Political Discussion In The 20s

Topic

Let’s reboot this thing. Have at thee.

Replies

Weinstein was such a mover and shaker in Hollywood that if you would replace”acted alongside” with “involved in a movie he produced” you’d get a more pervasive and rapey version of “six degrees of Kevin Bacon”

Anonymous wrote:

Unrelated – curious that we’ve had two fictionalized versions of the fall of Roger Ailes and nothing of the arguably bigger Weinstein…

Presumably because Hollywood doesn’t like doing stories about itself that don’t paint it (currently) in a good light.

Also, I think it’s premature to do the Weinstein story at this point. It would end up like that recent dramatisation of the Brexit campaign – just half of a story that is still playing out.

Anonymous wrote:

Weinstein was such a mover and shaker in Hollywood that if you would replace”acted alongside” with “involved in a movie he produced” you’d get a more pervasive and rapey version of “six degrees of Kevin Bacon”

I still don’t understand what a “producer” does.

In Weinstein case he produced his penis

Clearly I am adding here.

Anonymous wrote:

I still don’t understand what a “producer” does.

They do a lot. In the end, the producer on a film will have more influence on it than any other person involved. It’s funny, but a lot of people don’t know what a producer does, but a lot of people are sure they know what a director does. However, just ask “what exactly does a director do?” and the answer will often be a very vague “make the movie” sort of response. Really, it’s the producer that makes the movie. They take a film project and turn it into a film – a product. They deal with all the various markets to obtain the script, hire the crew, cast the actors, most importantly establish financing and set up the various teams (finance, accounting, etc.) with a line producer to stay on budget. Then they oversee the creation of the final theatrical cut and take that film to the actual film markets (Cannes, AFM & EFM) to sell them. Part of selling them is to get the film into festivals (festivals and markets are sometimes connected, but markets are all business and there really are only three to five actual film markets while there are probably 3,000 film festivals around the world with only 15 or so being the really important ones – the ones that can lead to a film being sold).

A director on the other hand may be a producer, too, and may have a big hand in the writing, editing, cinematography and production design – Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola were all very skilled at the actual elements of film production and often took a hands on approach to their movies, but the cinematography is actually the job of the director of photography, the writing is actually the job of the screenwriter, the editing is actually the job of the film editor, the production design is, naturally, the responsibility of the production designer, casting is the job of the casting director. And each of these people often have people under them who actually touch the physical equipment, props, lighting, etc of the movie. What the director actually does – the role they provide – is make decisions about what actually gets put on film. They have the vision for the movie and they decide what each of the other people involved actually does. Tim Burton movies are very recognizable, but he didn’t actually draw any of the set designs and he may have only provided bare bones sketches of some of the characters. Instead, he did his best to communicate his vision to the people who would actually have to turn it into something people would eventually see in a theater and he had to decide yes or no when they brought what they thought he wanted.

A producer like Weinstein or Lawrence Bender, for a better example, basically provide everything necessary not only for the movie to get made but also for everyone involved in making it – especially the director – to have what they need to successfully deliver it, and then they have to sell it. It’s an incredibly difficult job. Like Orson Welles famously told Dick Cavett “If General Motors made cars the way Hollywood makes movies, nine out of every ten would fall apart before they got off the factory floor.” He could have added that out of every movie that gets off the factory floor, half of those are never purchased and the rest often break down the first time the owner drives them.

Weinstein, however, was also notorious for wrecking some movies. The sequel to the Crow (Crow: City of Angels) is a good example. Weinstein initially wanted to make a follow up film very different from the original hit, and hired the director Tim Pope and writer David Goyer to explicitly do that. From what I’ve heard, they delivered a very different and pretty good movie, then the Weinsteins decided they really wanted a sequel exactly like the original, so they cut it to pieces to try to fit.

In GANGS OF NEW YORK, there is a scene where Bill the Butcher is playing cards and stabs another player’s hand pinning it to the table because he’s not betting enough money on the game. After the man screams, Bill shushes him and says, “don’t make that sound again, Harvey.” A lot of people have taken that as a message directly to Weinstein for not really giving the movie what it needed.

