Political Discussion In The 20s

Topic

Let’s reboot this thing. Have at thee.

Replies

I just used to ask the local vicar annoying questions to poke holes in his religious stories whenever he took an assembly. I think he quickly realised I was just doing it to annoy him.

Andrew wrote:

3 days is too short for me – elections are to me what the Olympics or the World Cup is to sports fans, but even they would agree that a 2 year Olympics would be tiring.

Here federally it’s at the PM’s discretion, but they usually run for 3 to 5 weeks.

 

Well maybe it’s a bit more than 3 days, but for most of the time it is quite low key. There are a few debates but we’re not inundated by ads. Maybe it’s a week, but the parliamentary elections get the most attention. There is also an election for the provincial governments and the municipal governments.

DavidM wrote:

In my school, none of the children from non-Christian religions were in the hall when we did morning prayers and hymns. They came in later to hear the school announcements and such.

Incidentally, nominally Christian atheists were expected to sing the hymns and say the prayers

 

I was in a Christian high school. There was prayer at the start of the day and a short Bible reading, other than that there was really nothing Christian about it. People were free not to join in the prayer if they didn’t want to.

‘Clog the lines’: Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucuses hotline for reporting results

Wouldn’t be surprised if it were 4chan trolls behind it.

I went to a fairly affluent-ish (but not like trumpian) primary school growing up and we had compulsary “Christian Studies” which, if my memory serves me correctly, began in year 2.  My mum was a bit of a hard-ass parent on the parent teachers association and she hated the idea so she eventually got them to change it to “Religious Studies” where the idea was to address all religions.  I think we may have done one or two lessons on islam and something else and then went back to the bible (obviously the teacher didn’t change, who i think was a priest or something like that)

I’m also pretty sure there were loads of students from south east asia who were probably not from Christian backgrounds at all, so the idea kind of was to get them young.

I went to 11 years of Catholic school from 2nd grade until I graduated high school; that’s 11 years of mandatory Religious Studies as part of our curriculum. I swear the strongest memories I have of religion class was in 7th grade circa 1971, when Brother Thomas spent a week dissecting the religious imagery and meanings in the lyrics of Neil Young’s “After the Goldrush” album, and about a month guiding us through the Christian symbolism of the Moody Blues’ “A Question of Balance”, including the album cover art. Brother Thomas was a bit of a free spirit.

I also have a memory of getting slapped really hard across the face by my religion teacher (a priest) in Sophomore year of high school for talking in class.

Those two memories are the total sum of my religious education.

That’s awesome.  Brother Thomas sounds cool.

Our guy was an overweight american guy with a temper and a beard.  I strongly disliked him and probably at least partially a reason why I’m not religious (noting that my sister is).

JRCarter wrote:

‘Clog the lines’: Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucuses hotline for reporting results

Wouldn’t be surprised if it were 4chan trolls behind it.

The RNC paid to have robot callers jam the lines too. I don’t understand how that is legal.

From the outside it looks like a lot of the stuff the GOP does is not legal, or at least should not be, but no one ever successfully prosecutes against it.

I mean, really, gerrymandering is a really undemocratic idea and should not be allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

My mum was a bit of a hard-ass parent on the parent teachers association and she hated the idea so she eventually got them to change it to “Religious Studies”

In my school it was called “bijbelkennis” (bible studies)  but we learned quite a bit about other religions. And I never learned a lot about the Bible really, I never read the whole Bible until much later.

Anonymous wrote:

I mean, really, gerrymandering is a really undemocratic idea and should not be allowed.

Indeed, it’s why things blew up in the late 90s over Westminster’s activities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_for_votes_scandal

But, it’s telling that Porter pretty much got away with it despite numerous investigations:

The District Auditor’s judgement was upheld by the High Court in 1997 with liability reduced solely to Porter and Weeks. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement in 1999, but the House of Lords reinstated it in 2001 (see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357<sup id=”cite_ref-lords_5-1″ class=”reference”>[5]</sup>). In Israel, Porter transferred substantial parts of her great wealth to other members of her family and into secret trusts in an effort to avoid the charge, and subsequently claimed to have only £300,000 of assets.<sup id=”cite_ref-8″ class=”reference”>[8]</sup>

On 24 April 2004, Westminster City Council and the Audit Commission announced that an agreement had been reached for a payment of £12.3 million in settlement.<sup id=”cite_ref-9″ class=”reference”>[9]</sup> The council declared that the cost of legal action would be far greater than the amount to be recovered, while Porter still maintained her innocence. The decision was appealed by Labour members on the Council and the District Auditor began another investigation. The ensuing report, issued on 15 March 2007, accepted the position of the council that further action would not be cost-effective. The Auditor further stated that Westminster had recovered substantially all of Dame Shirley’s personal wealth and had acted at all times in the best interests of the taxpayers of the City.<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact” style=”white-space: nowrap;”>[citation needed]</sup>

The Labour Party in London continued its pursuit of Porter and following the settlement, Porter returned to Westminster to live, buying a £1.5m flat with family money (her husband and son are independently wealthy).<sup id=”cite_ref-10″ class=”reference”>[10]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-11″ class=”reference”>[11]</sup> The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone then requested Lord Goldsmith (Attorney General) commence an investigation as to whether or not Porter committed perjury or other offences, during the conduct of the case.<sup id=”cite_ref-12″ class=”reference”>[12]</sup>

THE GOPFATHER

Sondland, Vindmans out as Trump gets Friday night revenge on aides whose testimony supported impeachment probehttps://t.co/5XBBSKrx2z pic.twitter.com/zBVu4lewu0

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 8, 2020

[paul f]

Fine Gael 22.4%
Sinn Féin 22.3%
Fianna Fáil 22.2%
Green Party 7.9%
Labour Party 4.6%
Soc Democrats 3.4%
Solidarity-PBP 2.8%
Margin of error:
+/-1.3%

— RTÉ News (@rtenews) February 8, 2020

That’s close!

