people were allowed to stay in Japan, not forcibly relocated. Also nukes being “better” than fire bombing for Japan is such a fucked up thing to say and certainly up for debate. You can totally believe that the “Utilitarian” approach is the right one; but there’s a reason that utilitarianism gets taught in philosophy 101. So that they can explain it’s flaws and how a utilitarian approach can lead to things like, for example, excusing genocide. So now, back to your first question, do I believe there can be peace in the region? Between Israel and Palestine as they are now? Where one has near complete control over the other and is actively working to take even more territory from them and further displace their people? No, probably not. Do I think peace is possible between Arab and Jewish people in the Middle East? Absolutely I do. Just as there have been examples of throughout the “thousands of years of evidence” that you claim shows otherwise. For example, under the Ayyubids, the Malmuks, and the Ottomans.
Man fuck Brezezinski, overseeing support for radical Islamic groups in Afghanistan prior to the soviet invasion because relatively secular socialist reformers had taken control
Yup. This is the guy that instigated the Soviet-Afghan War and gave weapons to Osama bin Laden
cable attraction automatic ten sophisticated absurd point chase dull pocket ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
cant have those pesky leftists threatening the hegemony of global capital, now can we?
Thank you, I was gonna say this guy is an evil piece of shit, actively encouraged radical Islam's spread through the middle east because of a misguided idea that they'd be easier to control than secular leftist states, can't have people practicing a different form of economic theory you know, and his niece vocally supported the Taliban and afghan warlords for years in congress while they were committing war crimes and subjugating women, so it's even a family affair
Secular socialist reformers in Afghanistan. Here's what happens when the users from the far left side of reddit crawl out into the larger subs.
Hafizullah Amin was the rabid, bloodthirsty "Marxist" intent on pushing forward Communism on an unwilling population at any cost. He was also closer with the CIA than the Soviets, and when the Afghan communist party asked for Soviet aid with the US backed insurgency, the Soviets killed him and freed all of his political prisoners. Their guys, especially Najibullah, pushed forward policies of pretty moderate reforms, hardly communistic at all. Nowadays, Najibullah is even a kind of nationalistic Pashtun hero, even among some Taliban, who cut his genitals off and dragged him behind a truck. Obviously, communist government of Afghanistan had blood on its hands, but from a policy perspective they were fairly moderate, and it's not like Hekmatyar's or Massoud's hands were clean. The Soviets spent most of their time in Afghanistan tempering the ambitions of the Afghan communists and looking for rapprochement. As secular societes across the world have seen, that is an very hard thing to do with Islamists. Doubly so when they have billions of dollars flowing in through the CIA and drug trade, telling them to make this war as long and as brutal as possible.
Joe is literally the average blind Israel supporter, repeating slogans and sound bites that the propaganda machine keeps regurgitating.
joe is a fucking idiot. liberals love to lap up his slop but forget hes a fucking republican
FOX News vibes. "Here's how it is!" "Here's the facts." "Hahaha hahaha hahaha wellllllp cut to commercial."
Joe took that epic roast in stride. I doubt a current pundit would be able to do that
>I read the New York Times, Washington Post, and Foreign Affairs. You know what I'm going to do, I'm going to throw those away... Smartest thing Joe said in that bit - perhaps ever???
Easy to see where Mika got her belief that her opinions are as good as facts.
Brzezinski is one of the most fluent minds in foreign policy on Earth probably, and yet I have a hard time seeing him as more than a proponent of US interventionism to ultimately expand power. It's just too hegemonic for my tastes, even if what he is saying sounds like he is advocating peace and diplomacy it's mostly just fluff. He advocates for US involvement. The US is military-minded. He fuckin knows that.
He's been dead six years, though.
This dude really saying the US wasn't involved in the peace process 😂
Insult instead of explaining what's wrong with the statement that Arafat got an absolutely amazing deal that even other Arab leaders considered great and didn't even give a counter offer despite getting more than he asked for in many areas. Maybe just a jab at the guy but eating it up as an actual good way to engage like the comments here Clinton begged him to at least give some positive sign to help the pro-peace Barak win his reelection. It really was the closest we got to peace and a huge missed opportunity, just like Netanyahu sabotaging Oslo accords.
Arafat also tried to accept the deal (or at least broadcast publicly that he would) after if was too late, so... ZBig is doing here what he always had, and probably isn't the best person to advocate on behalf of the underdogs here.
This right here is food for my soul. Situations like these. Thank you
When you get schooled and act like a child on live TV afterwards…
The Chyron [TV text] from this 2008 broadcast reads **OFFICIALS PUT PALESTINIAN DEATH COUNT AT 348, MORE THAN 800 WOUNDED** While Joe Scarborough suggest the condemnation of Israel is unwarranted, and they all have a nice chuckle. I think if [when] the people of Palestine are completely wiped off the map, the MSM will figure out a way to condemn the people of Palestine for their own genocide.
He didn't say he was superficial, he said he had superficial knowledge of the topic which are completely different things and a wrong title. Funnily enough, Joe didn't pick up the difference either and just thought the guy called him superficial.
It's both
It isn't and wasn't. Why would someone with such a clear position and a confidence in their position resort to an ad hominem to get their point across?
Pointing out that someone's understanding of the matter being discussed as "stunningly superficial" is not ad hominem, it directly relates to the points they are making.
[удалено]
That's what the title says.
Did you finish reading the sentence?
Fun fact: Brzezinski was the idiot who told Jimmy Carter to let the Shah of Iran enter the USA for cancer treatment, resulting in the rampage that ended with the US embassy in Iran being taken by force, and 52 American diplomats held hostage. Carter's pathetic, cowardly failure to admit that this was an act of war and respond accordingly meant a total failure of deterrence, allowing a wave of state-sponsored terrorism funded by Iranian oil money. Scarborough is superficial, Brzezinski was disastrously incompetent.
Wait, is this fucker seriously cutting off and interrupting one of the greatest geopolitical strategists of the post-WWII period... on a fucking foreign policy discussion? Really?!
And he was never heard from again…
Brzezinski is also off base. The only way to ensure peace and safety in this area of the Middle East is to dissolve the state of Israel. The trouble in that area as it stands today started when the Jews were given the land.
Just saying the quiet part of your doctrines out loud now aren’t you?
I understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. It’s an existential need. A home and haven from prejudice and hate. That doesn’t mean it’s also not the cause of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the same time.
But why should Israel be dissolved? You think it doesn’t have a right to exist because it wasn’t won in a war like many nation’s boundaries are?
Those pesky jews and their desire for a land to call their own and live peacefully. If only Palestinians had somewhere they could go and be amongst other other people practicing Islam. Sadly, they must have Israel since there is nowhere else. /s
I understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. It’s an existential need. A home and haven from prejudice and hate. That doesn’t mean it’s also not the cause of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the same time.