In some ways, Scorsese seems to have stepped in to fill the vacuum left by Weinstein’s departure. You’re seeing his name either on or associated with movies that Weinstein was either working on or would have produced.

garjones wrote:

Todd wrote:

I don’t think so when there are pictures like these floating around:

I honestly don’t think that would matter a tiny jot Todd. Politics is full of people in photo ops with dodgy characters. Hollywood is packed with chummy photos with Weinstein (plus Cosby and Spacey) and it has affected nobody’s popularity. Just deny knowledge of his assaults and condemn them and the vast majority of people move on (and I suspect the ones who don’t wouldn’t be voting for the other guy with 19 rape accusations) .

 

 

 

In the case of Oprah and her carefully maintained image, I think it could make a difference. She has been around quite a few people many time (and not just at social events) that make you question what she knew. There have been some controversies with her South African school, among other things. When you run for President, everything gets put under the microscope and put on the big screen. A lot of things with her get glossed over and her image remains pretty much intact.

I don’t think she will ever run because she is smart enough to know that the scrutiny she would come under with its potential revelations is not worth the damage her empire would take. She gets quite a bit of positive press when her name is just mentioned that she should run without having to do anything.

Ultimately though, I really don’t think she has what it takes to be President.

Returning to Arjan’s claim that Trump is the same as every other Republican President. Puerto Rico has now been hit by two major earthquakes and Trump still refuses to release their full Hurricane relief funds. Cruz, Jeb or any other republican President would never have done that.

I think from now on world leaders should respond immediately to environmental disasters

I don’t think she’d run either but my original point was that either gender or race is probably not the absolute decider. It may be for a few but say there turns out to be nothing in the South African schools or Weinstein then she’d win, despite having both ‘handicaps’.

 

Anonymous wrote:

Now, either Trump is a political genius or he’s just lucky on an unbelievable level, and I don’t think he’s a genius.

He’s just an anomaly. ;)

 

I think Trump has kind of a mean instinct. He’s got a kind of shrewdness, but he’s not a genius. I think he recognizes the same instinct in others, which could explain why he seems to be better at dealing with autocratic regimes than Obama was. And worse at dealing with Macron or Merkel. I liked Bill Burr’s take on him, when he connected Trump’s presidency to Obama roasting him at that white house dinner thing. He was challenged and he thought, fuck you, I am going to take your job. He likes getting into these duels. Khamenei literally tweeted “You can’t do anything” at Trump.

Sen. Cory Booker exits the Democratic presidential primary

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/entertainment/cardi-b-government-tweet-trnd/index.html

 

<p class=”zn-body__paragraph speakable” style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; font-size: 1.2rem; line-height: 1.66667;”>Cardi B wants to be a politician.</p>

Maybe not soon, but she’s considering it.

In a series of tweets this week, the rapper expressed an interest in being a part of Congress, telling her fans she’d share more details soon.

“I really love government even tho I don’t agree with government,” Cardi B said on Twitter Sunday.

Good for her?

How race hurt Cory Booker — and the rest of 2020’s historically diverse field

rory wrote:

Good for her?

Well she could drug and rob Putin.

rory wrote:

Good for her?

Yeah. She met with Sanders a while ago, and he’s still looking for a Veep…

That would be the most fun administration

These people make good documentaries:

 

Pelosi just dropped the hammer. Articles of Impeachment on to the Senate.

 

Howsabout that Putin, eh?

Totally normal thing for the leader of a democratic, federative state with a republican government.

I can fairly hear the gears grinding in Trump’s brainbox right now…

It would be impressive if he managed to pull the same thing with the US government.

He’s already “joked” about a third term at various rallies and said it was great Xi was president for life.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/gao-report-administration-violated-law-withholding-aid/index.html

And still the Republican Senate will not vote to impeach him.

njerry wrote:

And still the Republican Senate will not vote to impeach him.