I continue to live in one of the most boring constituencies in the country, with the leader of FF, deputy leader of FG, and FF’s finance spokesperson taking 3 of the 4 seats.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by paul f.

The Coronavirus Cometh.

[paul f]

paul f wrote:

Fine Gael 22.4%
Sinn Féin 22.3%
Fianna Fáil 22.2%
Green Party 7.9%
Labour Party 4.6%
Soc Democrats 3.4%
Solidarity-PBP 2.8%
Margin of error:
+/-1.3%

— RTÉ News (@rtenews) February 8, 2020

That’s close!

I continue to live in one of the most boring constituencies in the country, with the leader of FF, deputy leader of FG, and FF’s finance spokesperson taking 3 of the 4 seats.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by paul f.

Dublin Central is going to be interesting, Mary Lou is guaranteed to get back in, but I don’t know if Pascal Donohue will. The third seat is up for grabs too because Maureen O’Sullivan didn’t stand for re-election.

Looks like Colorado with the population nearly split into thirds. There’s going to be an open primary for the first time (just got my ballot) and I think the results will be fascinating. Our two Senators are diametrically opposed; Mike Bennett is running for POTUS (lowest candidate currently in polls, anti-Trump Dem) and Gory Gardner (a Trump Yes-Man, has been vilified for avoiding constituents and is in severe peril running for reelection). All I want is for the count to be sone properly – and there has been counting problems in every election since I moved here. Yeah, high hopes!

I figure the response to the impeachment has been quite mellow and quiet so far, which reads to me as many people in some sort of denial and working it out, so the real political shitstorm will hit some time near the middle of the week. Also hope I can get insomniac ass out of bed for the political shows in the morning.  The big issue, methinks, is Trump still taking credit for the solid economy, despite the fact that these are policies continued from the Obama administration.

One way to resolve political arguments. Let’s look at how the economy has done 2-3 years into the next Presidency. It does not look good for the GOP. Trend has been – since FDR and WW2,Democrats (the “tax and spend” party) reduced the deficit while the Republicans (fiscal conservatives”) not only horribly increased the deficit but every one got us into a long-term war.  I have seen nothing but negative behavior from Republicans ever since Eisenhower left office. I do believe I am all done with the GOP, unless a member pulls a Romney.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/trumps-economic-policies-failed-to-deliver-promised-3percent-growth-in-2018.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482136-majority-of-new-hampshire-democrats-in-poll-prefer-an-extinction-causing

 

A majority of New Hampshire Democrats said in a new poll that they would rather a “giant meteor strikes the Earth, extinguishing all human life” than see President Trump reelected.

Yeah…sounds like the people of New Hampshire haven’t really thought this through…

[Christian]

DavidM wrote:

Really? I wouldn’t be shocked at all if quite a few didn’t. I can easily imagine a racist too lazy to get out of his chair to vote at all, prefering to save his energy for shouting at a brown person on the bus. More than that, I can easily imagine a racist who votes to stay in union with other white people rather than do all these global deals with African people that Johnson keeps talking about.

Come now. We all know that anti-immigration (both intra-EU and from outside of it) was a big part of the Brexit campaign, that they claimed they would get rid of immigration once back in control of the UK’s borders. They also capitalised on the impression that a lot of the UK’s money was going to all those lazy people in Greece and whatnot instead of being used inside the UK.

Scotland, on the other hand, wants to possibly leave the UK specifically to join the larger cooperation of many states that is the EU.

It’s not just apples and oranges, it’s apples and baguettes.

 

EDIT: In case that this needs to be clarified – I am not saying that racism was the only, or even the most important, reason why people voted for Brexit. There were obviously a multitude of motivations, and there are without doubt a lot of things to legitimately criticise about the EU. But to claim that xenophobia didn’t play any role at all is a position that I find hard to comprehend.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Christian.

Today a £20bn bridge to Ireland, tomorrow Bozza Island in the Thames for £40bn!

Christian wrote:

EDIT: In case that this needs to be clarified – I am not saying that racism was the only, or even the most important, reason why people voted for Brexit. There were obviously a multitude of motivations, and there are without doubt a lot of things to legitimately criticise about the EU. But to claim that xenophobia didn’t play any role at all is a position that I find hard to comprehend.

Good, we’re saying the same thing then

The reason I’m uncomfortable with focusing on the racist vote share is that it’s obfuscating the real reason many (not all, many) leave voters hated the EU. Which is that our politicians and mainstream press spent 30 years demonizing the EU. Not the people of Europe (which is obviously what the racists would focus on), but the institution of the EU. We need to hold to account the “straight banana” stories that motivated the non-racist vote, and we’re in danger of not doing that because “It was racists wot did it.”

Well, you know, you can also hold the racists to account. But I do see your point; focusing exclusively on the xenophobia can lead to tarring people with that brush whose motivations definitely were not racist, leading to further divide and disintegration of the discourse. On the other hand… those racists? They’re pretty fucking annoying, and they’re certainly feeling like a million pounds right now.

It’s going to be Buttigieg I think. Biden is over. He seems to call women “lying dog faced pony soldiers” at his rallies. That he even has some support at all is stunning.

 

Buttigieg is the prototype of a vacuous corporate cipher of a candidate. He is like the candidate that was grown in a meat factory in Transmetropolitan. If it’s not Tulsi or I guess Bernie the dems can go to hell frankly.  And I think there’s a good chance Trump will beat Buttigieg.

Oh, Trump would steamroll Buttigeg.

Gotta look good!

