"They are politicians!" – the Politics thread

Topic

Sponsored by General Martok, (Lord Vetinari declined to be involved) here’s the thread for covering political goings on.

Replies

Plus it’s not shocking that the guy who didn’t want to rent to black people and said the Central Park 5 should be executed then refused to admit their innocence after it was proven is still being racist as president.

This will likely get lost in the shuffle of Brexit and whatever happens/nearly happens/doesn’t happen today.

UK Drops Plans For Online Pornography Age Verification System

Plans to introduce a nationwide age verification system for online pornography have been abandoned by the government following years of technical troubles and concerns from privacy campaigners.

The climbdown follows countless difficulties with implementing the policy, which would have required all pornography websites to ensure users are over 18. Methods would include checking credit cards or allowing people to buy a “porn pass” age verification document from their local newsagent.

Websites that refused to comply with the policy – one of the first of its kind in the world – would have been blocked by internet service providers or have their access to payment services restricted.

The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, told parliament that the policy would be abandoned. Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper. This is expected to introduce a new internet regulator, which will impose a duty of care on all websites and social media outlets – not just pornography sites.

This is a good victory for privacy rights but I can’t help but feel that it’s partly due to the personal interests of our current prime minister…

I think it’s because it was a bad idea that would cost a fortune and fail to achieve anything. Not that this combination always stops such ideas, but in this case it would do it all very publicly; because sex sells newspapers, magazines and webclicks.
.
Better to bury the idea while the nation has bigger fish to fry.
.
Now we’ll see what the more general legislation proposes?

I’m not talking about behavior, I’m talking about him as a public figure. I rook Harris’ comment to be attacking his public standing during the time Donald Jr. was growing up. And while he may have been a joke, he was a different joke then than now. IIRC, the whole thing about him being racist was on the periphery of things people would have associated with him before running for president. Look, ERB released Trump vs. Scrooge in Dec. 2014, and there was no mention of him being seen as racist, just as a blowhard. In fact, the only reference to an African-American in his whole verse was him comparing himself to Jay-Z -Not something I would think they would put in if their was a strong connection between him and racism in the public eye at that point. And, really, again, if I’m reading this right, Harris’ comment was about the Public view of him, not behavior, so behavior shouldn’t matter.

He was a public figure and his behavior was in public. What does it matter if he was a different kind of joke back then anyway? Harris wasn’t commenting on his behavior or status now she was making a come back to DJr. There’s no deep analysis needed. Just stop trying.

garjones wrote:

The board thought it was spam for some reason. Probably one of the URLs for the gifs has a black mark against it.

My post above (2310) seems to have disappeared into the ether for a day or two.
.
I had initially made the post, went back to edit it, and then it wasn’t showing up on the board. A day or so later, it magically reappeared. I don’t know if the edit had anything to do with the odd behavior or not.

Why is no one talking about the greatest letter in the history of any American Presidency?

I just saw that. Crazy.

Meanwhile, Johnson seems to be aiming for a Brexit deal of the type that the DUP have repeatedly said they couldn’t support, and then acting surprised when they don’t support it.

Then they’ll say they will back it for £5bn, Johnson gives it, come the all important vote? They fuck off.

[garjones]

Ben wrote:

Then they’ll say they will back it for £5bn, Johnson gives it, come the all important vote? They fuck off.

They are a bunch of arseholes but part of me admires the complete shithousery they pull off with that.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by garjones.

Elijah Cummings died and I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the impeachment proceedings.

Nothing. There are 3 committees investigating for the impeachment inquiry. He was in charge of only one. At most it will slow things down as his colleagues stop to mourn his loss.

JRCarter wrote:

Elijah Cummings died and I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the impeachment proceedings.

I was honestly shocked to read that he was only 68 years old; I assumed he was at least 10 years older. It’s obvious the man had a hard life; but also a distinguished one. Rest in Peace.

JRCarter wrote:

Elijah Cummings died and I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the impeachment proceedings.

And I’m sure they’re those on the far left who’ll claim Trump had him killed

Anonymous wrote:

JRCarter wrote:

Elijah Cummings died and I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the impeachment proceedings.

And I’m sure they’re those on the far left who’ll claim Trump had him killed

No there aren’t

Rick Perry has resigned. I guess the glasses did make him smarter. (Does executive privilege still apply if someone no longer works for the administration?)

lorcan_nagle wrote:

KalmanL wrote:

JRCarter wrote:

Elijah Cummings died and I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the impeachment proceedings.

And I’m sure they’re those on the far left who’ll claim Trump had him killed

No there aren’t[/quote

Well, now that I think about it, they would be too scared to say it publicly, especially if they also believe him to be responsible for Epstein’s death.
My point is that there are loose screws on all parts of the political spectrum

Anonymous wrote:

Well, now that I think about it, they would be too scared to say it publicly, especially if they also believe him to be responsible for Epstein’s death.
My point is that there are loose screws on all parts of the political spectrum

No, they won’t suggest Trump had him killed because it makes no sense. And while there is a far-left, and there are conspiracy theorists in there, that doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that they’re the equivalent of the far-right or their conspiracy theorists except in the broadest of terms. It’s intellectually dishonest at best to try and directly compare them

First off, I was exegerating. I doubt there’s more than a few dozen people who believe that.
Second of all, “the 9/11 highjackers were not associated with Alqaeda, but were hired by Bush, who faked a well made video of Bin Laden saying Alqaeda was responsible” is not a crazy leftist conspiracy theory?

Here’s a better solution – start your own thread for conspiracy bollocks.

Anonymous wrote:

First off, I was exegerating. I doubt there’s more than a few dozen people who believe that.
Second of all, “the 9/11 highjackers were not associated with Alqaeda, but were hired by Bush, who faked a well made video of Bin Laden saying Alqaeda was responsible” is not a crazy leftist conspiracy theory?

I’d guarantee the number of people who believe your conspiracy is closer to zero. And that second conspiracy is also bullshit, I’ve been an actual part of actual far left political organising for actual decades and have never once heard someone suggest it.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And that second conspiracy is also bullshit, I’ve been an actual part of actual far left political organising for actual decades and have never once heard someone suggest it.

The 9/11 after I moved to NYC, I saw someone yell Islamophobic comments (with no Muslims around) and he was confronted by a guy spouting off this theory. He may have been trolling the Islamophobe, but if so, Poe’s law was in affect.

Anonymous wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And that second conspiracy is also bullshit, I’ve been an actual part of actual far left political organising for actual decades and have never once heard someone suggest it.

The 9/11 after I moved to NYC, I saw someone yell Islamophobic comments (with no Muslims around) and he was confronted by a guy spouting off this theory. He may have been trolling the Islamophobe, but if so, Poe’s law was in affect.

And how did you know he was far left?

I’m surprised some so-called “evangelicals” haven’t said that Cummings dying was God’s punishment for trying to get Trump impeached.

Anonymous wrote:

hired by Bush, who faked a well made video of Bin Laden saying Alqaeda was responsible” is not a crazy leftist conspiracy theory?

Isn’t this part of Infowars? Are they far left now?

There’s a video shop (!) I pass each day on my way to the train station – it has two Infowars stickers on its front door – one is “Hillary for Prison 2016”, and the other is “9-11 was an inside job”.

The stickers were removed a few years ago when their door was damaged and repaired, but they were soon replaced, even though 2016 is long past.

‘Greased piglet’ Boris Johnson could pass deal, says David Cameron

Pretty bold of Cameron to make reference to a lubed-up pig.

Some conspiracy theories can be forced to fit into any narrative. We’re dealing with crazy people here, so it’s not surprising that one can use it for the left and another for the right. Don’t expect it to make sense.

Well, yes, obviously.

But remember that we started talking conspiracy theories here because you suggested, on the news of a man’s death, that you were sure that there were people on the far left who believed Trump had him murdered.

That doesn’t seem like you were making a comment on conspiracy theories in general, but rather like you were suggesting that the left makes up theories about Trump in a similar way that the loony right does when it comes to e.g. the Clintons. The difference being, the latter actually happens a lot, and the former doesn’t.

Not that the issue of conspiracy theories isn’t always a fascinating one, but if the point was discussing those at large, then it’d make sense to follow Ben’s suggestion and making a specific thread for that.

5 Political Insults With WTF Origins You Never Saw Coming

Can our friends trust the US as an ally? Most Americans say Trump’s Syria move has hurt

WASHINGTON — Most Americans believe that President Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the Syrian border has damaged America’s reputation around the world as a reliable ally, a new USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds.

Even Republicans, typically in Trump’s corner, by 44%-36% say the nation’s reputation has been hurt.