The Republicans are gutless little bitch cowards.

njerry wrote:

And still the Republican Senate will not vote to impeach him.

He’s already been impeached. They’ll vote not to remove him.

Yeah he’s impeached. He’s one of the only presidents to be, along with Clinton, dickheadface, and other guy, IIRC..

We all know the Senate will acquit but I hope Pelosis gambit pays off in the election, especially with Warren and Sanders bickering. I’m warming to the idea if Buttigieg sweeping in as the underdog

There is a proposal in the Netherlands by some political think tanks to come up with a kind of job guarantee for everyone. So not a universal basic income but universal basic employment.

I think it could be good, depending on how it would work.

Anonymous wrote:

There is a proposal in the Netherlands by some political think tanks to come up with a kind of job guarantee for everyone. So not a universal basic income but universal basic employment.

I think it could be good, depending on how it would work.

Isn’t that Communism? 😛

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a proposal in the Netherlands by some political think tanks to come up with a kind of job guarantee for everyone. So not a universal basic income but universal basic employment.

I think it could be good, depending on how it would work.

Isn’t that Communism? 😛

It’s more like 18th century capitalism.

Yeah , well, I’m going to call it capilomunism

rory wrote:

njerry wrote:
And still the Republican Senate will not vote to impeach him.

He’s already been impeached. They’ll vote not to remove him.

That you for clarifying and correcting my mistake, Rory. I should know better. 

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a proposal in the Netherlands by some political think tanks to come up with a kind of job guarantee for everyone. So not a universal basic income but universal basic employment.

I think it could be good, depending on how it would work.

Isn’t that Communism? 😛

I don’t really mind what people call it. It seems a good proposal to me.

 

The left seems more open to this proposal than the right. We have a mixed government cabinet with left wing and right wing parties. So we’ll see what happens but at the moment it isn’t a very concrete proposal. More of a suggestion maybe.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

It’s more like 18th century capitalism.

Didn’t that already rely on the pressure of the lumpenproletariat, the unemployed, to uphold the terrible working conditions in the more and more industralised jobs of the weavers etc.?

 

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t really mind what people call it. It seems a good proposal to me.

Provided you earn a decent living wage and have a choice in which field you can work, sure. I mean, this is why people in East Germany get nostalgic for the Deutsche Demokratische Republik – there was full employment, and everybody felt like their doing their job was something that was for the better of the entire nation. From there, they suddenly fell into huge unemployment numbers. Resulting in civic unrest and right-wing extremism.

The thing is, you need money to offer decent full employment. Which would be easy to take if we had proper taxes on financial transactions, wealth, corporate and the highest brackets of income – use that money to really rebuild the public sector, all kinds of infrastructure and service, and employ basically everyone to do that. This huge influx of paying jobs would also generate a lot of consumption power and thus be great for the ecnomomy (this is the Fordian cycle, basically), thereby stabilising our currently very instable economic and political systems.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

As you note, they have similar outlooks, but Sanders is closer to mine than Warren.  Why would I support Diet Sanders when I can support Sanders instead?

Personally, because I’d trust Warren more to actually get things done where fighting the financial sector and corporate influence on laws is concerned. She just knows more about how these things work.

Christian wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

It’s more like 18th century capitalism.

Didn’t that already rely on the pressure of the lumpenproletariat, the unemployed, to uphold the terrible working conditions in the more and more industralised jobs of the weavers etc.?

 

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t really mind what people call it. It seems a good proposal to me.

Provided you earn a decent living wage and have a choice in which field you can work, sure. I mean, this is why people in East Germany get nostalgic for the Deutsche Demokratische Republik – there was full employment, and everybody felt like their doing their job was something that was for the better of the entire nation. From there, they suddenly fell into huge unemployment numbers. Resulting in civic unrest and right-wing extremism.