Maybe I’m too harsh on mainstream democrats, but outside of Bernie and Tulsi the candidates are just so unappealing. They lack charisma. Something fake about them. But maybe that’s the demoralization working on me, like Yuri Bezmenov might have claimed

 

As a reverse I quite like the mainstream politicians in my own country.

Nah, I think you’re right (except for maybe Warren). Buttigieg is a total stuffed shirt. I read a good teardown of his campaign book, and it sounds sociopathically vacuous – talking about how mechanising rubbish collection had reduced injuries by glossing over the fact that’s because it reduced the workforce, for instance – so obsessed with “values” without actually saying what they really are or how he wants to achieve them.

Ben wrote:

Today a £20bn bridge to Ireland, tomorrow Bozza Island in the Thames for £40bn!

Build a bridge to Ireland. It’ll be grand so.

It’s only in the vicinity of Beaufort’s Dyke – a dumping ground for radioactive waste and over a million tonnes of munitions including nerve gas and phosgene weapons. Every now and again something goes kablooey underwater. MoD denied its existence for years until various awkward incidents.

IIRC there’s also a constantly monitored US WW2 Liberty shipwreck with a cargo of explosives in the Thames Estuary.

I like Petey the Booty-judge.

He’d be a weird President, but they all would

Anonymous wrote:

shipwreck with a cargo of explosives in the Thames Estuary.

Indeed there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

It’s just off the end of Southend Pier and if it ever goes up due to some idiots messing around, I will know about it instantly if I am in the local area!

This has been doing the rounds since the news broke.  It’s a perfect, surgically precise takedown of the entire idea from a retired engineer, who wrote to the Sunday Times in 2018:

The Montgomery. That’s the one. Now I remember. A bloke who built his own submarine told me about it.

Even Brunel couldn’t build a bridge. A pipe dream from eejits who just because they can see Scotland over the water on a clear day think therefore it’s feasible.

There’s all sorts of junk down in the Dyke including radioactive luminous clock paint. Supposedly some crews nervously dumped stuff offshore at the earliest opportunity.

 

Heh. Somewhere in England there’s what I can only assume must be a fairly deep river because it contains a homemade submerged submarine since the maker didn’t seal his porthole correctly.

Future marine archaeologists will have a field day with that one.

Anonymous wrote:

It’s going to be Buttigieg I think. Biden is over. He seems to call women “lying dog faced pony soldiers” at his rallies. That he even has some support at all is stunning.

 

Buttigieg is the prototype of a vacuous corporate cipher of a candidate. He is like the candidate that was grown in a meat factory in Transmetropolitan. If it’s not Tulsi or I guess Bernie the dems can go to hell frankly.  And I think there’s a good chance Trump will beat Buttigieg.

The Biden quote was said in jest to someone who laughed along with him – it’s not the insult/gaffe it’s been reported as, and the people piling on are doing their own cause (other Dem candidate or Republican) a disservice.

The only showdown worth having is Sanders/Trump – and I still think Trump wins no matter what.

That engineer clearly doesn’t believe in Britain hard enough. We can do anything if we put our minds to it. Remember 1966! Remember Dunkirk! We are the best and bravest little country in the world, and if we want an Irish bridge we’ll jolly well have an Irish bridge.

In unrelated news, Michael Gove has gone on record saying there will be all kinds of new checks and costs at the EU border, which frankly I’m shocked by. Not shocked to find that the checks will happen, shocked to find the government admitting to it instead of spending a year pretending all will be fine and then blaming the EU when it isn’t.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/10/checks-on-eu-bound-goods-inevitable-gove-tells-business-leaders

 

Andrew wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s going to be Buttigieg I think. Biden is over. He seems to call women “lying dog faced pony soldiers” at his rallies. That he even has some support at all is stunning.

 

Buttigieg is the prototype of a vacuous corporate cipher of a candidate. He is like the candidate that was grown in a meat factory in Transmetropolitan. If it’s not Tulsi or I guess Bernie the dems can go to hell frankly.  And I think there’s a good chance Trump will beat Buttigieg.

The Biden quote was said in jest to someone who laughed along with him – it’s not the insult/gaffe it’s been reported as, and the people piling on are doing their own cause (other Dem candidate or Republican) a disservice.

The only showdown worth having is Sanders/Trump – and I still think Trump wins no matter what.

To be fair, Biden has a history of saying things that sound slightly racist. It’s like his sense of what’s PC is stuck in what would have been OK for a white supporter of Civil Rights in the 60s to say about African-Americans. So, yeah, maybe that kind of joke was not the best thing given his reputation.

I’ve been watching SNL’s parodies of the Dem debates on Youtube, and they have a great line (paraphrasing): “When I [Biden] get on stage, everybody’s afraid I’ll say something off color. Or worse- on color.”

All four prosecutors have now resigned in protest from the Roger Stone case.

Vote for Warren’s golden retriever. I don’t care. Anyone could do a better job. Just get rid of Tantrump.

These primaries really need to be rethought from the point of view of party strategy.

The candidates are really going after each other. Klobuchars got Buttigieg in her sights. Biden and Sanders are just as bad.  The whole Bernie or Bust movement is bad. The Twitter followers are fucking terrible.

The vitriol sewed here is substantially similar to the 2008 and 2012 primaries which evidently harmed Clinton’s chance for election, despite being the nominee.

The only person I think is handling it well-ish is Warren, who’s pointing out the hypocrisy in utilising billionaire diners and PACS,but she’s coming across as limp and non confrontational which aren’t qualities people will want in a nominee.

I think the whole thing needs to be reframed.  They should all be saying they will support the nominee no matter who it is (Even if by implication  that means Bloomberg or Steyer) because too many voters are going to chuck a hissy fit if their preferred candidate isn’t the nom.

Double post

Anonymous wrote:

These primaries really need to be rethought from the point of view of party strategy. The candidates are really going after each other.

It does seem like a stupid system, where you spend a year undermining your allies and then hope one of them can beat your enemies at the end of it

It’s be fine if they faced off in an epic swordfight and then one of them has to defeat the other to take their power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Fairly certain Pat Mills has written this story.

Deval Patrick, last black candidate in 2020 race, drops out

Uncle Joe is toast.

We’ve only had one caucus and one primary, from states whose citizens love the attention they get when they fuck with the norm. Let’s wait and see where the candidates stand after Super Tuesday.

Yang, who created buzz with freedom dividend, ends 2020 bid

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Cos their such hawks

Miqque wrote:

Uncle Joe is toast.

Biden’s best shot was 2016. I understand the death of his son affected him but I think if had pushed through and run, he would be sitting in the White House today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Yeah because they’re clearly both predatory hawks compared to Mr. Pussy Cat.

My favourite commentary on the cabinet reshuffle is “Johnson keeps his job in Cummings’ cabinet reshuffle”

I’m assuming every move is designed to consolidate power among Johnson’s yes-men rather than because of the ability than lack thereof of the ministers being shuffled, so basically I’m not at all interested in the detail of who’s doing what now, it’s irrelevant.

The scary thing is that headline looks to be very accurate.

Johnson wants to consolidate power and Cummings wants to restructure the civil service. Right now they’re goals are sufficiently aligned to keep them working together.

Restructure = Total politicisation US-style I reckon

DavidM wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These primaries really need to be rethought from the point of view of party strategy. The candidates are really going after each other.

It does seem like a stupid system, where you spend a year undermining your allies and then hope one of them can beat your enemies at the end of it

Never thought of it that way, but it’s a good point. It might actually help incumbent bias be stronger for POTUS- the last three ex-presidents were two-termers, and Bush Sr. could be explained as being an economic disaster, Carter as being an overall disaster, and Ford as having Nixon’s smell on him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Cos their such hawks

Not less than Obama, who started Libya, supported the fanatics that destroyed Syria, including ISIS, and did a coup in Ukraine. If Trump leaves the presidency without starting a new war, I’ll place him above mr. Nobel peace prize. Bill Kristol is a democrat now. They’re as much a war party as the Republicans.

 

Under Obama the US also started its support for the war in Yemen, which is one of the worst horrors of the 21st century.

Not to remove from the horrors of  the 1,013 civillian deaths in Afghanistan during the term of Obama’s presidency (which I do know something about if you know anything about my family and background) and I am aware that a comparatively larger concentration of US Military deaths occurred in Obama’s first term.

I certainly defer to our more immediately knowing posters on this (Jake for example) but I dont think Operations command necessarily dances to the tune of the president immediately, so when Trump says he does not see a problem with targeting innocent civilians because they may be the families of terrorists, and then orders the Helmand province massacre it’s pretty scary.

There are definitely differences between Republican and Democratic foreign interventionist policies – Trumps hands are bloodied, obviously and we’re just lucky that he’s so ineffective at managing foreign policy or trusting his advisors because it could be a lot worse, and might be under another Republican president.

I DEFINITELY think there is a better chance of stability in the region under any democratic president then Trump.  Trump will likely always have the Arabs and Netanyahu on side, but that’s it.

 

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Cos their such hawks

Not less than Obama, who started Libya, supported the fanatics that destroyed Syria, including ISIS, and did a coup in Ukraine. If Trump leaves the presidency without starting a new war, I’ll place him above mr. Nobel peace prize. Bill Kristol is a democrat now. They’re as much a war party as the Republicans.

 

Under Obama the US also started its support for the war in Yemen, which is one of the worst horrors of the 21st century.

Also, Pres Obama’s response to critics of him giving Bin Laden a funeral (which were stupid in their own right) make me suspicious that he is subconsciously Islamophobic, at the level of Trump according to the worst critics of Trump, and he went to such lengths to take down Islamophobia, as a method of dealing with his Islamophobic subconscious. Just to be clear, I’m only suspicious- I don’t know Obama personally, and I’m not a psychologist. I’ve heard other explanations that are equally possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Not to remove from the horrors of  the 1,013 civillian deaths in Afghanistan during the term of Obama’s presidency (which I do know something about if you know anything about my family and background) and I am aware that a comparatively larger concentration of US Military deaths occurred in Obama’s first term.

I certainly defer to our more immediately knowing posters on this (Jake for example) but I dont think Operations command necessarily dances to the tune of the president immediately, so when Trump says he does not see a problem with targeting innocent civilians because they may be the families of terrorists, and then orders the Helmand province massacre it’s pretty scary.

There are definitely differences between Republican and Democratic foreign interventionist policies – Trumps hands are bloodied, obviously and we’re just lucky that he’s so ineffective at managing foreign policy or trusting his advisors because it could be a lot worse, and might be under another Republican president.

I DEFINITELY think there is a better chance of stability in the region under any democratic president then Trump.  Trump will likely always have the Arabs and Netanyahu on side, but that’s it.

 

But look at what happened in Libya and Syria. The Obama administration bears responsibility for many of the horrors that happened there. Libya is now one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. Under Ghaddafi it was stable and one of the most prosperous countries in Africa.

 

I was in favor of the military intervention in Libya when it happened, I think I was terribly wrong. I wish for the best of all people, but I think I was just terribly naive. It turned out shit, as bad as Iraq. If you look at what happened under Obama there is more continuity with what happened under Bush than discontinuity, the regime change agenda just went on. It needs to stop. The only democrat I think is actually committed to that is Tulsi Gabbard. Even Bernie is on the “Assad must go” train.

