| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18208 Posts
On September 30 2018 23:20 LegalLord wrote: Eh, neither of them have either, so it kind of falls flat no matter how you choose to frame it. I know you hate Hillary, but claiming she is incompetent? Anyway, that discussion should be had in the US thread not here, and has been had there about 20,000 times. So /shrug | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 30 2018 22:30 Acrofales wrote: Except that it doesn't really work. What would work as "burn" for both of them would be if you said that May has none of Hilary Clinton's competence, but all of her warmth or personality. It's a joke, not a hidden attack on either. Theresa May is a highly competent politician, and anyone who says otherwise and means it knows nothing about her or her career (see: incredibly long tenure as home secretary, one of the more important and high stress government jobs). She just isn't leadership material. Same goes for Hilary. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 01 2018 01:25 iamthedave wrote: It's a joke, not a hidden attack on either. Theresa May is a highly competent politician, and anyone who says otherwise and means it knows nothing about her or her career (see: incredibly long tenure as home secretary, one of the more important and high stress government jobs). She just isn't leadership material. Same goes for Hilary. That fully depends on the job description of "a politician". Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. May seem to be very competent at acquiring high political jobs. But politics is the one field in which getting the job and doing the job well are probably least causally linked. The more votes someone acquires, the more probable it is that they have spent a lot of resources to win the competition to get into power and the less resources to actually think what they will do with power. In short, the rulers rule because they don't care that they are bad at it. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 01 2018 01:54 Big J wrote: That fully depends on the job description of "a politician". Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. May seem to be very competent at acquiring high political jobs. But politics is the one field in which getting the job and doing the job well are probably least causally linked. The more votes someone acquires, the more probable it is that they have spent a lot of resources to win the competition to get into power and the less resources to actually think what they will do with power. In short, the rulers rule because they don't care that they are bad at it. May got the leadership job because she was the least hated available; she's not suited for leadership. But she's been a backbone Conservative staple for decades now. Those are the kind of people who get where they get for competence. I understand that a lot of people these days like to present all politicians as a bunch of useless, feckless idiots, but it's masturbatory cynicism. Some of them are that (fuck you, Boris Johnson), but it's important to recognise those who aren't. Theresa May's tenure as Prime Minister has been a fucking disaster because she was handed something she worked tirelessly to prevent, due to all the people who would be more 'suited' for the role (Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc.) being either less proficient, liked even less despite being likeable, or less experienced. She's 100% in the position she is because of competence, more than suitability. The Tory Party just got itself into the position where the internal divisions are so strong that a hard-working civil servant who's best suited to being nose deep in the boring parts of legislature is out in front doing press conferences because she was the one person everyone in the Party hated least who could reasonably lead. Also, most rulers rule because they think they'll be really good at it, and lots of people agree. That's why they get a shot. And a lot of them genuinely are. Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama, plenty of others, they ruled because they were good at it. Which doesn't mean perfect. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 01 2018 02:05 iamthedave wrote: May got the leadership job because she was the least hated available; she's not suited for leadership. But she's been a backbone Conservative staple for decades now. Those are the kind of people who get where they get for competence. I understand that a lot of people these days like to present all politicians as a bunch of useless, feckless idiots, but it's masturbatory cynicism. Some of them are that (fuck you, Boris Johnson), but it's important to recognise those who aren't. Theresa May's tenure as Prime Minister has been a fucking disaster because she was handed something she worked tirelessly to prevent, due to all the people who would be more 'suited' for the role (Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc.) being either less proficient, liked even less despite being likeable, or less experienced. She's 100% in the position she is because of competence, more than suitability. The Tory Party just got itself into the position where the internal divisions are so strong that a hard-working civil servant who's best suited to being nose deep in the boring parts of legislature is out in front doing press conferences because she was the one person everyone in the Party hated least who could reasonably lead. Also, most rulers rule because they think they'll be really good at it, and lots of people agree. That's why they get a shot. And a lot of them genuinely are. Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama, plenty of others, they ruled because they were good at it. Which doesn't mean perfect. I find it hard to admire politicians in the days of climate change. If politicians have really become so dull, that they call the lack of rules "freedom", then I believe they deserve every piece of hatred that is brought against them. This goes for other issues as well, in particular people like Theresa May, who rather take the charge in matters they are against (Brexit) than making way for the winning side. If the losers of a competition get to take the trophy then the system is rigged and not to be trusted, given everything we know about objective, scientific criteria. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 01 2018 04:18 Big J wrote: I find it hard to admire politicians in the days of climate change. If politicians have really become so dull, that they call the lack of rules "freedom", then I believe they deserve every piece of hatred that is brought against them. This goes for other issues as well, in particular people like Theresa May, who rather take the charge in matters they are against (Brexit) than making way for the winning side. If the losers of a competition get to take the trophy then the system is rigged and not to be trusted, given everything we know about objective, scientific criteria. May was given the charge because nobody else could reasonably take it, and she was against it because her long tenure as home secretary meant she knew what a fucking disaster it was going to be. Of course, the flipside was that she knew more about our relation with the EU than almost anyone else and was in a good position to at least give it the old college try. Everyone knows Johnson is feckless and Gove destroyed his credibility with the party (temporarily at least) by ending David Cameron's career, with Cameron being a long time friend. Even if he wasn't popular with the backbenches because of his centrist ways, they weren't going to reward a snake with the Party leadership. In other words, all the Brexiteers completely shot their own credibility by 'winning' because both of the main ones (Gove and Johnson) did so as part of naked ambition to one day replace Cameron as party leader. Rees-Mogg seems likely to be the next major Tory Party leader right now, which might be unfortunate... He's sure said some worrying things. But he's at least a Brexiteer who didn't get there by backstabbing long time friends. | ||
|
pmh
1401 Posts
Mays plans where to soft for the hardline brexiteers but they where still unacceptable for the eu. It feels like the eu is pushing for a deal that is impossible to sell for britains pm,while the pm is working on a deal that is impossible to sell for the eu. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 03 2018 15:49 pmh wrote: May isn't the problem I think,I find her a very good pm personally. Problem is that they are not working towards a brexit,they are working towards a credible scenario where there will be a new referendum and no brexit. That I think is still the goal of the whole process even though it does seem farfetched. Mays plans where to soft for the hardline brexiteers but they where still unacceptable for the eu. It feels like the eu is pushing for a deal that is impossible to sell for britains pm,while the pm is working on a deal that is impossible to sell for the eu. The EU strategy is just the typical conservative end-all-argument: Contracts must not be questioned! No backsies from payments No backsies from granted rights for EU citizens No goodies from future contracts (e.g. military cooperation) No discussion is held until these conservative premises have been established. It is pretty hard for a conservative British government to challenge that, because they have to challenge their own ideology here. Which is why we see them internally shaken, because all the true conservatives find the EU approach reasonable, so the nationalists and reactionaries are facing the task to make an immovable object move. It is quite amusing from a leftist perspective. Idiot conservatives fighting each other seems to be theme of our days, whether it is in questions of religion and migration, trade, Brexit or administrative reforms. A bit like the first World War I guess, quite entertaining to spectate from the outside. | ||
|
pmh
1401 Posts
First hard exit a deal (nafta,kyoto,iran etc) and let both sides suffer a bit. Then after some time start negotiating a new and better deal. Britain could hard exit eu. Immediately start new negotiations and talks for re-joining and then re-join again in 1-2 years maybe. That maybe wouldn't be such a bad outcome for anyone in the end. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 03 2018 18:34 Big J wrote: It is quite amusing from a leftist perspective. Idiot conservatives fighting each other seems to be theme of our days, whether it is in questions of religion and migration, trade, Brexit or administrative reforms. A bit like the first World War I guess, quite entertaining to spectate from the outside. Haha yeah, it would be if the world was not burning meanwhile | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On October 03 2018 18:48 pmh wrote: Britain could do a trump like strategy. First hard exit a deal (nafta,kyoto,iran etc) and let both sides suffer a bit. Then after some time start negotiating a new and better deal. Britain could hard exit eu. Immediately start new negotiations and talks for re-joining and then re-join again in 1-2 years maybe. That maybe wouldn't be such a bad outcome for anyone in the end. There is no way the EU will let them do that. I suspect the EU will want to make an example out of the first major country to leave it. Especially if britain tries to pull a stunt like this, as it shows an extremely fickle bullshittery stance on politics that should not be tolerated. Just like a romantic partner giving you ultimatums about breakups and backpedaling whenever they want: you don't want to deal with that kind of shit, especially not on the level of international politics. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22083 Posts
On October 03 2018 18:48 pmh wrote: The difference is that Canada and Mexico need the US a whole lot more then the EU needs Britain.Britain could do a trump like strategy. First hard exit a deal (nafta,kyoto,iran etc) and let both sides suffer a bit. Then after some time start negotiating a new and better deal. Britain could hard exit eu. Immediately start new negotiations and talks for re-joining and then re-join again in 1-2 years maybe. That maybe wouldn't be such a bad outcome for anyone in the end. And Britain already had a special position within the EU that went beyond the 'normal' members. So what more is there to try and get? And what reason would any of the new nations have to accept special snowflake among them? And what would stop Germany or France from doing the exact same thing? The EU has been very clear, long before the initial referendum even became a consideration that access to the EU market was not a free 'pick and chose' the parts you like kind of deal. The problem is that Britain stuck its fingers in its ear and pretended not to know this and wasted most of its negotiation time on deals it knew the EU would never accept. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
The minister of Interior was one of Macron's first supporters with some political stature when he started his campaign to become president. He resigned to go back to his town, he wants to be reelected mayor in 2020. It seems that he and Macron "divorced" over time. Macron refused his first resignation two days ago, but Collomb maintained it in an interview which was published... just as the Prime minister was saying that everything was fine in the weekly session of questions to the government at l'Assemblée. LOL Collomb's face during his departure this morning says it all (at the right, Prime minister at the left): + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DokgI1RW4AAlvdz.jpg) Meanwhile Macron is now heading below the fatal 30% popularity threshold, from which no president ever recovered. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoUknmRXUAAsePN.jpg) It seems that Macron has now entered the standard four years death animation that all French presidents endure as of late once the initial smoke and mirrors is dispelled. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12387 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 03 2018 19:48 Nebuchad wrote: Good riddance for Collomb to be honest Yup. When you remember that he was campaigning for 60 years retirement and socialism in 1981... Jesus | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 03 2018 18:48 pmh wrote: Britain could do a trump like strategy. First hard exit a deal (nafta,kyoto,iran etc) and let both sides suffer a bit. Then after some time start negotiating a new and better deal. Britain could hard exit eu. Immediately start new negotiations and talks for re-joining and then re-join again in 1-2 years maybe. That maybe wouldn't be such a bad outcome for anyone in the end. The UK doesn't have enough edible resources to survive 1-2 years. And the British finance sector, including the pound itself, is worthless without a trade deal. If the UK hard exits, I think the UK will have public unrests if not all out civil war within weeks. On October 03 2018 18:55 TheDwf wrote: Haha yeah, it would be if the world was not burning meanwhile Are you not entertained? | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On October 03 2018 19:19 Gorsameth wrote: The EU has been very clear, long before the initial referendum even became a consideration that access to the EU market was not a free 'pick and chose' the parts you like kind of deal. The problem is that Britain stuck its fingers in its ear and pretended not to know this and wasted most of its negotiation time on deals it knew the EU would never accept. This is the most puzzling part for me - they're still doing it. May and half her party are still set on the Chequers deal which will never ever be accepted by the EU. It's like the UK hasn't been listening since well before the referendum. The EU has made, a million times in an unanimous voice, clear that they won't alter the foundation of the union for the UK, namely negotiate on the four freedoms. The framework of a future relationship was given and the UK had to decide what sort of relationship they wanted and start the negotiations from there. That they STILL haven't got the message is baffling to be honest. At this point I don't see a reasonable alternative to a no-deal. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11739 Posts
I can see the UK rejoining the EU eventually (probably not immediately), but once again with a normal membership, which would include all the things that they do not like. What they clearly and obviously at this point will not get is a pick and choose deal. And there seems to be absolutely not way for them to deal with that. So the thing that will happen with high likelyhood is the thing that happens if there is no agreement. Which is a hard Brexit. Unless some people in the UK are willing to make an acceptable deal at the last minute, once they realize that they are not going to get the thing that they sold their population on. It is a bit silly that the people who sold the population on that got the fuck away from having to make that deal as fast as possible, though. So now you have people who didn't want a Brexit having to negotiate a Brexit, and having to fulfill the Pie in the sky promises made by other people. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9275 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