The thing is, you need money to offer decent full employment. Which would be easy to take if we had proper taxes on financial transactions, wealth, corporate and the highest brackets of income – use that money to really rebuild the public sector, all kinds of infrastructure and service, and employ basically everyone to do that. This huge influx of paying jobs would also generate a lot of consumption power and thus be great for the ecnomomy (this is the Fordian cycle, basically), thereby stabilising our currently very instable economic and political systems.

I read an excerpt of their report and it seemed OK. It’s not about forcing vulnerable people into noisy factorites, it’s more about helping people find a place where they belong. It is partly a way to deal with future automation, a way to keep people engaged in society.

Thanks, WonK.

This surely can’t be for real?

Not that I doubt politicans would stoop to such things, I doubt they would make them so obvious and discoverable by their opponents

 

When your 'popularity' is dwindling so fast you have to PAY people to act like Trump supporters…
'Minorities welcome and needed!' 😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/95DAYGLZIT

— The Prole Star (@TheProleStar) January 19, 2020

 

It’s not the first time they’ve been caught doing this.

 

rory wrote:

It’s not the first time they’ve been caught doing this.

Maybe they got millions of actors to vote for them in 2016…

Crackpot idea of the day (one of a series, I’m sure) (and clearly not serious, just the next thing they’re trotting out to take out minds off Brexit and the death of the planet):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51168744

The government is examining whether to move the House of Lords out of London, the Conservative Party chairman has said.

James Cleverly told Sky News the idea was among a “range of options” being considered to “reconnect” politics with voters outside of the capital.

According to the Sunday Times, York and Birmingham have emerged as contenders to permanently host the upper chamber.

 

I wonder if any politicians have any clue about what real people actually care about.

They could move the House of Lords to my village hall, and I still wouldn’t feel any more connected to it

Related, from another story:

Downing Street has said the prime minister will chair a cabinet meeting in the north of England during the day, to discuss spreading “prosperity and opportunity”.

Honestly, do they think we care where they sit while they decide our fate? It’s all so superficial.

If the whole cabinet is going to be spending their generous lunch allowances in Greggs on Northumberland Street, perhaps I’ll believe them about spreading prosperity.

 

Yeah, it’s like Question Time. It doesn’t matter where it actually is, you just came the same gaggle of arseholes (literally the same people even in the audience sometimes) doing the same nonsense on the same set, the only difference is the place name on the floor.

God. Trump’s lawyers spent their opening statements blatantly lying. This is going to be an unrepentant shitshow.

This may sound like pettiness, but it shows the weird social disconnect which has seen Tory MPs take County Durham seats for the first time in living memory:

 

There is “no chance” new Tory MPs will be invited to the Durham Miners’ Gala, the area’s miners’ association president has said.

Alan Mardghum paraphrased the prime minister to say he would “rather die in a ditch” than see members of the Conservative Party, which had done “its best to destroy miners”, attend.

The area was a Labour stronghold but it recently lost four of its seven seats.

The gala is the UK’s biggest annual gathering of trade union members.

Some of the area’s new MPs have now expressed a desire to attend.

Richard Holden, who took North West Durham for the Conservatives, said: “With four out of the seven seats across County Durham with Conservative MPs I think it is right that we attend one of the most important cultural days in its annual calendar.

“The Durham Miners’ Gala is… absolutely central to the life of the North East and me and other Tory MPs will definitely be there.”

More than 100,000 people attend the July event known as the “Big Meeting”, with the day featuring marching bands, political speeches and a service of thanksgiving at Durham Cathedral.

It is organised by the Durham Miners’ Association (DMA), and official guests in the past have included Labour stalwarts including Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Benn, Neil Kinnock and Ed Milliband.

Mr Mardghum said there would be “categorically no chance” that any Conservative politician would receive an official invite to the event.

 

 

I still believe people in areas like this voted for Brexit and that meant voting Conservative this time.

They got more than that though. They got Tory MPs.

Nighttime is darker than daytime.
Water is wet.
Trump’s lawyers spent their opening statements blatantly lying.