 

The whole situation is just messy. I am ambivalent about Trump’s foreign policy, I am not saying it is better than Obama’s, but I don’t think he has started a war yet. If he goes to war with Iran, that could be worse than Vietnam though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Cos their such hawks

Not less than Obama, who started Libya, supported the fanatics that destroyed Syria, including ISIS, and did a coup in Ukraine. If Trump leaves the presidency without starting a new war, I’ll place him above mr. Nobel peace prize. Bill Kristol is a democrat now. They’re as much a war party as the Republicans.

 

Under Obama the US also started its support for the war in Yemen, which is one of the worst horrors of the 21st century.

Also, Pres Obama’s response to critics of him giving Bin Laden a funeral (which were stupid in their own right) make me suspicious that he is subconsciously Islamophobic, at the level of Trump according to the worst critics of Trump, and he went to such lengths to take down Islamophobia, as a method of dealing with his Islamophobic subconscious. Just to be clear, I’m only suspicious- I don’t know Obama personally, and I’m not a psychologist. I’ve heard other explanations that are equally possible.

that’s… probably one of the most ridiculous nonsense you’ve posted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not to remove from the horrors of  the 1,013 civillian deaths in Afghanistan during the term of Obama’s presidency (which I do know something about if you know anything about my family and background) and I am aware that a comparatively larger concentration of US Military deaths occurred in Obama’s first term.

I certainly defer to our more immediately knowing posters on this (Jake for example) but I dont think Operations command necessarily dances to the tune of the president immediately, so when Trump says he does not see a problem with targeting innocent civilians because they may be the families of terrorists, and then orders the Helmand province massacre it’s pretty scary.

There are definitely differences between Republican and Democratic foreign interventionist policies – Trumps hands are bloodied, obviously and we’re just lucky that he’s so ineffective at managing foreign policy or trusting his advisors because it could be a lot worse, and might be under another Republican president.

I DEFINITELY think there is a better chance of stability in the region under any democratic president then Trump.  Trump will likely always have the Arabs and Netanyahu on side, but that’s it.

 

But look at what happened in Libya and Syria. The Obama administration bears responsibility for many of the horrors that happened there. Libya is now one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. Under Ghaddafi it was stable and one of the most prosperous countries in Africa.

 

I was in favor of the military intervention in Libya when it happened, I think I was terribly wrong. I wish for the best of all people, but I think I was just terribly naive. It turned out shit, as bad as Iraq. If you look at what happened under Obama there is more continuity with what happened under Bush than discontinuity, the regime change agenda just went on. It needs to stop. The only democrat I think is actually committed to that is Tulsi Gabbard. Even Bernie is on the “Assad must go” train.

 

The whole situation is just messy. I am ambivalent about Trump’s foreign policy, I am not saying it is better than Obama’s, but I don’t think he has started a war yet. If he goes to war with Iran, that could be worse than Vietnam though.

I’ll concede generally Libya and Syria, but the Arab Spring is complicated.  I disagree with you about Gabbard.  She has put forward a non-intervention policy platform based on her pedigree as a soldier, but there’s no substance to her foreign policy otherwise.  I also disagree with you about Assad.  Letting him remain is bad for the region. Not because the Saudis and Israelis need to be kowtowed to, but because I believe the CIA is correct and he funded insurgents in 2009 and would do so again.  The deaths in the region during Obamas term are as much on him as they are on Obama.

It is obviously a messy and complicated topic but there are rights and wrongs.  The clear line in the sand for me is El Salavdor.  That line of thinking, the contras and what not, should never be repeaated.  America should not be creating civil war because it will align with their political needs.

With that said, I think where you and I are always going to fundamentally disagree, is that America should be interventionalist.  They should be, I think, and have a responsibility to as the governing western superpower.  It should be done in accordance with the UN, ICC and regional treaties.  If the African continent ever left the ICC, then it would need to be done in accordance with the ACC. Internaional law, jus cogens, and  human rights must be observed.

Do you read foreign policy magazine? (https://foreignpolicy.com/)

I strongly recommend it to someone who is interested in the topic.  This isn’t a for or against in support of my views at all, I just find the articles interesting and it in general a worthwhile resource.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone could do a better job.

That seems the common sentiment but I don’t think so. Biden or Buttigieg I could see starting a war or 2.

Cos their such hawks

Not less than Obama, who started Libya, supported the fanatics that destroyed Syria, including ISIS, and did a coup in Ukraine. If Trump leaves the presidency without starting a new war, I’ll place him above mr. Nobel peace prize. Bill Kristol is a democrat now. They’re as much a war party as the Republicans.

 

Under Obama the US also started its support for the war in Yemen, which is one of the worst horrors of the 21st century.

Also, Pres Obama’s response to critics of him giving Bin Laden a funeral (which were stupid in their own right) make me suspicious that he is subconsciously Islamophobic, at the level of Trump according to the worst critics of Trump, and he went to such lengths to take down Islamophobia, as a method of dealing with his Islamophobic subconscious. Just to be clear, I’m only suspicious- I don’t know Obama personally, and I’m not a psychologist. I’ve heard other explanations that are equally possible.

This is absolute rubbish.

Anonymous wrote:

I am ambivalent about Trump’s foreign policy, I am not saying it is better than Obama’s,

“Foreign policy” is about more than starting wars. It’s as much about maintaining relationships with strong, supportive allies, developing relationships with new allies when doing so is in your nation’s best interests, and condemning or censuring those nations that abuse human rights and international laws. In that respect, I would choose the foreign policy of just about any American president in my lifetime over Trump’s.

DavidM wrote:

Which is that our politicians and mainstream press spent 30 years demonizing the EU.

This. It’s an aspect that is likely not fully understood by those outside the UK.

Constant relentless criticism of the EU, a headline most weeks, almost all of it based on lies. (I wouldn’t be against valid criticism of the EU, that’s healthy).

