Political Banter and Debate Thread

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 14:07

It's a cunning bluff. Mr Trump and Mr Putin make a new peace treaty, leaving NATO in the lurch. We, because of the 'special relationship', follow suit, and loan the tech to Russia. They make an advance on central Europe, try to fire one of our bombs, and 'BANG'. Bye-bye Moscow.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 14:28

It's the entire cover up thing that they're going on about...

It's the military, they're always secretive. And for good reason.

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 14:34

Mr Dave wrote:

It's the entire cover up thing that they're going on about...

It's the military, they're always secretive. And for good reason.

Oh, I agree with those parts, but if you're asking the Commons to vote to fund something, MPs should be made aware, even in a private meeting, of any issues surrounding the technology.

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

In case you're not watching US politics right now:

1) The US press secretary, Sean Spicer, said "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in-person and around the globe."
2) On being resoundingly proven to be a lie by videos, photographs, and public transit records, Kellyanne Conway (a senior Trump aide) explained that Spicer was merely offering “alternative facts”.

I can't decide which explanation is scarier: that this is sinister doublespeak or flailing incompetence.

I've a growing nagging feeling that there are few, if any, people now working in the West Wing who aren't severely mentally ill, and in need of treatment and care, rather than, say, suited to running the most powerful nation on Earth.

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 14:37

Kern wrote:

Mr Dave wrote:

It's the entire cover up thing that they're going on about...

It's the military, they're always secretive. And for good reason.

Oh, I agree with those parts, but if you're asking the Commons to vote to fund something, MPs should be made aware, even in a private meeting, of any issues surrounding the technology.

"That bad news for us, Minister, is the guidance system leaves a lot to desired. The good news for Dionne Warwick is that San Jose is now easily located".

myp · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 14:38

That's insulting to those of us who do have mental health issues and yet manage not to be extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists.

Edit: to Nik, obv.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16570

Kern wrote:

Mr Dave wrote:

It's the entire cover up thing that they're going on about...

It's the military, they're always secretive. And for good reason.

Oh, I agree with those parts, but if you're asking the Commons to vote to fund something, MPs should be made aware, even in a private meeting, of any issues surrounding the technology.

I don't think so, their entire days would be taken up with reams and reams of technical reports from every development programme everywhere. If this failure was indicative of some fundamental problem which had not been subsequently addressed then perhaps.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

MaliA wrote:

Kern wrote:

Mr Dave wrote:

It's the entire cover up thing that they're going on about...

It's the military, they're always secretive. And for good reason.

Oh, I agree with those parts, but if you're asking the Commons to vote to fund something, MPs should be made aware, even in a private meeting, of any issues surrounding the technology.

"That bad news for us, Minister, is the guidance system leaves a lot to desired. The good news for Dionne Warwick is that San Jose is now easily located".

Oh, bravo sir. Bravo.

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Lonewolves wrote:

That's insulting to those of us who do have mental health issues and yet manage not to be extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists.

Edit: to Nik, obv.

It's a venn diagram, obviously. Not all people with mental health issues (which is most of us, at one time or another, myself included) are extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists but all extreme... you get the idea. Also, note the use of "severely" and the fact that I wouldn't say it's a huge insult to anyone to say they're not suited to running the USA (again, myself included). The difference with this lot is that most of us (mental health issues or otherwise) are self-aware enough to know whether we are capable of running a country or not.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Nik wrote:

suited to running the most powerful nation on Earth.

Not for long!

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16570

That's the spirit! Wait until the British Lions rise to rule the waves once more post-Brexit!

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Nik wrote:

suited to running the most powerful nation on Earth.

Not for long!

They might get a job in the newly-formed USRA government.

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Lonewolves wrote:

That's insulting to those of us who do have mental health issues and yet manage not to be extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists.

Edit: to Nik, obv.

Sorry, meant to add that if you genuinely felt insulted (not inferring anything about your own mental health... I should really stop digging this hole), please accept my apologies for using such a broad-brush term and assurances that it wasn't meant in that way.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:04

Nik wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

That's insulting to those of us who do have mental health issues and yet manage not to be extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists.

