|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape.
It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel.
Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha.
|
On July 06 2018 06:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape. It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel. Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha.
I stand by my statement that the term neoliberal has essentially lost all meaning at this point. It has become the Alpha and Omega of politics, being everything and nothing that the same time. You just took three wildly different eras in US history, one that was super socialist and the rise of civil rights, one that was dominated by Nixon and one that was under Reagan and lumped them all into one, blaming neoliberalism for in the media for all of it. Oh yeah, and Kennedy and MLK died in there too. Do you know how much the media in the US changed from the 1960s to 1980s?
|
On July 06 2018 06:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:56 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:49 Sermokala wrote:
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong. Just wait until corporations are allowed to have religions. Then you will be an invested member of the Lutheran of Dakota Oil Faith Based Industry, paying no taxes and raking in the profits for God and future investment in God's country. Damn, I think I just created a villain for some YA dystopian series. You mean the movie called Babylon A.D.?
I lowkey know several real estate investors that figured out that you can make a killing with religion. Tax free, you can break practically all fair housing laws, and serious social pressure for people to just give you money to invest.
The inurement laws don't really work at all. It's one reason you rarely if ever hear of anyone facing them and losing.
On July 06 2018 06:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 06:33 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape. It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel. Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha. I stand by my statement that the term neoliberal has essentially lost all meaning at this point. It has become the Alpha and Omega of politics, being everything and nothing that the same time. You just took three wildly different eras in US history, one that was super socialist and the rise of civil rights, one that was dominated by Nixon and one that was under Reagan and lumped them all into one, blaming neoliberalism for in the media for all of it. Oh yeah, and Kennedy and MLK died in there too. Do you know how much the media in the US changed from the 1960s to 1980s?
Haha sounds like the "racist doesn't mean anything anymore" argument, and coming from many of the same motivations.
Neoliberalism was a critical part of all three of those era's. Neoliberals were the ones agreeing with Republicans that we needed a drug war and to assassinate prominent black leaders. They are the ones that approve giving Trump ever increasing military budgets, Clinton's "law and order" push incarcerating yet another generation of young black men, and so on.
Neoliberal means something, neoliberals just don't like what it means and that they are neoliberals.
|
|
|
On July 06 2018 06:45 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 06:39 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 06:33 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape. It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel. Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha. I stand by my statement that the term neoliberal has essentially lost all meaning at this point. It has become the Alpha and Omega of politics, being everything and nothing that the same time. You just took three wildly different eras in US history, one that was super socialist and the rise of civil rights, one that was dominated by Nixon and one that was under Reagan and lumped them all into one, blaming neoliberalism for in the media for all of it. Oh yeah, and Kennedy and MLK died in there too. Do you know how much the media in the US changed from the 1960s to 1980s? I second the neoliberal phrase being dead, I can ask ten different people and get ten different responses to what it is. Seems like people just use it as a boogeyman now
It has reached Rachel Maddow Russia investigation levels of overuse. It is the mother fucking Babadook of left leaning politics.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754
Your president is coming to visit soon and he's going to get a proper British welcome.
A massive inflatable Trump baby over London. A giant fuck you from the people of England.
Frankly I think we've got our own issues to protest about, I can't see why the biggest street protest of the year is going to be for a US president, no matter how repellent people find him.
Its the power of the media and their Trump hysterics in action.
|
On July 06 2018 05:43 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:39 crms wrote:Tweet thread in spoiler. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1014886386216906752
So the GOP wants to confirm someone with no prosecutorial experience to the head of the DOJ Criminal Division. This guy represented Alfa Bank, the same Alfa Bank under criminal investigation and won't commit to recusing himself from the Trump-Russia investigation. Sure sounds legit, right guys? Witches are real. User was warned for this post.
I've been saying for a while now, that's the big twist in all of this. There IS a witch hunt going on, but that's because witches are, in fact, real.
*cue scary music*
To be honest, I think this is as likely to be a Trump 'fuck you' to the people who go on about it. 'You think I'm in with the Russians? Here's this guy that makes you think I am. Go on, do something about it.'
On July 06 2018 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:49 Sermokala wrote:
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong. Just wait until corporations are allowed to have religions. Then you will be an invested member of the Lutheran of Dakota Oil Faith Based Industry, paying no taxes and raking in the profits for God and future investment in God's country. Damn, I think I just created a villain for some YA dystopian series.
Cyberpunk authors invented - or popularised, not sure which - the idea of Corporate extraterritoriality. The idea that corporations might become so powerful economically that they can rightly claim to be their own nations, and all their assets to be part of that territory, with them allowed to defend them as they see fit. Workers become citizens. Corp is mother. Corp is father. And everyone outside the bubble is a mark to be exploited.
On July 06 2018 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754Your president is coming to visit soon and he's going to get a proper British welcome. A massive inflatable Trump baby over London. A giant fuck you from the people of England. Frankly I think we've got our own issues to protest about, I can't see why the biggest street protest of the year is going to be for a US president, no matter how repellent people find him. Its the power of the media and their Trump hysterics in action.
I think the retweeting British First put him on the UK leftie hitlist. I mean, come on. It's Britain First. They're so bad most of us pull a typically British response when asked about them, which is to say we shuffle our feet, cough slightly, and assume they were talking about UKIP.
Either way, I approve. Arsehole deserves it. I hope it makes him proper mad.
|
On July 06 2018 06:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 06:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2018 06:39 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 06:33 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape. It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel. Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha. I stand by my statement that the term neoliberal has essentially lost all meaning at this point. It has become the Alpha and Omega of politics, being everything and nothing that the same time. You just took three wildly different eras in US history, one that was super socialist and the rise of civil rights, one that was dominated by Nixon and one that was under Reagan and lumped them all into one, blaming neoliberalism for in the media for all of it. Oh yeah, and Kennedy and MLK died in there too. Do you know how much the media in the US changed from the 1960s to 1980s? I second the neoliberal phrase being dead, I can ask ten different people and get ten different responses to what it is. Seems like people just use it as a boogeyman now It has reached Rachel Maddow Russia investigation levels of overuse. It is the mother fucking Babadook of left leaning politics.
Well Maddow has always been a crank and pretty much a sexist conspiracy minded person. Hell i remember when Obama beat Clinton in a few primaries she was besides herself.
|
Honestly, these are not strange ties at all. The dude works for Kirkland & Ellis... It would be suspicious if he didn't have shady corporate ties. Those fuckers represent everything awful in the world about corporate abuse.
Anyway, neoliberalism is a subset of liberalism:Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets. "Neo" basically stands for corporate interests (which itself synonymous to "the elite"). It focuses the wide array of views that encompasses liberalism on that small sector of society. This is how you generate oppression and a police state: the elites don't suffer under it because the policies that they creature don't hurt them.
What's difficult about it, is that the wide array of views have a wide array of consequences. All of it can be referred to as neoliberalism in various ways. It's like the word "creature". We all know when we see one. We will all mostly agree that it's a creature when we see it. It's different from a plant, we all know that. But it's still a very vague term that describes an awful lot and can be described in many different ways -- depending on the attributes that you focus on.
|
On July 06 2018 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754Your president is coming to visit soon and he's going to get a proper British welcome. A massive inflatable Trump baby over London. A giant fuck you from the people of England.
A big inflatable Trump baby over London? That’s practically acquiescence to the Trump agenda these days. The real heat is not serving staffers food and basically taking resistance to your place of work. I’d argue throwing up a taunting balloon is a net positive, because it reminds people that protests of the past can give everyone a smile.
Frankly I think we've got our own issues to protest about, I can't see why the biggest street protest of the year is going to be for a US president, no matter how repellent people find him.
Its the power of the media and their Trump hysterics in action.
He’s just a lightning rod. You’ve probably personally spent a lot more time and effort here on Trump compared to UK politics. Now, you’re calling it “their Trump hysterics,” and that’s true to an extent, but can you admit the minutes of hate are deeply satisfying to international audiences (or they’d get much much lower play)?
|
On July 06 2018 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:So this was several pages back now, but... On July 05 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 17:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Let's clear this up for the sake of the 20 other discussions that will continue throughout the next several years:
Do you want to remove all government empowered bodies of law enforcement within the United States and not replace them with anything?
- If yes, you can continue to say "abolish the police" all you like. And other people can ask you to defend your opinions as such.
- If no, please stop using the word "abolish", unless you are willing to explain to everyone who questions you on it that no, you do not actually mean abolish. How about I tell you what I mean by "police"? First, I don't mean any social mechanism developed to encourage adherence to agreed upon social conventions. What I do mean is any agency or individual that would self identify as "the police". As to how we go about encouraging adherence to agreed upon social conventions, I wouldn't call or develop anything like what you or others mean when they say police.That's sufficient for me to call it abolition. Cool, so that's a yes. Abolishing the police means removing the body of individuals responsible for enforcing the law. So next time this discussion arrives, and people ask you what you plan to replace them with, hopefully everyone can skip past the "everyone's misinterpreting me" phase. If I understand correctly, the premise is: I mean reform, you mean abolition.
What actual functions of ICE are you or whoever this "Pro ICE abolition/anti-police abolition" crowd is actually calling for being abolished?
EDIT: To put it more plainly
What aspects of immigration and customs enforcement are you calling for the abolition of? presumably all of it right? or what you want is reform? I don't have enough in an investment in the issue to say what everyone else means by "abolish". But ICE is a joining of multiple jurisdictions and organizational responsibilities, and legal powers granted by several post-9/11 laws. Abolishing ICE can include an end to the joint handling of border control, immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention by a single organization. A return to border handling by individual state. And removal of the sweeping anti-terrorism laws. So wait you think making immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention centers a state run thing is abolishing immigration and customs enforcement? Well I have to disagree, and look forward to the people who say they really do want to abolish ICE explaining what besides the name of the organization they actually want to abolish (or just call it reform).
Well, yes, this is why words have meaning. So concepts and ideas can be communicated.
Hence when people refer to something called "ICE", the acronym and capitalization clearly indicates the organization and institution called "Immigration and Customs Enforcement", rather than "immigration and customs enforcement" in lower case letters indicating a concept.
|
On July 06 2018 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:So this was several pages back now, but... On July 05 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 17:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Let's clear this up for the sake of the 20 other discussions that will continue throughout the next several years:
Do you want to remove all government empowered bodies of law enforcement within the United States and not replace them with anything?
- If yes, you can continue to say "abolish the police" all you like. And other people can ask you to defend your opinions as such.
- If no, please stop using the word "abolish", unless you are willing to explain to everyone who questions you on it that no, you do not actually mean abolish. How about I tell you what I mean by "police"? First, I don't mean any social mechanism developed to encourage adherence to agreed upon social conventions. What I do mean is any agency or individual that would self identify as "the police". As to how we go about encouraging adherence to agreed upon social conventions, I wouldn't call or develop anything like what you or others mean when they say police.That's sufficient for me to call it abolition. Cool, so that's a yes. Abolishing the police means removing the body of individuals responsible for enforcing the law. So next time this discussion arrives, and people ask you what you plan to replace them with, hopefully everyone can skip past the "everyone's misinterpreting me" phase. If I understand correctly, the premise is: I mean reform, you mean abolition.
What actual functions of ICE are you or whoever this "Pro ICE abolition/anti-police abolition" crowd is actually calling for being abolished?
EDIT: To put it more plainly
What aspects of immigration and customs enforcement are you calling for the abolition of? presumably all of it right? or what you want is reform? I don't have enough in an investment in the issue to say what everyone else means by "abolish". But ICE is a joining of multiple jurisdictions and organizational responsibilities, and legal powers granted by several post-9/11 laws. Abolishing ICE can include an end to the joint handling of border control, immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention by a single organization. A return to border handling by individual state. And removal of the sweeping anti-terrorism laws. So wait you think making immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention centers a state run thing is abolishing immigration and customs enforcement? Well I have to disagree, and look forward to the people who say they really do want to abolish ICE explaining what besides the name of the organization they actually want to abolish (or just call it reform). Well, yes, this is why words have meaning. So concepts and ideas can be communicated. Hence when people refer to something called "ICE", the acronym and capitalization clearly indicates the organization and institution called "Immigration and Customs Enforcement", rather than "immigration and customs enforcement" in lower case letters indicating a concept.
So they want to abolish the agency but not the practices? That sounds even more hollow than reform. Sounds like renaming the agency and or moving its functions back to the agencies that handled them before.
Strange that "the police" has to mean any and every body in the past, now, and forever into the future, intended to encourage conformity to socially accepted conventions but "ICE" can only refer to the specific agency and not it's practices or function.
It's almost like you're pulling this reasoning out of your ass
|
On July 06 2018 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754Your president is coming to visit soon and he's going to get a proper British welcome. A massive inflatable Trump baby over London. A giant fuck you from the people of England. Frankly I think we've got our own issues to protest about, I can't see why the biggest street protest of the year is going to be for a US president, no matter how repellent people find him. Its the power of the media and their Trump hysterics in action.
maybe cuz hatin trump is something they can all agree on? whereas any local issue is going to have a bunch of people on both sides, and a lot of in between neutrals. (there's also the fact that he's really that bad and deserves it)
|
On July 06 2018 07:35 Danglars wrote:A big inflatable Trump baby over London? That’s practically acquiescence to the Trump agenda these days. The real heat is not serving staffers food and basically taking resistance to your place of work. I’d argue throwing up a taunting balloon is a net positive, because it reminds people that protests of the past can give everyone a smile. Show nested quote +Frankly I think we've got our own issues to protest about, I can't see why the biggest street protest of the year is going to be for a US president, no matter how repellent people find him.
Its the power of the media and their Trump hysterics in action. He’s just a lightning rod. You’ve probably personally spent a lot more time and effort here on Trump compared to UK politics. Now, you’re calling it “their Trump hysterics,” and that’s true to an extent, but can you admit the minutes of hate are deeply satisfying to international audiences (or they’d get much much lower play)?
This is certainly truth.
Our politics just isn't especially interesting (and there's probably not enough of us to keep the thread lively). UK politics is mostly slightly boring, stressed civil servants disagreeing about things in a boring manner. And often not disagreeing that much at the fundament. Despite the existence of PMQs, UK politics is extremely crap for TV, unless you've got patience and interest in the nitty gritty.
It might be why our protests tend towards the colourful.
|
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment.
|
On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment.
In the US, conservatives have given up on legislative change. They know getting rid of the EPA is unpopular. So they destroy it from within by appointing people that are not qualified to run it and want to destroy it. And they appoint judges that will limit the power of the federal government. This is what the billionaires that bankroll the conservative media machine want.
So our coal boy makes perfect sense.
|
United States24805 Posts
On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment.
If you think that's bad you should see who's running the USDA Poultry Division.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 06 2018 08:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment. In the US, conservatives have given up on legislative change. They know getting rid of the EPA is unpopular. So they destroy it from within by appointing people that are not qualified to run it and want to destroy it. And they appoint judges that will limit the power of the federal government. This is what the billionaires that bankroll the conservative media machine want. So our coal boy makes perfect sense.
Where does this leave Rick Perry? I think it makes him a failure by being too competent at not screwing up the DoE?
|
United States24805 Posts
On July 06 2018 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 08:37 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment. In the US, conservatives have given up on legislative change. They know getting rid of the EPA is unpopular. So they destroy it from within by appointing people that are not qualified to run it and want to destroy it. And they appoint judges that will limit the power of the federal government. This is what the billionaires that bankroll the conservative media machine want. So our coal boy makes perfect sense. Where does this leave Rick Perry? I think it makes him a failure by being too competent at not screwing up the DoE?
He seems to be approaching the job in a reasonable manner, but let's not forget how, on the campaign trail, he announced a list of three government organizations he wanted to abolish, except he couldn't remember the third one.... which was intended to be the DOE 
|
On July 06 2018 08:46 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 08:37 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment. In the US, conservatives have given up on legislative change. They know getting rid of the EPA is unpopular. So they destroy it from within by appointing people that are not qualified to run it and want to destroy it. And they appoint judges that will limit the power of the federal government. This is what the billionaires that bankroll the conservative media machine want. So our coal boy makes perfect sense. Where does this leave Rick Perry? I think it makes him a failure by being too competent at not screwing up the DoE? He seems to be approaching the job in a reasonable manner, but let's not forget how, on the campaign trail, he announced a list of three government organizations he wanted to abolish, except he couldn't remember the third one.... which was intended to be the DOE
I'm pretty sure he changed his tune on abolishing the DoE when he learned that it managed the nation's nukes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gur4NvC.jpg)