Watch Trump denounce this poll, too.

It’s funny how polls are seen as important in this, what “most Americans believe” does not equal reality. I agree it probably does hurt US reputation, but polling Americans doesn’t seem the way to found out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/diplomat-tells-investigators-he-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/2019/10/18/81e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html

[JRCarter]

‘Final straw’: GOP ex-Ohio Gov. Kasich supports impeachment

Well, not like Kasich has ever really supported Trump.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by JRCarter.

Anonymous wrote:

My point is that there are loose screws on all parts of the political spectrum

Is your point not to suggest there is a lunatic left fringe? The existing of which provides counterbalance to the lunatic right fringe?

If so, this needs to be said: the extreme right conspiracy-theory touting element of the political spectrum has sway over the general narrative of the country and is popularised and televised by things like InfoWars through to Glenn Beck on Fox news itself. There isn’t an equivalent on the left. Although there are morons on the left that take their beliefs to the extremes, I don’t know any that have media deals, but i can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head from the right who do, and who have an audience as well.

For balance, i am more politically centre than some in this thread, and do think that you need to examine the material from both sides. But just because theres a spectrum that goes right to left, does not mean that the crazies are equally portioned or have the same level of influence.

If the response is to say that there ARE leftwing nutjobs with an audience like Rachel Maddow and those at CNN, i suggest you take a step back and compare what those folk are saying to what Alex Jones says. The difference in reasoning should be clear.

rory wrote:

Rick Perry has resigned. I guess the glasses did make him smarter. (Does executive privilege still apply if someone no longer works for the administration?)

I would expect there’s a cooling off period for things like executive privilege for those that leave.

Anonymous wrote:

KalmanL wrote:

My point is that there are loose screws on all parts of the political spectrum

Is your point not to suggest there is a lunatic left fringe? The existing of which provides counterbalance to the lunatic right fringe?

If so, this needs to be said: the extreme right conspiracy-theory touting element of the political spectrum has sway over the general narrative of the country and is popularised and televised by things like InfoWars through to Glenn Beck on Fox news itself. There isn’t an equivalent on the left. Although there are morons on the left that take their beliefs to the extremes, I don’t know any that have media deals, but i can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head from the right who do, and who have an audience as well.

For balance, i am more politically centre than some in this thread, and do think that you need to examine the material from both sides. But just because theres a spectrum that goes right to left, does not mean that the crazies are equally portioned or have the same level of influence.

If the response is to say that there ARE leftwing nutjobs with an audience like Rachel Maddow and those at CNN, i suggest you take a step back and compare what those folk are saying to what Alex Jones says. The difference in reasoning should be clear.

The two are different, the danger from the left wing threat is not a mirror image of the danger from the right wing. I think on the American “left” there is more of a smear campaign going on, with opponents being attacked with claims of racism, corruption, sexual assault, etc. Anything to ostracize the enemy. This is weaponized with the help of the media. This is not a “traditional” lunatic fringe left wing, just a bunch of slimey politicians and ideologues vying for power and using the social justice movement, metoo, BLM, etc for their own purposes. Certainly if you look at the media landscape, academia and the corporate environment the bias is overwhelmingly left in the US. The extreme right just has a bunch of crazies shouting on youtube (until they’re deplatformed) and the very rare violent crazy who shoots a couple of people.

I think this kind of entrenched battle and heightened craziness is a side effect of the bipolar system in the US and the failure of the two parties to come up with common sense policies to deal with modern problems. Not the party who does best wins elections, the party who is best at making their enemy look like the devil is the winner.

I think there’s truth to that but I don’t wholly agree with how you’ve generalised the behaviour of the crazies on both sides.

It is politics, so demonizing the other side is the game, though

Anonymous wrote:

the corporate environment the bias is overwhelmingly left in the US

(PS. ARJANS FACE WROTE THIS NOT TIM(

This is important and I think it not at all true.

The Kochs, the Redstones, the Murdoch’s, the Duponts, Woltons, Coxs, Bezos, Buffet etc all have political leanings but at the end of the day what they want is to run the company, not the country.

With that said everyone is different – the Kochs, for example, hate Trump but will never swing left. Redstone/Rothsteins are generally Democrat but often donate to Republicans because all thet care about is tax breaks (and say so publically).

I work in this space, and even from another country it’s easy to get the lay if the land and it’s spread evenly across the spectrum with all the nuance that entails.

DAAAAMN YOU PUTIN WHY DON’T YOU LEAVE THE AMERICANS ALONE

edit: ohhh link isn’t showing up…lol

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

DAAAAMN YOU PUTIN WHY DON’T YOU LEAVE THE AMERICANS ALONE

edit: ohhh link isn’t showing up…lol

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Am I mistaken or are you probably more sympathetic to Putin than others here are? And are you also more supportive of Gabbard over the other Democrats in the race? Hillary’s not saying anything new, but she’s probably the highest profile person to express this concern.

Putin has fucking invaded two countries directly and re-started Russian-American proxy wars in our era. He single-handedly reintroduced the Cold War.

I think when it comes to conflicts between Russia, the US and the EU, some people tend to have more sympathies for Putin because they see the other parties so critically, neglecting the option that there are terrible people and policies in place in all of those places.
*
That said, Clinton pointing at political rivals as “groomed” by Russians is pretty daft, and deserves Arjan’s scoffing.

On a different note: Turkey’s current actions are really explosive for Europe and specifically for Germany. There’s a huge pro-Kurdish demonstration here in Cologne today. There is quite a big Kurdish population here, and of course an even bigger Turkish one, who mostly seem bent on supporting Erdogan no matter what he does. It’s becoming a bit uncomfortable.

At the same time, Germany is too afraid to actually do anything because if Erdogan makes good on his threats and sends the refugees to the EU, that’d be a huge push for the populist right here.

Christian wrote:

Putin has fucking invaded two countries directly and re-started Russian-American proxy wars in our era. He single-handedly reintroduced the Cold War.

I think when it comes to conflicts between Russia, the US and the EU, some people tend to have more sympathies for Putin because they see the other parties so critically, neglecting the option that there are terrible people and policies in place in all of those places.
*
That said, Clinton pointing at political rivals as “groomed” by Russians is pretty daft, and deserves Arjan’s scoffing.

I prefer Russia over the US, to be frank. Putin was right when he said the US leaves nothing but misery wherever it intervenes, and I agree Crimea belongs to Russia. And NATO is encircling Russia. But Russia is not really “the good guy”, there is no such thing in politics unfortunately. I do think the internal repression in Russia is very bad, but internationally what Russia does is less damaging than what the US does.

Andrew wrote:

Am I mistaken or are you probably more sympathetic to Putin than others here are? And are you also more supportive of Gabbard over the other Democrats in the race? Hillary’s not saying anything new, but she’s probably the highest profile person to express this concern.

I think I probably am. The anti Putin narrative in the West is way overblown and suspicious. Why are we best friends with China but enemies of Russia?

He’s a convenient bad boy you can blame for internal problems. It’s that damn Putin meddling and screwing things up!

I like Gabbard’s policies, that is all I care about. If Putin is “grooming” her, I don’t mind.

We’re not best friends with China.
.
America is an ongoing Trade War with China right now. There’s also the ongoing watch for Chinese espionage, both conventional and industrial, which lead to the “Chinese Spy Chip” panic last year.
.
Trade is still going on because they’re a huge economy, but if you think they’re regarded as friends by Western Governments, or vice versa, then you’re reading the global room incorrectly.

The House of Commons has just voted in favour of an amendment to withhold official approval of Johnson’s new deal until full legislation is passed.

Because that means the official approval can’t now happen today, this has the result of triggering the legal requirement that Johnson has to write a letter to the EU requesting an extension.

We’ll see what happens now.

Personally I think it makes perfect sense to scrutinise the details of this deal in full before waving it through.

If Johnson is really confident that the deal will pass full parliamentary scrutiny in the next couple of weeks, then he shouldn’t be bothered by the prospect of a fallback extension to prevent a no-deal crash-out just in case it does all fall apart.

Either way, I think he’s probably starting to truly realise how difficult it is to govern without a majority.

SteveUK wrote:

America is an ongoing Trade War with China right now. There’s also the ongoing watch for Chinese espionage, both conventional and industrial, which lead to the “Chinese Spy Chip” panic last year.

It often feels like American politics is driven by people with ties to either China or Russia fighting over policy. Both parties have ties to both countries, though, as well as Saudi Arabia, of course.

However, that is kinda promoting the United States’ biggest business – dealing arms. It’s one of the biggest industries in the world and the United States practically has monopoly control over it. On top of that, it’s probably the major economic influence on domestic politics as manufacturers spread their production facilities all over the country to influence the politicians and voters in those districts. Of course, most of the profits the private companies make come from contracts with the Pentagon. The military budget is around $600 billion a year and half of it goes to corporations making the weapons that then need to be used somewhere (or stockpiled) to keep the business moving.

It doesn’t matter if they are liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, every administration pushes weapons as much as possible. Obama’s arms sales were just as aggressive and morally questionable as Bush’s before him. The arms industry considers the Middle East a growth industry, and that is definitely affecting foreign policy – to a hammer, everything looks like a nail and all us sells is hammers, baby.

However, despite it maybe being our largest international business, the arms industry gets almost no attention in the media. Entertainment, pharmaceuticals, even energy companies aren’t raking in as much profit and they are not nearly as wasteful or influential, but we’re constantly hearing news about those businesses. We get plenty of coverage of all the destruction of a war, but little on where the weapons came from and how they got into the hands of the people fighting. Like Bill Hicks said back during the Gulf War, “How do we know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? We have the receipts.”

Whenever a candidate for any Federal office or for the presidency comes out against wars or just asks why we’re selling weapons to terribly murderous regimes or insurgent groups, they get smeared usually by the people who have long been a part of the policy promoting the interests of arms dealers.

At times, it feels like the president is really just the CEO of a massive national weapons conglomeration.

Cue threats of war in the streets and traitor language from the usual suspects.

I like Kotkin’s view on Russia and China, Russia is a mere distraction:

Newly uncovered tax documents show Trump kept ‘2 sets of books’ and may have committed financial fraud

No shit his books are crooked.

Anonymous wrote:

I think I probably am. The anti Putin narrative in the West is way overblown and suspicious. Why are we best friends with China but enemies of Russia?

He’s a convenient bad boy you can blame for internal problems. It’s that damn Putin meddling and screwing things up!

I like Gabbard’s policies, that is all I care about. If Putin is “grooming” her, I don’t mind.

I worry that you’ve been duped by propaganda. Aside from the human rights violations, the ethnostate stuff, the homophobic stuff, Putin’s a guy who’s crippled opposition and any semblance of democracy in Russia. We know that the Kremlin employed an army of youths to plant information online via social media to influence the 2016 US election – that’s at a minimum. The whole story around any specific ties to people involved in the Trump camp remain to fully be exposed.

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, is impressed with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.”

And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.

“She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person,” Mr. Cernovich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”

An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Andrew wrote:

We know that the Kremlin employed an army of youths to plant information online via social media to influence the 2016 US election

Well, I don’t really doubt that. I just think it’s common practice, and the US probably does it more than anyone else.

After how the West handled the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Yeltsin era, why would it be odd that they tried to influence things in the West? Don’t we sorta have that coming? And why worry about Russia meddling so much when there are far clearer examples of meddling?

I think it might be a political tactic to distract the public’s attention. Russia homophobic? Eh. there are a lot of countries where homosexuality is outlawed outright and we don’t give a shit about those.

Do you see any of that as an argument to not do anything about Russia?
.
Well everyone tries to meddle so we should just let it happen?
.
We fucked up the end of the Cold War so we should just let Putin do whatever he wants as compensation?
.
Back to the “everyone meddles” thing again?
.
Lots of places are homophobic so let Russia do it too?
.
Russia has a big population, big economy, big territory, big territorial ambitions, big armed forces and big nuclear weapons.
.
I think paying attention to what they do is warranted.

Yes, some attention.

Big attention.

Something which is relevant to this matter is also that the US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to get too chummy. It is the interest of some for there to be bad blood.

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

It’s almost as if the US and Russia are both imperialist and authoritarian and picking sides between them like a fucking sports game is inherently stupid.

I agree, I wouldn’t pick anyone as the “good guy”. I just think the antagonzing of Russia is going too far. We need a way to get along.

There’s no profit in getting along, though.

Compared to having Russia as an enemy, I think there is a benefit.

Russia isn’t an “enemy” though. They’re never going to go to war. It’s an excuse to stoke the fires of nationalism and rattle sabres.

The problem is that the people who are concentrating on doing something about foreign interference are constantly being interfered with by the people running for office. No foreign power meddled with the 2016 US elections to greater effect than Hillary Clinton and the DNC meddled with their own primaries. The DNC and Clinton campaign were involved with Fusion GPS to get Russian information negative to Trump’s campaign.

Russian oligarchs were Clinton campaign contributors and of course there was the scandal in the 90’s where Bill Clinton, already president, was looking for funds from the Chinese government for his second run – which he won anyway.

The problem is that the candidates are all willing to invite foreign support and influence for their campaigns and when they call it out against their opponents, they only do so to hurt the opposition. They don’t really have an interest in stopping it.

Well I mean, Saudi Arabi is far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse than Russia in every respect, yet they’re buddies with all major western powers… so yeah… demonizing Russia seems more like a smoke screen. Although, to be fair, Russia actively seeks to gain influence to the detriment of the US and EU, hence the animosity there, but if one does it why shouldn’t the other one do it well? I mean, in a perfect world countries would behave well and not be assholes, but that’s not the world we live in… so between the american invaders and the russian invaders there’s not much of a difference if you ask me.
 
In fact, the US is one bad election away from becoming Russia if you ask me…

I think in the end the problem is Russia doesn’t abide by rules the West has decreed. And whoever proposes a competing system has to be fought. If it were up to some, they’d station tens of thousands of troops in the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia. And I don’t have much doubt Western forces are working non-stop to undermine the current Russian government.

I don’t always agree with Chomsky, but he’s right about Russiagate. And pointing out Israel’s meddling in the US.

The warrior monk is funny

Anonymous wrote:

Putin was right when he said the US leaves nothing but misery wherever it intervenes, and I agree Crimea belongs to Russia.

So you’re supporting one war of aggression, but I notice you’re not mentioning Ukraine, where there seems to be quite a lot of misery, too. The history of US intervention is shitty, but at least they didn’t, in this century, start a war of invasion on a peaceful country with the aim of annexing it.

And NATO is encircling Russia.

I think they made a terrible mistake in extending NATO and stupidly put way too much pressure on Russia. But using that as justification for a war of aggression is bizarre.

internationally what Russia does is less damaging than what the US does.

Right now, Russia is waging a war in Ukraine and is as responsible as the US for the Syrian civil war continuing; that one has become a proxy war between the US/Saudi Arabia and Russia/Iran. There are not only no good guys, Russia definitely isn’t any better than the US is at the moment.
That “Russian meddling” and the troll farms are also real, even if they are being overused by some US politicians as a scapegoat for everything.
*
My point being that – to reiterate – I think it is a dangerous blind spot if you let your aversion to American policies influence your views on Russia and Putin and ignore or justify the bad things that they are doing. Just like the other way round.

But Putin is bae

Kgb bae

But Putin is bae

Kgb bae

Well, this is… something.

It’s almost, almost as if the public has been woefully misinformed about the entire process.

I personally know people who have said, “I voted to remain but now I’m sick of it, let’s leave and get it over with.”
.
It seems pretty clear that most people don’t understand (either willfully or in genuine ignorance) that “it” is not going to be “over with” for years.
.
There is literally only one way to get it “over with” immediately, and with no effort: a single letter saying “we changed our minds”. But that’s not going to happen.
.
The more I think about it, the more I am sure we are screwed now even if we did revoke Article 50. Quite apart from the fact that we have already tanked the pound and the economy by our stupidity, we would have a future in the EU as a laughing stock, with nobody ever listening to our opinion or trusting us again. We’ve proven we are at best incompetent both internationally and domestically, and at worst are deliberately guilty of negotiating in extreme bad faith with our friends and partners. Why should anyone ever want to do business with someone like that? We are like the diplomatic equivalent of a Nigerian prince with 20 million dollars.

[SteveUK]

Speaking to people I know who did vote Brexit, they’d still vote for it. They don’t want the Euro, they don’t want uncontrolled immigration, they don’t want to be part of a Federal European Superstate. They’ve gone from believing that it’ll be a sweet deal and extra money for the NHS to believing that it’ll be tough but we can tighten our belts and get through it.
.
And if there’s a referendum they will vote for Brexit again.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by SteveUK.

Christian wrote:

So you’re supporting one war of aggression, but I notice you’re not mentioning Ukraine, where there seems to be quite a lot of misery, too. The history of US intervention is shitty, but at least they didn’t, in this century, start a war of invasion on a peaceful country with the aim of annexing it.

If people were as critical of the US as they were of Russia, that would be good. Maybe 50 % more critical of the US and 50 % less of Russia. I don’t see the EU placing sanctions on the US for instance like they do with Russia. But of course the EU lacks morals too, everyone is tainted.

I don’t support the war in Ukraine, I think it is terrible, but that is another matter than Crimea. Crimeans want to be part of Russia. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine might be avoided if the West allowed a referendum in Crimea. But the West only want referendums if they think they’ll swing their way.

According to the BBC:

Three [polling] companies have asked voters whether they support or oppose what Mr Johnson brought back from Brussels.
All found many voters – between about three in 10 and four in 10 – said they did not know, or had not heard, anything about what had been agreed.

I wish they had asked MPs the same thing, I think it would be enlightening. One international trade negotiator said she had read the deal three times and was still working on figuring out the implications at the time MPs were voting on it. The only MP she thought sounded like he had actually read and comprehended it was Kier Starmer. But even then, there is apparently no supporting evidence for what the deal means in real terms, as Dominic Raab just told the BBC that the government hadn’t carried out any kind of economic analysis either before or after agreeing it

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t support the war in Ukraine, I think it is terrible, but that is another matter than Crimea. Crimeans want to be part of Russia. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine might be avoided if the West allowed a referendum in Crimea. But the West only want referendums if they think they’ll swing their way.

There’s been a referendum, but it happened after Russian forces took over.
.
What sort of vote do you have with Russian soldiers in your government buildings?

Russian soldiers, or any soldiers?

edit: Ukraine always opposed any referendum, so there’s not a lot of chance there would have ever been a referendum unless there was outside pressure. Previous referenda in Crimea for more autonomy have always been called illegal by Ukraine.

Kiev is not a good actor either, the Ukrainian military have worked with neo-nazi militias to fight in Eastern Ukraine and Kiev was hellbent on stopping any referendum. So while I admit a referendum with a military presence in the country is not ideal, I have some sympathy for the idea that it was necessary in order for the referendum to be realized. And there’s not much reason to doubt the outcome would have been different, opinion polling has always indicated a majority of Crimeans want to join Russia although not the 96 % that voted for it in the referendum.

So yes, the referendum as it was organized was probably weighted in favor of Russia. The best thing was to have a referendum with indepedent monitors from the international community, but that was never going to happen because the powers that be didn’t want Crimea to join Russia. Unlike say with Yugoslavia when independence benefited the West.

Anonymous wrote:

So while I admit a referendum with a military presence in the country is not ideal, I have some sympathy for the idea that it was necessary in order for the referendum to be realized. And there’s not much reason to doubt the outcome would have been different, opinion polling has always indicated a majority of Crimeans want to join Russia although not the 96 % that voted for it in the referendum.

.
So it was rigged, at gun point, but it’s ok because it probably delivered an exaggerated version of what an honest result would’ve been?

We need to negotiate with Russia, instead of just confronting. Kotkin proposes recognizing Crimea’s current stats as part of Russia in exchange for other commitments, like getting Russia to leave Eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and Transnistria. I think that has a chance of succeeding.

On the “referendum at gun point” thing, we never have a problem with that if it’s a referendum we want. If the 96 % outcome is a problem, you could propose they do it over, and this time make it a binding referendum with UN supervision so that the result will be honoured by the international community. I’m sure Kiev, the US and the EU would love that idea.

Anonymous wrote:

On the “referendum at gun point” thing, we never have a problem with that if it’s a referendum we want.

Oh yes, that long list of popular referenda held at gunpoint like… erm…

Well we were OK with elections in the Middle East and Yugoslavia when there were Western military forces present. That didn’t invalidate the vote.

But it would be better if we could organize a new referendum with international monitors. I don’t think Kiev and the West would like that because they know the outcome would probably be the same and they’d lose the excuse they have to object.

On a separate note, abortion is going to be decriminalised in Northern Ireland in about 4 and a half hours (and legislation to allow same-sex marraige as of February next year), and it’s all because the DUP blocked an investigation into a corruption scandal. Nice job shooting yourselves in the foot, dickheads!

Does anyone know wether under the current brexit deal goods from the UK will become more expensive in the EU?

Anonymous wrote:

Well we were OK with elections in the Middle East and Yugoslavia when there were Western military forces present. That didn’t invalidate the vote.

But it would be better if we could organize a new referendum with international monitors. I don’t think Kiev and the West would like that because they know the outcome would probably be the same and they’d lose the excuse they have to object.

Isn’t the fundamental issue fear of state reprisal? It doesn’t matter then if guards or UN watchdogs are present or not. Its the state’s response, or perceived response, against those that act against it’s interests as understood by the common populace.

We’ve all seen Chernobyl. Russia’s problematic but it’s not going to change by ticking a foreign policy box on free and open referenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know wether under the current brexit deal goods from the UK will become more expensive in the EU?

🤷‍♂️

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know wether under the current brexit deal goods from the UK will become more expensive in the EU?

Nobody knows for certain, but the general opinion of people familiar with how exports work is “yes”. The EU will put import tariffs on British goods (because it’s economic suicide not to), and the cost of paying that tariff will go on the final price you pay.

And the current Brexit deal has nothing to do with that — the “deal” isn’t a trade agreement which controls tariffs, that will be worked out over the next few years. The best you can hope from this deal is a couple of years of transition at current prices before the tariffs kick in.

DavidM wrote:

Nobody knows for certain

I am not really for or against Brexit (or Nexit I guess) I am open to both sides of the argument, but it is a shame people are kept in such uncertainty, I sometimes wonder if politicians know what it can do to people’s psyche. I feel bad for the people who suffer because of it. I hope something good will happen even if it sometimes seems there is only bad news.

This is my Brexit solution:

1. Give everyone a puppy;

2. Give everyone in Ireland a puppy AND a guiness

JRCarter wrote:

I’m surprised some so-called “evangelicals” haven’t said that Cummings dying was God’s punishment for trying to get Trump impeached.

Ask, and ye shall receive!

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/21/these-far-right-christian-fundamentalists-believe-god-killed-elijah-cummings-for-opposing-trump_partner/

Anonymous wrote:

This is my Brexit solution:

1. Give everyone a puppy;

2. Give everyone in Ireland a puppy AND a guiness

Honestly I think most political problems can be easily solved by these types of measures.

Political opponents should go out for a meal together. Like pizza with a couple of good beers, in a nice comfy pizzeria, somewhere on the riverside.

Although Putin would probably poison the pizza.

Jason wrote:

JRCarter wrote:

I’m surprised some so-called “evangelicals” haven’t said that Cummings dying was God’s punishment for trying to get Trump impeached.

Ask, and ye shall receive!

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/21/these-far-right-christian-fundamentalists-believe-god-killed-elijah-cummings-for-opposing-trump_partner/

Jesse Lee Peterson: the real life version of Uncle Ruckus.

Blasphemy! God doesn’t need reasons to kill people.

But is it a protestant or catholic puppy?

Russian Orthodox puppy.

Anonymous wrote:

I am not really for or against Brexit (or Nexit I guess) I am open to both sides of the argument, but it is a shame people are kept in such uncertainty,

It’s kind of par for the course.

If you look an allegory of a relationship. Norway has looked at the girl next door and liked the look of her but decided they’d rather be single.

The UK married her 40 years ago and has now decided to (probably) have a divorce. This withdrawal agreement process is really just deciding they want to get divorced. The next step is then the court case that decides how the assets are split. What will happen with the kids, the house, the assets.

There’s no way at the point of asking for a divorce you’ll know how any of that will turn out. A lot of the public are like the friend in the pub saying he should dump her because she nags too much but not thinking much past that.

[Christian]

Anonymous wrote:

If people were as critical of the US as they were of Russia, that would be good. Maybe 50 % more critical of the US and 50 % less of Russia.

Okay, that’s fair.

Crimeans want to be part of Russia. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine might be avoided if the West allowed a referendum in Crimea. But the West only want referendums if they think they’ll swing their way.

Was that ever for the West to allow? Ukraine was trying to maintain its national integrity, which is what any nation will do in that kind of situation.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Christian.

Name one Oligarch Philanthropist.

Anonymous wrote:

Nexit

At least when you leave Netflix it’s easy enough to sign up again.

Anonymous wrote:

We need to negotiate with Russia, instead of just confronting. Kotkin proposes recognizing Crimea’s current stats as part of Russia in exchange for other commitments, like getting Russia to leave Eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and Transnistria. I think that has a chance of succeeding.

I have no idea how realistic that is, but yeah, it’d probably be the best possible outcome for all sides at this point.