Edit: to Nik, obv.

It's a venn diagram, obviously. Not all people with mental health issues (which is most of us, at one time or another, myself included) are extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists but all extreme... you get the idea. Also, note the use of "severely" and the fact that I wouldn't say it's a huge insult to anyone to say they're not suited to running the USA (again, myself included). The difference with this lot is that most of us (mental health issues or otherwise) are self-aware enough to know whether we are capable of running a country or not.

I think people can be bigoted fascist pricks without being mentally ill. You're letting them off the hook if you think otherwise.

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Lonewolves wrote:

Nik wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

That's insulting to those of us who do have mental health issues and yet manage not to be extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists.

Edit: to Nik, obv.

It's a venn diagram, obviously. Not all people with mental health issues (which is most of us, at one time or another, myself included) are extreme right wing hypercapitalist post-factualists but all extreme... you get the idea. Also, note the use of "severely" and the fact that I wouldn't say it's a huge insult to anyone to say they're not suited to running the USA (again, myself included). The difference with this lot is that most of us (mental health issues or otherwise) are self-aware enough to know whether we are capable of running a country or not.

I think people can be bigoted fascist pricks without being mentally ill. You're letting them off the hook if you think otherwise.

Very true, but I was referring more to the apparent incompetence shown by Spicer and Conway in the handling of the business of headcount at the inauguration. The very fact they're even bothering to address such trivia in such an overly-defensive and nonsensical manner appears to show them sporting the same thin skin as their boss. Such an approach, in this specific instance, would appear to have more to do with deep-seated emotional issues rather than outright fascism and bigotry (again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting for a second that they're not bigoted fascist pricks), but maybe you're right and I'm being too charitable. It seems odd though, that whatever their motivation for pursuing that line, no one in the White House would stop and say "we're making ourselves look ridiculous".

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:21

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Nik wrote:

The very fact they're even bothering to address such trivia in such an overly-defensive and nonsensical manner appears to show them sporting the same thin skin as their boss. Such an approach, in this specific instance, would appear to have more to do with deep-seated emotional issues rather than outright fascism and bigotry

If you want a vaguely plausable but hella-sinister explanation, look no further than Adam Curtis's theory that manufactured spin like this feud with the media is now designed to keep us permanently confused and baffled about what is going on. Some number of pre-existing Trump's supporters will conclude the media is wrong, but (more importantly) some number will see the blatant contradictions and simply shut down, stop paying attention entirely, decide no-one can be trusted. And they can be led like sheep.

I'm not sure I buy it entirely, it's all a bit conspiracy theory. (Disclaimer, I haven't watched the doc, but have read a few essays about the ideas in it.) But I can see how there may be some truth.

devilman · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:33

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:34

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

The people in the room applauding were brought along by the White House.

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:38

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Nik wrote:

The very fact they're even bothering to address such trivia in such an overly-defensive and nonsensical manner appears to show them sporting the same thin skin as their boss. Such an approach, in this specific instance, would appear to have more to do with deep-seated emotional issues rather than outright fascism and bigotry

If you want a vaguely plausable but hella-sinister explanation, look no further than Adam Curtis's theory that manufactured spin like this feud with the media is now designed to keep us permanently confused and baffled about what is going on. Some number of pre-existing Trump's supporters will conclude the media is wrong, but (more importantly) some number will see the blatant contradictions and simply shut down, stop paying attention entirely, decide no-one can be trusted. And they can be led like sheep.

I'm not sure I buy it entirely, it's all a bit conspiracy theory. (Disclaimer, I haven't watched the doc, but have read a few essays about the ideas in it.) But I can see how there may be some truth.

I tried to watch it last year (I've always enjoyed his work) but gave up half-way through and haven't got round to completing it. If you watch any 'RT' that kind of approach is evident: never usually completely lying, but playing on the whole 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' approach.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:39

Cras wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

The people in the room applauding were brought along by the White House.

That's better then. I was worried it was the intelligence services employees. I know they weren't keen on Hillary, but by god...

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 15:39

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

As a pretentious eighteen year old, I once read James Joyce's 'Ulysses'. Perhaps Mr Trump is a Joycean?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Lonewolves wrote:

Cras wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

The people in the room applauding were brought along by the White House.

That's better then. I was worried it was the intelligence services employees. I know they weren't keen on Hillary, but by god...

Not a lot better. The president has a sycophancy corps.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Cras wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

Kern wrote:

I've read two transcripts of Mr Trump's recent speech to the CIA and I can't make head or tail of it. Either he's a far smarter guy than me, or these are fake, or he really speaks like that and it isn't an act.

I've just been skimming over it myself and it's just nonsense.

Utter gibberish. And he kept getting applause for it. So odd.

The people in the room applauding were brought along by the White House.

How do you know that? Do you know know it, or "someone said on facebook/twitter" know it?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

They were in a separate group from either the press or the CIA staff and a few of the pool reporters have said that they were brought in with the president's staff.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16570

I genuinely wonder if he's really as filled with self-confidence as he tries to appear or if he is in fact spending sleepless nights overcome with a rising sense of panic about just how far out of his depth he is. Does he sits in meetings with all these people, actual geniuses lots of them, all right at the tops of their games and just ends up staring right through them unable to even comprehend what's going on. I mean he only really made himself president by accident. I predict either ill-health or "ill-heath" terminating his presidency.

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Nik wrote:

The very fact they're even bothering to address such trivia in such an overly-defensive and nonsensical manner appears to show them sporting the same thin skin as their boss. Such an approach, in this specific instance, would appear to have more to do with deep-seated emotional issues rather than outright fascism and bigotry

If you want a vaguely plausable but hella-sinister explanation, look no further than Adam Curtis's theory that manufactured spin like this feud with the media is now designed to keep us permanently confused and baffled about what is going on. Some number of pre-existing Trump's supporters will conclude the media is wrong, but (more importantly) some number will see the blatant contradictions and simply shut down, stop paying attention entirely, decide no-one can be trusted. And they can be led like sheep.

I'm not sure I buy it entirely, it's all a bit conspiracy theory. (Disclaimer, I haven't watched the doc, but have read a few essays about the ideas in it.) But I can see how there may be some truth.

I have watched the doc, Doc (

) and I think I take the same position as you. I tend to assume that 99 times out of 100 apparent incompetence is just what it appears to be - cock-up rather than conspiracy is the likely cause. (Not that that is much comfort when we're talking about people in positions of power.) But there is a glimmer of plausibility in the theory. If it's true, I guess a lot of have seen (anecdotal) evidence of it working, with the amount of people on social media saying things things along the lines of "I'm sick of Trump and don't want to hear anything more about it". Either way, I think it's important that the press keep challenging* the bullshit.

(*Challenging in a dignified way, maintaining journalistic integrity, rather than in a Sun/Mail/Murdoch/Dacre/Morgan way.)

Nik · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1982

Attachment:

16195997_10158012381405468_1643163432650481946_n.jpg

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 16:23

markg wrote:

I genuinely wonder if he's really as filled with self-confidence as he tries to appear or if he is in fact spending sleepless nights overcome with a rising sense of panic about just how far out of his depth he is. Does he sits in meetings with all these people, actual geniuses lots of them, all right at the tops of their games and just ends up staring right through them unable to even comprehend what's going on. I mean he only really made himself president by accident. .

No matter how hard I tried to avoid it, I couldn't help seeing some of the clips from Friday, and Mr Trump didn't exactly come across as being happy about the situation. Almost like Boris Johnson on Brexit Day, or the 2005 Labour conference. Something deeply funereal about it all.

I'm reminded of Harry Truman's quote after hearing of FDR's death:

Quote:

Boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now. I don't know whether you fellows ever had a load of hay fall on you, but when they told me yesterday what had happened, I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me. I've got the most terribly responsible job a man ever had.

I'd like to think that there's a whole redemption arc worked out, but then I realise that this isn't a TV show.

Quote:

I predict either ill-health or "ill-heath" terminating his presidency

Check section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the US constitution. The moment has been prepared for.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Kern wrote:

Check section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the US constitution. The moment has been prepared for.

The possible back and forth if Pence tried that and Trump resisted would be quite the thing to behold.

For those who don't know:

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Quote:

Section 4 is meant to be invoked should the President's incapacitation prevent him from discharging his duties, but he is unable or unwilling to provide the written declaration called for by Section 3. The President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.

Should the Vice President and Cabinet believe the President is still disabled, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. If not already in session, the Congress must then assemble within 48 hours. The Congress has 21 days to decide the issue. If within the 21 days two-thirds of each house of Congress vote that the President is incapacitated, the Vice President would "continue" to be Acting President. Should the Congress resolve the issue in favor of the President, or make no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would "resume" discharging the powers and duties of his office. The use of the words "continue" and "resume" imply that the Vice President remains Acting President while Congress deliberates.

However, the President may again submit a written declaration of recovery to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House. That declaration could be responded to by the Acting President and the Cabinet in the same way as stated earlier. The specified 21-day Congressional procedure would start again.

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 16:31

Incidentally (and although I've mentioned it before it's worth repeating), it's worth spending half an hour or so reading the US constitution. It's only 5,000 words or so, and gives a good background to both past and present debates in US politics. Drink every time slavery is alluded to, but not mentioned.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Kern wrote:

Drink three-fifths of a shot every time slavery is alluded to, but not mentioned.

FTFY

Kern · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 16:33

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Kern wrote:

Drink three-fifths of a shot every time slavery is alluded to, but not mentioned.

FTFY

o/

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Kern wrote:

o/

\o

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Brilliant

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16570

Ha ha, yeah. Good one!

*looks away confused*

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

markg wrote:

Ha ha, yeah. Good one!

*looks away confused*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

In a direct copy and paste from a West Wing plot point, the Global Gag Rule is tagged onto the Foreign Aid Bill - stopping funds going to any organisation that carries out, advises on, or even mentions abortion.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/trum ... .hdal0A1Rz

Grim... · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 19:31

Cras wrote:

Global Gag Rule is tagged onto the Foreign Aid Bill

Wait, has this happened?

Also "FAKE NEWS"

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Grim... wrote:

Cras wrote:

Global Gag Rule is tagged onto the Foreign Aid Bill

Wait, has this happened?

Also "FAKE NEWS"

Yes, although actually worse - it's not tagged onto the bill, it's immediate by executive order

Here, have it from TheHill:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/thehill.co ... ent=safari

Grim... · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 19:45

It was one of the first things that Obama got rid of, wasn't it?

I can see it being used as a political tennis ball for some time.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

I think it does tend to reappear and disappear, indeed.

Also first Gallup approval/disapproval poll is out. Wow.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Jesus Christ, Nixon only had 5% disapproval vs Obama at 13?! Was people's approach to politics just much more deferential then?

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 20:07

Nixon was ace in Point Break. The greatest ever film.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

MrChris wrote:

Jesus Christ, Nixon only had 5% disapproval vs Obama at 13?! Was people's approach to politics just much more deferential then?

I do think that's part of it. Also less partisan.

GazChap · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 20:16

I'm not sure I like the way they refer to the Bush family in that chart. Make them sound like a bunch of clones. We'll get a Bush 47 who's bald, has a barcode on the back of his head and is more trigger happy than any other President on record.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Mon Jan 23, 2017 20:35

MrChris wrote:

Jesus Christ, Nixon only had 5% disapproval vs Obama at 13?! Was people's approach to politics just much more deferential then?

How news was handled was slightly different then

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38478

Mr Dave wrote:

MrChris wrote:

Jesus Christ, Nixon only had 5% disapproval vs Obama at 13?! Was people's approach to politics just much more deferential then?

How news was handled was slightly different then

Well, Nixon fucked that up for everyone, didn't he?

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:30

It's easy to forget that by the time of the 1968 election, the Democrats and the presidency were in a terrible state. Nixon, and his promise of ending the Vietnam war, offered a beacon of stability. And he then went on to win a second victory in 1972. Perhaps his downfall was wanting it too hard.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK