My quick non-partisan takes on current headlines

[AgnosticBoy]

I already have a thread where I post news headlines for events that I'm keeping up with. In this thread, I will post my take on some of those headlines, and being an agnostic and independent, that will be the perspective I will speak from. I am mostly doing this to have notes to myself of how I view issues in contrast to the political spin that I tend to encounter from both sides. Hopefully, the reader will benefit from this, as well.

1. Senator Alex Padilla removed from press conference and detained (refer to post #2)
2. President Trump claims White Genocide and allows White Africans to come to us through fast-track asylum process (post #3)
3. Most Recent Iran and Israel conflict, where Israel preemptively bombed Iran (post #4)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. US Senator removed from a press conference and then detained
Democratic Senator Alex Padilla (Dem.) was removed from a press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

My take:
Senator Padilla's and the coverage from Left-leaning networks have painted this incident as Trump cracking down on his opposition, not allowing any questioning, and being a move towards authoritarianism. In this case I disagree because Senator Padilla was being disruptive by shouting out questions while Kristi Noem was briefing the press. Question session had not yet started. Because of that disruptive behavior, I do think it was justified to have him removed just as we'd remove anyone else, like that Congressmen Al Green was removed from the House floor after he kept shouting during one of Trump's speech to Congress.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

2. Trump's confronts South African President with claims of a White genocide...
President Trump met with the South African President at the White House. The meeting then turned into Trump showing the African President a video claiming to be a funeral for many White South Africans that have been killed. Trump has also used this to justify some of the South African White population to come to the US through a fast-tracked asylum process.

Here's from CNN:

(CNN) - A group of 59 White South Africans arrived in the United States last week after being granted refugee status by the White House, which has fast-tracked the processing of Afrikaner refugees but paused refugee applications for other nationalities.

Here's video of Trump confronting South Africa's Pres. with videos of their White population being targeted...

My Take:

Claim: A genocide targeting white farmers is happening in South Africa.

Get the Facts: Anthony Kaziboni, a senior researcher at the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for Social Development in Africa, told PolitiFact that he does not believe what is happening in South Africa qualifies as a genocide.

"There is no indication of a state-sponsored campaign or intent to eliminate a specific racial group," Kaziboni said. "The primary motive remains robbery, sometimes coupled with extreme violence, consistent with broader patterns of violent crime in South Africa."

Source: https://www.wbaltv.com/article/trump-ramaphosa-south-africa-white-farmer-genocide/64841616

Trump came off rude and like a conspiracy theorists towards the South African Pres. The facts don't bear out that there's a White genocide, but rather there's a rampant crime problem, and both Blacks and Whites are affected. I would've loved for Trump to have showed actual stats explaining why are Black people falling victim to crimes and not just Whites in that country.

My theory is that it's really Elon Musk, being from South Africa himself and having family there, that wanted White South Africans to have special treatment in entering the US. So they came up with some narrative, with weak evidence and not caring about the counter evidence, just to have an excuse to bring in groups that he wanted. Some have also brought up that this shows racism on Trump's part since he has no fast-track asylum process for non-White groups that are also being persecuted and worse.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Most Recent Iran and Israel conflict, where Israel preemptively bombed Iran
Last week, Israel made the decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and Iran has responded by launching missiles at Israel. The two have been engage in back and forth strikes ever since. Now President Trump is weighing the option of the US striking Iran's nuclear facilities.

My take:
Some have been against Israel choosing to strike Iran, and that also includes the US getting involved. Much of the disagreement seems to boil down to when to strike Iran. Those that are against strikes argue that Iran has no nuclear weapon and aren't building one. Then there's the other side, the side that Israel is on, that says that they are moving towards making a nuclear weapon and have all of the material to make one rapidly.

I side with the latter group. Sure, Iran having a nuke or building one is a threat, but I consider having the material to make one, especially relatively quickly (in a month's time) is also a threat. And when we say Iran is not making a weapon, to some that just means they haven't announced it publicly or that there's no evidence of Uranium enrichment to 90%. But then I question why should we expect that they would announce it in a clear way as opposed to lying and trying to cover it up? Their actions would suggest that they are at least moving towards having the ability to build a nuke, which I get isn't the same as actually building one, but that's still dangerously close, especially if they can make the decision to build anytime and build up rapidly to a nuke. It's almost as if the other side is thinking that they need to see Iran with a nuke first, and then strike. By that time, it would probably be too late.