The newspaper headlines in most of the British newspapers -led by Murdoch’s rags – have savaged it and blamed it for everything for more than 30 years. Largely unopposed because “EU bans sausages” sounds like a news story but ‘EU working generally pretty well’ doesn’t. It’s why Cameron, who was a supporter of Britain’s membership, was insane to ever put it to a vote. It had been drilled into people for nearly all their lives it was a terrible institution even if they still can’t very well verbalise why.

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am ambivalent about Trump’s foreign policy, I am not saying it is better than Obama’s,

“Foreign policy” is about more than starting wars. It’s as much about maintaining relationships with strong, supportive allies, developing relationships with new allies when doing so is in your nation’s best interests, and condemning or censuring those nations that abuse human rights and international laws. In that respect, I would choose the foreign policy of just about any American president in my lifetime over Trump’s.

Because of what Bush did probably like a million were killed. I think Trump so far is preferable. Even Obama should technically be in jail, for bankrolling terrorist groups in Syria and Libya. The US armed groups that were allied with Al Qaeda, which is a pretty serious crime. We just let them get away with it because it’s too big to tackle.

Anonymous wrote:

With that said, I think where you and I are always going to fundamentally disagree, is that America should be interventionalist.

I don’t see why. If you look at the effects it has had it was almost always disastrous. Arguably in Yugoslavia it had a positive effect, in all other cases as far as I can see it was overall negative.

 

I am so sick of it. I don’t want the West to push our bullshit on other countries either. Our lives are not necessarily better or more enlightened than those in non-Western countries. Modern Western culture is mostly trash.

Withdrawn.

Anonymous wrote:

I think Trump so far is preferable.

Ask the Kurds in northern Syria if they feel the same as you.

I think my views come from Rwanda circa 1994. Governments like that should not be left to their own devices.

Unfortunately we do not celebrate the quiet successes where life and peace has won, and only remember the desirability, war and death.

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Trump so far is preferable.

Ask the Kurds in northern Syria if they feel the same as you.

True but the betraying the Kurds is a Western tradition. Clinton gave the Turks the weapons to kill thousands if them in Turkey. Trump doesn’t stand out in that regard.

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/

Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately we do not celebrate the quiet successes where life and peace has won

You mean through military intervention? Are there many examples of that?

If there wasn’t I would have a different opinion but if you’re trying to tease out a more substantial evidence based rebuttal I’ve long since decided those responses are not worth the effort in this thread. The history of American interventionalism isn’t really that long and the internet is a vast repository of knowledge. As captain planet says – the power is yours!

Anonymous wrote:

But look at what happened in Libya and Syria. The Obama administration bears responsibility for many of the horrors that happened there. Libya is now one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. Under Ghaddafi it was stable and one of the most prosperous countries in Africa.

Neither of those were US-instigated coups those. When a population is rising up against a dictator, you’re in a bit of a damned-if-you-don’t, damned-if-you-do situation. If you don’t support the uprising because you prefer stability, you’ll always be held responsible for supporting those brutal dictatorships. If you do, well, that’s where we are right now.

Either way though, those situations, however many mistakes the US made, were always bound to be complicated and messy, and are not really comparable to Republicans invading two sovereign countries in a war of aggression.

That seems to be the modus operandi. We need to come to the aid of these poor oppressed people, while killing a lot of people, arming mad salafi cultists, and basically destroying a bunch of countries that don’t do what we like. It is the neo-neo-con strategy, really. There is always an excuse.

 

edit: for the record, while I disagree with some here, this is not me saying the position you hold is immoral. It is understandable, it shows you care, but I think it’s used to bamboozle people. I was on the same train when Libya started, he’s going to kill these poor bastards, we have to do something. But we turned that country into shit. That and Syria kinda broke me.

You are correct in saying that taking an opposing view from yours is not immoral.

[Christian]

Anonymous wrote:

That seems to be the modus operandi. We need to come to the aid of these poor oppressed people, while killing a lot of people, arming mad salafi cultists, and basically destroying a bunch of countries that don’t do what we like. It is the neo-neo-con strategy, really. There is always an excuse.

I am well aware that this has been what the US have done a lot of times, especially during the Cold War and in Iraq and Afghanistan more recently. I do, however, not think that you can paint every US intervention with the same brush. Hell, if you could, both Germany and the Netherlands would look very different right now.

Just to open this can of worms a little bit: First of all, the Syrian government had killed thousands of civilian protestors in 2011 before the next steps happened. A major uprising was on the way and going to happen no matter what. And once you’ve got an uprising in that region, this will become a proxy war, whether the US are involved or not. At that point, everybody got into the game along the lines of Shia or Sunni support or to play their own games of influence – Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and so on. It becomes a war of influence between several countries in the region itself. Would this have played out any better if the US had stayed out of it? Maybe, but then probably only because Assad would’ve won quicker and mass-executed everyone he didn’t like.

Personally, I think the US should’ve just given up and gotten out of there the moment the Russians got into the war for real, putting troops on the ground. At that point at the very latest, it had become clear that there was no way this was ever going to lead to any different outcome than Assad remaining in power. But let’s not pretend like any of those other countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey – are any better than the US or that things would have gone better if it had only been up to them. We don’t know that, and it’s too easy to just blame America for every bad thing happening there.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Christian.

Christian wrote:

A major uprising was on the way and going to happen no matter what.

That’s something I doubt. The “no matter what” part. I think certain interests enouraged the uprising.

Meanwhile, more of Cummings’ influence on the Johnson government becomes apparent in the form of newly employed special advisers like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/no-10-refuses-to-comment-on-pms-views-of-racial-iq

Boris Johnson’s spokesman has refused to say whether the prime minister thinks black people have lower IQs on average, or agrees with eugenics, after No 10 hired an adviser with highly controversial views.

In a tense briefing with the media, the prime minister’s deputy official spokesman declined several times to distance Johnson from the views of his adviser, Andrew Sabisky, who has suggested “enforced contraception” be used to prevent the creation of a “permanent underclass”.

Labour has called on No 10 to sack Sabisky, who is believed to be contracted by Downing Street under Johnson’s de facto chief of staff, Dominic Cummings, to work on special projects.

This is scary stuff, but in a way, it’s also quite excellent in showing what the government is about in a very clear fashion.  Also, as smackdowns go, this is a good one from the same report:

The geneticist Dr Adam Rutherford also criticised the comments. He tweeted: “Like Cummings, he appears to be bewitched by science, without having made the effort to understand the areas he is invoking, nor its history.”

He said the “moral repugnance” of the remarks was “overwhelming”, adding: “I am all for scientifically minded people advising government. In fact I am all for scientists advising government. From this perspective, Sabisky and indeed Cummings look bewitched by science without doing the legwork.

“Instead this resembles the marshalling of misunderstood or specious science into a political ideology. The history here is important, because this process is exactly what happened at the birth of scientific racism and the birth of eugenics.”

 

[SteveUK]

Christian wrote:

Personally, I think the US should’ve just given up and gotten out of there the moment the Russians got into the war for real, putting troops on the ground. At that point at the very latest, it had become clear that there was no way this was ever going to lead to any different outcome than Assad remaining in power.

Or else get there first.

This is part of the Western Political inability to imagine how the Russians approach domestic and foreign policy.

It’s not that America/The West is less ruthless, it’s the Russians accept a lot more of that ruthless behaviour in the public eye.

Once the Russians took their first step to support Assad, the only move the Americans could make that had a chance of success was regime change, with overwhelming support from their armed forces. America still has the upper hand in the global arena when it comes to technology. They can still, if they choose, project force in a way that no-one else can.

They can also reconstruct in a way no-one, not even China, can do yet.

But it would have involved the massive use of conventional, high-tech, weaponry, decimating Syria’s infrastructure and forcing Assad to the table because he faced a total collapse of the nation around him.

But that really would be America becoming a version of ‘The New Rome’. A hands-off, but still powerful, overlord who set the terms and conditions of peace, because peace was tied directly to survival.

The Russians believed, quite rightly, that America wasn’t ready to go that far, so they didn’t have to either. They just had to go further than America.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by SteveUK.

Ben wrote:

This is scary stuff, but in a way, it’s also quite excellent in showing what the government is about in a very clear fashion.

I doubt that Johnson give an active toss about eugenics.

He’s a smug, white, upper class, Englishman and he sees anyone and anything else as inferior, but he’s spinning a lot of plates right now. Cummings is being given a lot of freedom to do what he wants because Johnson has benefited from their association.

Johnson is a casual supremicist. He just assumes he’s superior. He doesn’t actually need policies to follow that up.

So what happens next is very interesting. Will PM Boris Johnson tell advisor Cummings that this is a bad idea? Or does he still need him to handle all the restructuring of the way the British system works, in order to consolidate Johnson’s own power?

It’s hard to know what the hell Johnson believes about anything, given the array of quotes that can be found, he seems to like being provocative for the sake of it, but this looked to me like the kind of politically incorrect rabble rousing he or Cummings might see political value in.

However, in this case the answer is already known – This time they miscalculated, as the resulting shitstorm was more than expected thus the individual has now resigned, claiming selective quoting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/boris-johnson-adviser-quits-over-race-and-eugenics-writings

I’m sceptical there will be any actual consequences for Cummings on this .

https://www.ft.com/content/88c1e898-5269-11ea-90ad-25e377c0ee1f

 

President Emmanuel Macron has launched a campaign against political Islam and what he calls Islamist “separatism” in some French cities, seeking to restore order in sometimes violent and impoverished suburbs and to elicit support from rightwing voters ahead of local elections in March.

Oh shit. Doesn’t he know that is all right wing scaremongering?

The reality as usual is it is a lot more nuanced than that. A lot of the rhetoric around the Islamic invasion of Europe is deliberate scaremongering, involving a lot of lies. Population claims that defy basic maths, ‘no-go’ areas under Sharia law that simply don’t exist.

That doesn’t mean issues around radicalisation and integration don’t exist. In France in particular as their immigration pattern has ended up with more social separation than most of Europe.

It can be two things as the board’s catchphrase likes to say.

How Macron takes on that challenge is important because I don’t particularly think standing over someone with a metaphorical stick saying ‘integrate or else’ is something that actually works. In most cases where it has worked successfully there’s an incentive there to take a full part in the wider society. Outside of news reports of incidents and members of the football team this part of French society seems rather invisible to outsiders.

 

 

I see the government are pushing this idea that immigrants must speak English to be considered valuable again. Have to wonder if a foreign national who wasn’t fluent in English, but was fluent in Welsh would be treated equally in that regard.

They exist, I met 2 of them in the early 2000s. Patagonians that were visiting the eisteddfod and spoke fluent Spanish and Welsh but not English.

It’s rare enough though that I doubt that scenario will ever be tested but in theory they should – Welsh has equal legal status with English in Wales. You could exist perfectly productively without English as all government services are provided in Welsh. In reality this is all ‘little Englander’ stuff inspired by the Katie Hopkins crowd who frequently hypocritically vent on their dislike of the languages of the British Isles that were spoken there for more than a thousand years before English.

It’s the kind of hypocrisy we’re used to now like no free movement in the EU unless I want a holiday villa in Spain.

Anonymous wrote:

President Emmanuel Macron has launched a campaign against political Islam and what he calls Islamist “separatism” in some French cities, seeking to restore order in sometimes violent and impoverished suburbs and to elicit support from rightwing voters ahead of local elections in March.

Jeeez are they still singing that tune?? I swear it’s the same shit from like 30 years ago… Side note: Funny how they never critizise the Jewish “separatism”…

Anyways, so are we making bets on Trump’s reelection yet? I need money bitches!!! =P

A lot of today’s immigration rhetoric is just repackaging what already exists anyway. English proficiency tests before getting a UK visa have been in place for a decade. The difference is that EU nationals will now have to comply as free movement ends, which is what I always suspected that meant.

I keep up with the requirements as my wife is a non-EU national. If anything they’ve made them slightly easier to comply with (the minimum salary and qualification levels have dropped).

The real question is how practical any of this is. Priti Patel has pointed out that 8 million in the UK are ‘economically inactive’ and could fill the roles but when people have dived into it the majority of those are students over 18 or full time carers. You can send the carer to work in a factory or restaurant but then where are you going to find the people and funds to employ a carer to replace them?

garjones wrote:

Outside of news reports of incidents and members of the football team this part of French society seems rather invisible to outsiders.

It’s something I’m a little familiar from living there for a while and studying some of these aspects as part of my degree. I agree though that it isn’t very visible to outsiders.

France is an interesting country in that on paper it promotes a secular state, but in practice people’s lives are still fairly heavily influenced by religion and social splits often happen along those lines, and underpins some of the civil unrest France has seen over the years.

There is a significant historical aspect there, in terms of former French colonies in North Africa, that plays into it too.

Promoting integration is laudable but I agree that attempting to force it in that way is probably not going to work, and seems more calculated to appeal to right-wing white French than a genuine attempt to find a way to ease those tensions and bring communities together.

In the government’s new immigration scheme, anyone earning less than £25,600 is an unskilled worker.

NHS starting salaries:

Nurse £24.2k
Paramedic 24.2k
Midwife £24.2k
Radiographer £24.2k
Care assistant £17.6k
Physiotherapist £24.2k
Occupational therapist £24.2k

Seems fair, I’m pretty sure I could do any of those jobs. In my sleep.

Oh, but:

However, the government says the threshold would be as low as £20,480 for people in “specific shortage occupations” – which currently include nursing, civil engineering, psychology and classical ballet dancing – or those with PhDs relevant to a specific job.

Hey kids! Earn your PhD and you too can come to Britain and earn less than £25,600. Woo hoo!

Also, are we genuinely short of ballet dancers?

It’s a nonsense but it’s actually better than the one May put in place which was a thirty grand minimum. For all the scorn today this is actually a very slightly milder version of what has been place for 5 years but the new bit is it’s being extended to 26 more nationalities at the end of the year (presuming we keep the common area deal with Ireland that was in place before the EU).

Don’t get me wrong in thinking I’m defending it but it probably shows how little attention was paid to the tightening immigration rules for those outside Europe since 2010. It’s all bollocks anyway because as strident as they want to be on ideology what will happen is the market will decide (and I mean that in the broadest sense). If they find any service or industry collapsing, nobody to work in care homes or picking fruit or making socks, then they’ll bring in some caveat to import 500 new workers from somewhere.

garjones wrote:

The reality as usual is it is a lot more nuanced than that. A lot of the rhetoric around the Islamic invasion of Europe is deliberate scaremongering, involving a lot of lies. Population claims that defy basic maths, ‘no-go’ areas under Sharia law that simply don’t exist.

That doesn’t mean issues around radicalisation and integration don’t exist. In France in particular as their immigration pattern has ended up with more social separation than most of Europe.

It can be two things as the board’s catchphrase likes to say.

How Macron takes on that challenge is important because I don’t particularly think standing over someone with a metaphorical stick saying ‘integrate or else’ is something that actually works. In most cases where it has worked successfully there’s an incentive there to take a full part in the wider society. Outside of news reports of incidents and members of the football team this part of French society seems rather invisible to outsiders.

 

 

I’ve said this before: Is it possible there are Muslim enclaves in Paris that have extremists that act like the mob, making it de facto under Sharia law, because people are afraid to report crime, but it’s not de jure, nobody in the French or Parisian government told police not to enter?

I don’t know enough about Paris to say. I do know though that the same claims made by the same groups about London and Birmingham are complete and utter lies.

Are you willing to bet that he won’t be re-elected, because that’s the minority view.

garjones wrote:

I don’t know enough about Paris to say. I do know though that the same claims made by the same groups about London and Birmingham are complete and utter lies.

I don’t believe a “complete” lie exists. If it can be believed, there must be some truth in it, even if that truth is as small and covered up by so much lies that is like one wheat grain hidden in a storage the entire world’s rice production of a decade. One molecule of aspartame dissolved 20 years ago in the seas under the ice of Europa.

I believe you seem to be searching for what you want to believe.

Why have Jews in London set up enclaves operating religious law outside the rule of the land? Imposing medieval practices like banning all women from driving or working?

(Hint: that’s not a complete lie, just 99% of one).

I only saw clips of the Democratic debate but this looked quite accurate:

 

Whoa, he died a year ago?

It’s disgusting the lack of accuracy in fake news nowadays.

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe a “complete” lie exists. If it can be believed, there must be some truth in it,

Sorry, but this is utter bollocks.

garjones wrote:

I believe you seem to be searching for what you want to believe.

Why have Jews in London set up enclaves operating religious law outside the rule of the land? Imposing medieval practices like banning all women from driving or working?

(Hint: that’s not a complete lie, just 99% of one).

There’s a very big Jewish community in Gateshead, near me. A few years ago I went to a talk about the history of the community — a talk by a non-Jewish Englishman. He said he had approached the leaders of the community to ask if they would like to have some input, but they refused.

WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE???