Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

As far as affecting Trump's future, I'm not sure what Bolton has to say will make any difference. The people who have already decided Trump is guilty, and those to whom that doesn't matter, aren't going to change their positions; and I don't think there are enough undecided who'll be swayed by Bolton's statements, because it's not an issue that's important to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, LL. Given that it takes a 2/3 majority to convict (which is never going to happen) the only hope I have is for just a handful of Republicans to vote to convict so that just more than half of the Senate votes to convict. It won't remove him from office but it will send a message that a majority of people think he's guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

It would likely take some new revelation regarding something even more serious for Trump's goose to be fully cooked.  

 

It would specifically have to be something that their base would believe.  Like a rally which he said the debt didn't matter.  Multiple times. 

 

Or fox news completely turning on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

As far as affecting Trump's future, I'm not sure what Bolton has to say will make any difference. The people who have already decided Trump is guilty, and those to whom that doesn't matter, aren't going to change their positions; and I don't think there are enough undecided who'll be swayed by Bolton's statements, because it's not an issue that's important to them.

 

At this point, I'm thinking the goal is less to convict on impeachment but rather to make sure Trump can't shake off the impeachment's albatross before the election. A potent testimony from a solid conservative with a few damning sound bites might make that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for our UK Herophiles: in your estimation, is Boris Johnson arrogant or stupid enough to think Scotland wouldn't be a political problem for him post-Brexit? Does he just not care about Scotland, or Northern Ireland, as long as he gets to run England? Or is he playing a clever game that some of us on this side of the pond haven't perceived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

At this point, I'm thinking the goal is less to convict on impeachment but rather to make sure Trump can't shake off the impeachment's albatross before the election. A potent testimony from a solid conservative with a few damning sound bites might make that happen.

 

Like it or not, I think the impeachment will amount to a badge of honor to Trump voters, because trump obviously got under the Dem's skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

A question for our UK Herophiles: in your estimation, is Boris Johnson arrogant or stupid enough to think Scotland wouldn't be a political problem for him post-Brexit? Does he just not care about Scotland, or Northern Ireland, as long as he gets to run England? Or is he playing a clever game that some of us on this side of the pond haven't perceived?

 

when it comes down to it, I dont think that Boris is either arrogant or stupid.  I think he considered Scotland a political problem that would exist regardless of his actions, he is not loved there and the bumbling Englishman act does not play as well for that audience.  I do not think that he wants to be the Prime Minister that presides over the break-up of the UK but I do think he underestimates the strength of opinion that is growing in Scotland and the way his NI solution will drive the nationalist agenda over there.  He had a Brexit tiger by the tail and he could see a majority in Westminster waiting as long as he kept hold (with all of the collateral damage that might entail).

 

I think Boris' decisions as far as Scotland and NI go, have been made with an eye to that Brexit base (which does not care about either).  I think he believes he can hold things together until he is not as dependent on that constituency and then resolve some of the issues.  The problem is that, to me, the independence momentum in Scotland is looking very much like the Brexit momentum where rational arguments about meta-level trade decisions and how much it might cost are becoming less and less relevant. 

 

Boris will use the once in a generation vote for as long as he can.  It will be interesting to see whether the momentum for independence builds up to a level it cannot be ignored or Boris manages to break it down.  He is fighting against the Scottish Labour Party (unionist instincts) deciding that independence, regardless of the cost, would not only get rid of the Tories in Westminster but also shoot the SNP fox (what do they stand for when Scotland is independent, what is their raison d'etre?).

 

That is my perspective (not just as UK, not just as a very interested observer in the House of Commons, but also as a Scot).

 

🙂

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Badger said:

Like it or not, I think the impeachment will amount to a badge of honor to Trump voters, because trump obviously got under the Dem's skin.

 

I think someone I know was saying recently, from living in the south, how surprised he was by how many conservative voters 'hate this country'.  I wish I could remember the quote... but it'd be no one you'd know.

 

Getting under 'their' skin is literally the course of action people take when they are angry and have nothing else to use to solve their problems.  I'm sure there's some 'both sidesism' there.  People are upset right now.

 

I'd try and be fair and give the Republican congress some credit and say there's some merit to the 'both sidesism' on a lot of political issues... but I'm an environmentalist, and feel they are eagerly complicit in what will be the nearly-scientifically-guaranteed end of the human race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I'd try and be fair and give the Republican congress some credit and say there's some merit to the 'both sidesism' on a lot of political issues... but I'm an environmentalist, and feel they are eagerly complicit in what will be the nearly-scientifically-guaranteed end of the human race?

 

(Not that I think much of the establishment intends on implementing the measures that would be necessary to change that sort of thing, but they are being given leeway only because of these 'certain individuals'.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I think someone I know was saying recently, from living in the south, how surprised he was by how many conservative voters 'hate this country'.  I wish I could remember the quote... but it'd be no one you'd know.

 

Getting under 'their' skin is literally the course of action people take when they are angry and have nothing else to use to solve their problems.  I'm sure there's some 'both sidesism' there.  People are upset right now.

 

I'd try and be fair and give the Republican congress some credit and say there's some merit to the 'both sidesism' on a lot of political issues... but I'm an environmentalist, and feel they are eagerly complicit in what will be the nearly-scientifically-guaranteed end of the human race?

 

well, since I actually do live in the south, I can say it is a mistake to say they hate the country.  just like it was a mistake during the Iraq war to say liberals hate this country.   I do know they are repulsed by the fact they see the country trending towards socialism, and are desperate to alter that trend.  In my experience, that is the key issue for a lot here, whether they outright admit it or not.  A big issue is the 2 sides see the need to take the same country into a different direction each.  And it hasn't helped that both sides hierarchy are intentionally mis-labeling the others' motives to some extent.

 

But, yeah, I can understand some of the frustration for environmentalist, since my big thing is fiscal sanity, and I see both sides racing to drive off that cliff.  I've long since resigned myself to having the front row seat to that.   I've expressed this before on the boards.  But, anyway, spending money like a drunken monkey seems to be the one of the few things both sides agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Badger said:

But, yeah, I can understand some of the frustration for environmentalist, since my big thing is fiscal sanity, and I see both sides racing to drive off that cliff.  I've long since resigned myself to having the front row seat to that.   I've expressed this before on the boards.  But, anyway, spending money like a drunken monkey seems to be the one of the few things both sides agree on.

 

Which is frustrating as heck and unfortunate.  Especially when that money being spent isn't being spent on us.  It would be different if it was a genuine investment, but it's often not (or poorly mismanaged).

 

We can rebuild an economy.  But I am more sympathetic as of late to what you are talking about.  But we are behind the rest of the world on a lot of social programs... and most of our money is being spent on systems that are overcharging us for their services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

He is fighting against the Scottish Labour Party (unionist instincts) deciding that independence, regardless of the cost, would not only get rid of the Tories in Westminster but also shoot the SNP fox (what do they stand for when Scotland is independent, what is their raison d'etre?).

 

I don't quite get the "get rid of the Tories in Westminster" part.

 

Electorally, Scotland is very weak for the Tories. Wouldn't getting rid of it strengthen them in the long term?

Or are you suggesting that supervising the breakup of the UK would lead to a backlash? That would be plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Boris, losing Scotland taints his legacy "the PM that saw the breakup of the nation". 

 

Labour voters have tended to vote for Union.  Boris needs to keep them voting for Union.  If Scottish Labour comes to the conclusion that independence is the best way to get rid of the Tories in Westminster, then the independence arithmetic swings hard to leave.

 

It might suit electoral arithmetic for the Tories to lose Scotland but it looks bad for the PM that causes/allows it to happen.

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

If Scottish Labour comes to the conclusion that independence is the best way to get rid of the Tories in Westminster, then the independence arithmetic swings hard to leave.

 

Oh, I get it. Getting rid of the Tories in Westminster by getting rid of Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I think someone I know was saying recently, from living in the south, how surprised he was by how many conservative voters 'hate this country'.  I wish I could remember the quote... but it'd be no one you'd know.

 

Once again, I'll recommend Arlie Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land, her sociological study of a Tea Party-voting, Trump-loving parish in Louisiana. She found people who love their country fiercely and fervently... as it was, or as they imagine it was. And they see that country dying around them, or already dead, replaced by a United States of America they find horribly alien.

 

Oddly, she found a strong environmental streak, or at least a strong love of the natural world. But they associate the environmental movement with an urban liberal elite that they believe treats them with contempt. Potential environmental activism also clashes with a love of industrial capitalsim, the traditional source of blue-collar jobs. (Though I would call their attitude less capitalist than industrial feudalist -- the big company that owns the factory taking the role, and receiving the deference, even reverence, of the Lord of the Manor. But that's my interpretation, not Hochschild's.)

 

There's also strong white supremacy, though Hochschild's subjects deny racism. They feel that hard-working (and white) people like them are getting left behind, while people not like them (many of them, incidentally, not white) are cheating -- given undeserved rewards by the urban coastal liberal elite as political patronage. "Cutting in line" is the metaphor Hocschild tried an her subjects, to which they agreed expressed their view.

 

Hochschild evinces considerable sympathy for her subjects, even though she shows they also believe many things that provably are not true. After three years of their hero Donald Trump, I can't quite stretch my sympathies that far. But then, I am one of the over-educated urban coastal "elites" who are destroying their America.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Once again, I'll recommend Arlie Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land, her sociological study of a Tea Party-voting, Trump-loving parish in Louisiana. She found people who love their country fiercely and fervently... as it was, or as they imagine it was. And they see that country dying around them, or already dead, replaced by a United States of America they find horribly alien.

 

I do remember hearing about that study, but I couldn't remember what it was called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.  Mr Johnson sought to exclude certain press outlets from a media briefing and the rest of the journalists left the room...perhaps there is hope for the British media...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/feb/03/brexit-news-boris--johnson-speech-barnier-cabinet-ministers-claims-uk-does-not-need-trade-deal-with-eu-ahead-of-pms-speech-live-news?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

EDIT:

Better link to the story - the one above will contain different stories as time goes on...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/political-journalists-boycott-no-10-briefing-after-reporter-ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hmmm.  Mr Johnson sought to exclude certain press outlets from a media briefing and the rest of the =journalists left the room...perhaps there is hope for the British media...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/feb/03/brexit-news-boris--johnson-speech-barnier-cabinet-ministers-claims-uk-does-not-need-trade-deal-with-eu-ahead-of-pms-speech-live-news?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

This might be the solution to the Trump problem here in the United States. If the media all took a vow to ignore him for a full week, he might decide it's no longer fun and just drop out.

 

Or he might physically wither and atrophy from lack of attention.

 

We can only hope.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...