I find it amusing that the senators apparently had to swear an oath that they would run a fair and unbiased trial, and then 53% of them immediately banned the prosecution from calling any witnesses.

You’d think people at that level of government would understand what a trial normally involves. Have they never watched Law & Order? 

 

This, from a couple of weeks ago, is pretty interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50752217

Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?

When US President George HW Bush craved “a smoking gun” in 1992 to politically kneecap his White House challenger Bill Clinton, the British government delved into its files for damaging information. So, did the Bush camp solicit foreign interference to help him win an election – the allegation that has seen President Trump impeached?

I especially like this bit:

George Herbert Walker Bush – who died one year ago, aged 94 – was an intensely competitive man.

In 1980, as his dream of capturing the Republican presidential nomination began to slip away in the wake of defeat to Reagan in New Hampshire, Bush penned a revealing note to himself on a flight.

“I WILL NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER. NEVER,” it said in bold scrawl. He gave up three months later.

The fact that after Bush lost it left Major’s government in Clinton’s doghouse afterwards shouldn’t be overlooked.

Bloody fools.

I seriously doubt there are countries that wouldn’t meddle with US elections if they could.

Soon, we will have blue, blue passports! (manufactured and imported in from France)

And furthermore outsourced to exploitative factory conditions in Poland.

(Assume I’ve deleted all the cunty bastid expletives).

The funny bit was the Daily Express using the same version Ben posted without realising what the words say.  A fitting tribute to Terry Jones.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it winds up the official version.

Brazil is not supposed to become reality.

And I’m clearly well-qualified to work for the Express.

Forget impeachment. Republicans fear Ukraine revelations could spill into election.

There’s one thing I think everyone can agree about Trump, on either side of the aisle (the only difference is whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing) is that he thrives on controversy. The only controversy I could see taking him down is if there’s strong evidence he personally raped one of Epstein’s victims, or strong evidence he tried to have a business  or political rival physically assassinated

Aris, formerly of this parish, posted this on Facebook:
“Shit-Life Syndrome,” Trump Voters, and Clueless Dems

“In 2016, Donald Trump captured 68 percent of the vote in West Virginia, a state hit hard by opioid overdoses,” begins the 2018 NPR story: “Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016.”

The NPR story was about a study published in JAMA Network Open titled “Association of Chronic Opioid Use With Presidential Voting Patterns in US Counties in 2016,” lead authored by physician James Goodwin. In counties with high rates of opioid use, Trump received 60% of the vote; but Trump received only 39% of the vote in counties with low opioid use. Opioid use is prevalent in poor rural counties, as Goodwin reports in his study: “Approximately two-thirds of the association between opioid rates and presidential voting was explained by socioeconomic variables.”

Goodwin told NPR: “It very well may be that if you’re in a county that is dissolving because of opioids, you’re looking around and you’re seeing ruin. That can lead to a sense of despair . . . . You want something different. You want radical change.”

Shit-life syndrome sufferers are looking for immediate change, and are receptive to unconventional politicians.

In 2016, Trump understood that being unconventional, including unconventional obnoxiousness, can help ratings. So he began his campaign with unconventional serial humiliations of his fellow Republican candidates to get the nomination; and since then, his unconventionality has been limited only by his lack of creativity—relying mostly on the Roy Cohn modeled “Punch them harder than they punch you” for anyone who disagrees with him.

I talked to Trump voters in 2016, and many of them felt that Trump was not a nice person, even a jerk, but their fantasy was that he was one of those rich guys with a big ego who needed to be a hero. Progressives who merely mock this way of thinking rather than create a strategy to deal with it are going to get four more years of Trump.

The Dems’ problem in getting the shit-life syndrome vote in 2020 is that none of their potential nominees for president are unconventional. In 2016, Bernie Sanders achieved some degree of unconventionality. His young Sandernistas loved the idea of a curmudgeon grandfather/eccentric uncle who boldly proclaimed in Brooklynese that he was a “socialist,” and his fans marveled that he was no loser, having in fact charmed Vermonters into electing him to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, during the 2016 primaries, there were folks here in Ohio who ultimately voted for Trump but who told me that they liked Bernie—both Sanders and Trump appeared unconventional to them.

While Bernie still has fans in 2020, he has done major damage to his “unconventionality brand.” By backing Hillary Clinton in 2016, he resembled every other cowardly politician. I felt sorry for his Sandernistas, heartbroken after their hero Bernie—who for most of his political life had self-identified as an “independent” and a “socialist”—became a compliant team player for the corporatist Blue Team that he had spent a career claiming independence from. If Bernie was terrified in 2016 of risking Ralph Nader’s fate of ostracism for defying the corporatist Blue Team, would he really risk assassination for defying the rich bastards who own the United States?

So in 2020, this leaves realistic Dems with one strategy. While the Dems cannot provide a candidate who can viscerally connect with shit-life syndrome sufferers, the Dems can show these victims that they have been used and betrayed by Trump.

Here in Ohio in counties dominated by shit-life syndrome, the Dems would be wise not to focus on their candidate but instead pour money into negative advertising, shaming Trump for making promises that he knew he wouldn’t deliver on: Hillary has not been prosecuted; Mexico has paid for no wall; great manufacturing jobs are not going to Ohioans; and most importantly, in their communities, there are now even more suicides, drug overdose deaths, and grieving families.

You would think a Hollywood Dem could viscerally communicate in 30 seconds: “You fantasized that this braggart would be your hero, but you discovered he’s just another rich asshole politician out for himself.” This strategy will not necessarily get Dems the shit-life syndrome vote, but will increase the likelihood that these folks stay home on Election Day and not vote for Trump.

Jesus, you’d think Pompeo would have checked to make sure there wasn’t emails where his team agreed to questions about Ukraine before calling that reporter a liar for saying his team agreed to questions about Ukraine. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.

The problem with this piece is that they accept that Trump deliberately won the election, when there’s substantial evidence to the contrary. He didn’t think he would win and didn’t want to win.

But he was trying to get supporters and his tactics to do that worked. Too well in his case.

So this is the proposed map in Trump’s “peace plan.”

 

 

I think it’s the best Palestinians can hope for but of course it’s unacceptable. The Israelis know that, meaning the current situation with them occupying the West Bank will endure. That might just be what they prefer.

I’m very impressed, he managed to keep all his colouring inside the lines. Do you think he had help from an adult?

1. rory wrote:

   God. Trump’s lawyers spent their opening statements blatantly lying. This is going to be an unrepentant shitshow.

Of course they did. There’s now an established precedent that blatantly lying does not mean you will be held accountable for doing so  Every lawyer would do it if they knew there would be no repercussions.

Well, every evil lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

every evil lawyer

I can’t help thinking you’re deliberately dangling this as bait, but I shall bite my tongue

 

Anonymous wrote:

ill still call American fucking dumb

Compared with some other world leaders, Trump isn’t that bad. I might prefer if he were some enlightened philosopher, but safe for one or two exceptions, all politicians are prostitutes, simpletons and ideological tyrants, or wannabe tyrants. And it’s not seldom the enlightened philosophers who open the way to tyranny, or turn out to be tyrants themselves.

 

The Iran thing scared me, but looking bad it wasn’t handled that badly.

 

Americans aren’t dumb. Or not dumber than other countries. But they live in the brain of peple from all other countries rent-free. It’s what a lot of the dynamics in the world revolve around. Europe wouldn’t be Europe without the US, neither would the Middle East, Russia, China, or Latin America. We all live in an American world. It could be a lot worse.

Anonymous wrote:

We all live in an American world. It could be a lot worse.

I would prefer to live in an American world that isn’t being led by Donald Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ill still call American fucking dumb

Compared with some other world leaders, Trump isn’t that bad. I might prefer if he were some enlightened philosopher, but safe for one or two exceptions, all politicians are prostitutes, simpletons and ideological tyrants, or wannabe tyrants. And it’s not seldom the enlightened philosophers who open the way to tyranny, or turn out to be tyrants themselves.

 

The Iran thing scared me, but looking bad it wasn’t handled that badly.

 

Americans aren’t dumb. Or not dumber than other countries. But they live in the brain of peple from all other countries rent-free. It’s what a lot of the dynamics in the world revolve around. Europe wouldn’t be Europe without the US, neither would the Middle East, Russia, China, or Latin America. We all live in an American world. It could be a lot worse.

Actually, a lot of really horrific tyrants saw themselves, or acted as if they saw themselves, as enlightened philosophers. Kim Il-sung, Chairman Mao, and Hitler all spring to mind.

Philosophy is a helpful tool for tyrants. Plato also had a couple of bad students who turned into dictators, and his envisioned utopia could in some ways be seen as a kind of blueprint for a repressive society.

 

Then again, Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher and he may have been the best president the US ever had, or one of the best anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Then again, Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher and he may have been the best president the US ever had, or one of the best anyway.

Well, he did father a child with one of his slaves…

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We all live in an American world. It could be a lot worse.

I would prefer to live in an American world that isn’t being led by Donald Trump.

Well you can vote! Only 9 more months and it you’ll be in Tulsi’s America.

 

 

Just gonna drop this here, how do you do mr. Dog.

 

Swapping one Russian asset for another? No thanks. I thought she’d dropped out (hadn’t seen her or talk of her for a while) but it appears not.T I have noticed however a much stronger “Bernie or bust” movement; they are committed to sitting out the election if Sanders isn’t the nominee (this contingent’s mass was overstated in 2016). It screams of privilege to me.

I don’t give a hoot wether Tulsi had a phone conversation with Putin one time or whatever. It seems nothing more than a smear to me.

DavidM wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

every evil lawyer

I can’t help thinking you’re deliberately dangling this as bait, but I shall bite my tongue

 

You definitely do not want to slander anyone that may or may not be a member of the Nefarious Guild of Evil Law Practicing Lawyers ™

Anonymous wrote:

Philosophy is a helpful tool for tyrants

I think it’s actually the saving grace for Trump (and Boris Johnson really). That they don’t particularly have a vision or ideology beyond their own egos. It makes them incredibly annoying and unreliable but it’s less dangerous than someone with an agenda like the neo-cons and their plan to privatise the military and democratise the world using it.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it’s the best Palestinians can hope for but of course it’s unacceptable.

Having visited the region a simple glance tells you that will never be accepted. It cedes huge areas that are currently under Palestinian Authority control, most of the lower half of the border with the Dead Sea is that way now but none in this map. I know why it’s designed like that, Israel wants to separate them from the Jordanian border (other than a couple of Berlin style roads) so there’s no path for a possible invasion – not that Jordan seem that way inclined at all nowadays.

The Palestinians will be labelled intransigent again of course but the design of that map effectively makes it impossible to work as an independent state. They are split off from water sources and the crazy paving borders that start and end everywhere would just be continual touch points over who controls what forever.

garjones wrote:

I think it’s actually the saving grace for Trump (and Boris Johnson really). That they don’t particularly have a vision or ideology beyond their own egos. It makes them incredibly annoying and unreliable but it’s less dangerous than someone with an agenda like the neo-cons and their plan to privatise the military and democratise the world using it.

I agree, but at the same time, they do have an economic philosophy of sorts. Their default setting is deregulation and a laisser-faire economy, even if they have never thought about why this is what they want (in Trump’s case) or would sell out the moment their political support shifts (Johnson).

garjones wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Philosophy is a helpful tool for tyrants

I think it’s actually the saving grace for Trump (and Boris Johnson really). That they don’t particularly have a vision or ideology beyond their own egos. It makes them incredibly annoying and unreliable but it’s less dangerous than someone with an agenda like the neo-cons and their plan to privatise the military and democratise the world using it.

See what I said about Cruz. I voted for Trump in the general election, but if Cruz had been the nominee, I would have not voted for  president. In the primary, NYS uses a proportional system. Cruz had the best chance to take delegates from Trump, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I voted Kasich.

Today is Brexit Day.

What happens next? Well for 11 months we have the exit agreement than May/Johnson hammered out, and by the end of the year we are supposed to have established, and largely implemented, the important details on how business, security, immigration/emigration and general travel will all work. We should also have a working trade agreement with the EU.

If we don’t have all of that set up them, as far as I can tell, no-one really knows what will happen? What bits will carry over? Which bits will have to be dropped?

So it’s just like it was before today, but different. Sort of.

The BBC is doing a whole hour of live coverage of us leaving tonight … er … I’m not sure what they will be showing, exactly, as no change is going to be visible yet

 

Umm David,  pretty sure “Brexit” is shorthand for “Britain’s exit from the Eurasian tectonic plate”.

I mean, why else would the commonwealth have resurrected that antiquated law which meant that all Australians were enlisted to install rocket boosters into the foundations of Great Britain?

If you guys need help building the giant wall around Great Britain, Trump can probably recommend some contractors.

njerry wrote:

If you guys need help building the giant wall around Great Britain, Trump can probably recommend some contractors.

He is good with sea-walls.

I’m NOT leaving. I dont want to go.

And even you guys here have forgotten North of Lorcanland exists. 

Yeah, I’m feeling more down about this than I expected to.

It’s a fraudulent pile of bullshit the size of Disneyland Paris.

Here’s something to cheer us all up though:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/31/katie-hopkins-twitter-account-suspended

Anonymous wrote:

And even you guys here have forgotten North of Lorcanland exists.

We would never forget the land of Carrick-a-Rede, and Dunluce Castle, and the shops in Newry, and Killyleagh, and the Derry Peace Bridge, and of course Bushmills!!

OK, fuck the GOP.

SteveUK wrote:

Today is Brexit Day.

What happens next? Well for 11 months we have the exit agreement than May/Johnson hammered out, and by the end of the year we are supposed to have established, and largely implemented, the important details on how business, security, immigration/emigration and general travel will all work. We should also have a working trade agreement with the EU.

If we don’t have all of that set up them, as far as I can tell, no-one really knows what will happen? What bits will carry over? Which bits will have to be dropped?

So it’s just like it was before today, but different. Sort of.

I have some dark thoughts about the EU, I think it’s going in a wrong direction. But it could be a force for good, and it has been more often than not. Anyway I feel sorry for Brits who are down about this. I sure hope your worst fears will not be realized.

1. Can the House impeach the Senate?

2. UK – sorry about that. House moving day, yes?

 

This is a well-written column that sums up the situation well.

Brexit, the most pointless, masochistic ambition in our country’s history, is done

Anonymous wrote:

I have some dark thoughts about the EU, I think it’s going in a wrong direction

I am thinking there may be an important course-correction coming, but I have no idea whether it’s going to be substantial in any way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway I feel sorry for Brits who are down about this. I sure hope your worst fears will not be realized.

Honestly, I think the EU-UK relationship will be fine, long-term. What must be really fucking terrifying if you’re in the UK is that Brexit has brought about a situation in which the Tories have an absolute majority and, with EU legislation being erased, have the opportunity to shape the legal framework of the UK in all kinds of ways when it comes e.g. to labour and consumer protection regulations – meaning they will do their absolute best to dismantle all public structures and feed their populace to the vulture capitalism they love so much.

It’s going to be a dark few years. I guess the positive potential would be in this: As the failure of Syriza in Greece has shown, you cannot make any truly positive change on a national level either if you’re going against EU directives. If the UK left ever gets its bearings again and manages to get into government, they are also freer to reshape their country’s destiny, just like Johnson and his ilk are.

Always darkest before the dawn and all that jazz, I suppose. Silver lining. Stiff upper lip for the next decade. There you go, good chap. Toodle pip.

This was a nice moment: