Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

My high school social studies teacher might have offered another suggestion: Ceremonial monarch. He thought Ronald Reagan was pretty bad as president, but thought he would have made a great figurehead king to make vapid speeches about how great the country is, have photo ops with foreign dignitaries, open sessions of Congress and new shopping malls, stuff like that. Do the emotional, ritual stuff while boring professional people do the work of government. He thought it unfortunate that the US combined the roles of Head of State and Head of Government.

 

King Donald could do the important work of making simple white folk think Someone Who Gets Them is in charge, telling them how great they are for being Americans, while wielding no real power.

 

Except that a major part of a ceremonial monarch's function is to make nice with foreign dignitaries, say all the right things at public events, and the like. Donald Trump is an uncouth boor who doesn't know when to shut up. Also consider that Trump publicly saying just those things appears to be a significant factor in stirring up social unrest in America today. That would not go away just because he lacks the power to act on those expressed feelings. And a lot of what he's tried to do practically along those lines has been blocked by the courts anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Donald Trump is going to let a little detail like the Supreme Court stop him. He's already trying to figure out how to get the citizenship question on the census, even with the Court's decision last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DShomshak said:

 

Darn it, I knew my local public radio station was airing it at 8 but I got distracted and forgot to tune in. Maybe I can listen to it online next time I get to the library.

 

Did they do a new version of "76 Unknowns"? It's never been more appropriate.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Yes, they did.  As well as a new version of "The Hardest Rhyme" (with Pete Buttigieg as the hardest rhyme).

 

Lots of fun, though I noticed that the audience was very skewed toward the older side.  Like, about 50% were older than me, and I'm 55.  At a guess, I'd say there were less than a dozen there under 30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pariah said:

Like Donald Trump is going to let a little detail like the Supreme Court stop him. He's already trying to figure out how to get the citizenship question on the census, even with the Court's decision last week.

Remember, during his campaign, he said he was going to abolish the Supreme Court?  That was another one of those moments where I couldn't believe that wasn't the end of it.  In any sane country, demonstrating knowledge that poor of civics and the concept of checks and balances would have been shooting yourself in the foot.  Here in Rednekistan, it was a fekting selling point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CrosshairCollie said:

Remember, during his campaign, he said he was going to abolish the Supreme Court?  That was another one of those moments where I couldn't believe that wasn't the end of it.  In any sane country, demonstrating knowledge that poor of civics and the concept of checks and balances would have been shooting yourself in the foot.  Here in Rednekistan, it was a fekting selling point.

 

This is the world they wanted, the world they created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A book I just read prompted by the discussion of the earlier comparison of St. Louis and a drastically different city in this thread. It is actually a book about how the federal efforts to promote the home building sector and increase homeowndership from WWI through the New Deal until the beginning of the 1970s, explicitly required that public housing projects needed to be for whites only if they were going to receive the backing and interest rates offered in such programs, and how this and other policies by federal and state governments further ensured that African-American housing would become increasingly segregated by race, increasingly costly in comparison to equivalent housing for whites, and increasingly insecure as a result of this.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/

 

This included a clause prohibiting resale to African=American. Considering that the majority of the middle class in America would owe much of their success, and the bulk of their equity, to these programs, and a whole race of people were denied this, is just criminal.

 

Oh, and African-American vets got screwed, too. They were more likely to be dishonourably discharged from military branches, and it's statistically certain that a great many cases would have been racism, and given that they often were denied their benefits for buying a home even if not dishonourably discharged, as well as not being paid as much as their white counterparts.

 

And this is through to the early seventies. It was a direct extension of Jim Crow at the federal level, involving the largest potential investment most Americans would individually make in their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CrosshairCollie said:

And that systemic, institutionalized racism is still taking place today.

A major part of the book is that that form of institutionalized and de jure discrimination was not ended until after such programs were already largely played out, and that we still are under the massive influence of that institutional racism's effect.

 

Stopping things like discriminatory hiring practices and ending discriminatory housing practices are drastically different acts. The first can actually end the influence quite quickly, if it is implemented effectively. Ending disciminatory housing practices after they have been in place does nothing to change the resulting forced segregation of people. The fact that it was ruled unconstitutional before the bulk of the practice took place, and that the states and the federal governments bent over backwards to ignore the constitutional question until the practice was no longer needed to maintain the forced segregation of people is telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is noone covering the less than glowing report from Britain's Ambassador in Washington about the Trump Presidency to the UK Government??

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

 

I would not normally post a link to the Daily Mail as it is a horrid little paper whose editorial content is driven by "Who do we hate, why do we hate them, what should we fear" but this is a story they broke...

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Is noone covering the less than glowing report from Britain's Ambassador in Washington about the Trump Presidency to the UK Government??

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

 

I would not normally post a link to the Daily Mail as it is a horrid little paper whose editorial content is driven by "Who do we hate, why do we hate them, what should we fear" but this is a story they broke...

 

Doc

 

NBC News website had a story about it this morning. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-k-officials-scramble-top-diplomat-u-s-blasts-trump-n1027286

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the only thing notable about the story is that it became public. Anyone who's been paying attention to what Trump actually says and does has known all that for years. Every leak we've gotten regarding private remarks from Republican politicians and White House officials say they know it too.

 

My reaction to the story was, "Thanks, Captain Obvious." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously the story is about the leak rather than the assessment.  It is nonetheless interesting that such assessment is being made in Westminster, that the Prime Minister has said she does not agree with it BUT has said she has every confidence in the Ambassador. 🙂  Some difficult conversations being had in London and Washington today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do. But actually, "Captain Obvious" has been a meme for many years, long before those commercials gave it a face. "Thanks, Captain Obvious," is a sarcastic comeback to someone who states something so apparent it's not worth mentioning. It's up there with, "No sh!t, Sherlock." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...