Jump to content
Deathray

Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

I keep hearing the term “Spades in the ground”.

 

I’m not sure who they are preparing to bury. 


 

Why are they putting black people in the ground? (he says totally politically incorrectly and referencing a 50s/60s racist term).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American politics:

I think it's possible that McCarthy is expelled as Speaker of the House next week, and the GOP have literally no one else lined up to replace him. The obvious choice of Scalise seems off the table as he's getting chemo. If there are enough GOP (like ~6) fed up with the situation and planning to retire, we could have a flip to Jeffries.

I think Gaetz is getting ousted from his seat entirely though too, as the ethics committee is supposed to come back with their verdict of whether he is a perverted sex trafficker. GOP members have been loudly complaining that he shows them porn all the time. Gaetz is firmly in a red district, so he's easily replaceable for them.
Unstable situations like the above are why the Senate Republicans are content on propping up McConnell.

Share this post


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

American politics:

I think it's possible that McCarthy is expelled as Speaker of the House next week, and the GOP have literally no one else lined up to replace him. The obvious choice of Scalise seems off the table as he's getting chemo. If there are enough GOP (like ~6) fed up with the situation and planning to retire, we could have a flip to Jeffries.

I think Gaetz is getting ousted from his seat entirely though too, as the ethics committee is supposed to come back with their verdict of whether he is a perverted sex trafficker. GOP members have been loudly complaining that he shows them porn all the time. Gaetz is firmly in a red district, so he's easily replaceable for them.
Unstable situations like the above are why the Senate Republicans are content on propping up McConnell.

It is an interesting time in U.S politics. I don't think Dems get a Speaker in any situation though, i.e. Jeffries. 

 

McCarthy has quite literally bent over backwards to be as conservative as possible, yet it is not good enough! They are heading for a massive loss in the House at this rate. It will be reminiscent of 2018.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MortalCaso said:

It is an interesting time in U.S politics. I don't think Dems get a Speaker in any situation though, i.e. Jeffries. 

 

McCarthy has quite literally bent over backwards to be as conservative as possible, yet it is not good enough! They are heading for a massive loss in the House at this rate. It will be reminiscent of 2018.

 

Don't get my hopes up... :rolleyes:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MortalCaso said:

It is an interesting time in U.S politics. I don't think Dems get a Speaker in any situation though, i.e. Jeffries. 

 

McCarthy has quite literally bent over backwards to be as conservative as possible, yet it is not good enough! They are heading for a massive loss in the House at this rate. It will be reminiscent of 2018.

There are GOP members who secretly meet with the Democrats; Boehner and Ryan said as much as their time as Speaker. People like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney who have very Republican values but cannot stand the dangerous situation. They have to do so with a plan of getting the fuck out of there immediately afterward. I think it's most probable they will leave us without a Speaker for days instead of compromise. However, numerous GOP voted in favor of Jeffries' 45 day request because it would have been political suicide to keep going along with the shutdown. Maybe they finally choose someone who is not even a member of the House.

No one likes McCarthy or believes he can get anything done. I would say that the Freedom Caucus in the House are actually not issuing real demands to him. The Senate will reject any bill that they send. Democrats have obvious reasons to dislike him, but their main one is that he is too dumb to talk to. The GOP voted him in as Speaker in order to just get on with things, but also to bully him. (This is actually one of the reasons I think they would not vote in Trump as Speaker as that would require them to address his problematic behavior head on, and he will bully them right back.) From an MSNBC article earlier this year on why McCarthy's own party hates him:

McCarthy occasionally blurts out things Republicans don't want to hear. The Republican likely would’ve become speaker in 2015, but he accidentally told the truth about the political purpose of the GOP’s Benghazi committee, sparking an intense backlash from his ostensible allies.

About a year later, in comments he didn’t know would reach the public, McCarthy joked to House Republicans that Donald Trump was on Vladimir Putin’s payroll, adding, “Swear to God.”

As speaker, he’ll be talking a lot more, and no one should be surprised if he blurts out more comments like these.

McCarthy is not great at counting votes. Headed into the Friday night’s developments on the House floor, McCarthy expressed confidence that he’d finally be elected speaker on the 14th ballot. Asked why he was certain, the Republican responded, “Because I counted.”

He soon after lost on the 14th ballot. It was a reminder that while Pelosi was known for her expertise in vote-counting, it’s a skill her GOP successor sometimes lacks.

Last spring Politico spoke to a senior GOP aide who said McCarthy has a “trust” issue, adding, “He’s a bald-faced liar who literally just has no problem completely lying.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone listening to the fiction being spouted by the Tory Party's Page 3 girl, Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho?

 

They are the party of renewables, apparently. The party that banned onshore wind and reduced investment and support for solar, wind and biomass just a short time ago. Indeed, without Scotland's renewable energy, the UK's renewables sector and move to net zero would be very shoddy indeed.

 

They are the party of the environment, apparently. The party that has overseen the worst pollution of water and air in recent history. The party that will roll back environmental protections leading to more polluted waters to build more houses. The party that will put 5 more years of pollution into the atmosphere by allowing petrol and diesel cars to be sold til 2035.

 

They are the party of energy security, apparently. THIS MY FRIENDS IS THE BIG LIE. More exploration of the North Sea will not give this country more energy security - we already sell 80% of the oil extracted from existing fields. I see no move to build more refineries. That means 100% of any new exploitation will be sold. It will give us no energy security. But it will give the Treasury more money, to spend lining Tory pockets. Jeez!

 

Also, no word on HS2 from Sunak. The North has been betrayed. The country has been betrayed. The young of today will live on the new, smaller UK and be the first to live in a desert, at this rate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has borrowed Rishi Sunak’s trousers.

 

IMG_8352.thumb.jpeg.4014d69a5635017c1c9ed9de4769dc88.jpeg

 

Also, ‘Make Britain Grow Again’? Jesus H Trump :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling Sunak might be ousted next month in a vote of no confidence and Suella or Liz Truss (Again) takes over 

  • Shocked 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I have a feeling Sunak might be ousted next month in a vote of no confidence and Suella or Liz Truss (Again) takes over 

 

He assumed office on 25th October. The years grace is up at that point and letters into the Chair of the 1922 committee can be counted.

 

However if you were a potential leader in waiting would you want to lead the Conservatives into the next General election within 14 months and potentially be just another former Prime Minister. 

 

If I were a Tory hopeful I would probably plan my campaign to be leader at the 2029 election so sometime in 2027 would be the best time to make the move

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I have a feeling Sunak might be ousted next month in a vote of no confidence and Suella or Liz Truss (Again) takes over 

No doubt just before World War 3 takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

I have a feeling Sunak might be ousted next month in a vote of no confidence and Suella or Liz Truss (Again) takes over 

 

So we can rule that out then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the BBC thread, but I consider this to be in some way political.

Should the BBC be spending licence money on detective work exposing a sleazy sex scandal that frankly has little importance to the wider world?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66889779

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Toast said:

I can't find the BBC thread, but I consider this to be in some way political.

Should the BBC be spending licence money on detective work exposing a sleazy sex scandal that frankly has little importance to the wider world?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66889779

 

Abercrombie & Fitch are a significant player in the fashion industry. This is exploitation in the same way that under paying workers in developing nations is exploitation.  Journalists don't know where their stories will take them. 

 

It is also important in the narrative that if you are rich and powerful you cannot behave as though the law does not apply to you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I can't find the BBC thread, but I consider this to be in some way political.

Should the BBC be spending licence money on detective work exposing a sleazy sex scandal that frankly has little importance to the wider world?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66889779

Yes. Panorama has often been about scandals and malpractice in the private sector. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toast said:

I can't find the BBC thread, but I consider this to be in some way political.

Should the BBC be spending licence money on detective work exposing a sleazy sex scandal that frankly has little importance to the wider world?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66889779

Abercrombie's policies don't just involve a few models groomed to have sex at parties. That is one layer that needs to be investigated, but they are a particularly egregious offender on all levels of operation. All of their stores in regular suburban malls had policies to sexually groom teen/20s white males to be gay. It was not even just targeted toward people who worked or shopped there. They had a culture where everyone was given a number score on looks, and if you were not white, you were immediately categorized as ugly. They encouraged widespread racism, selling clothing with racial slurs on them. You literally couldn't opt out of Abercrombie's bullshit if you wanted to. Abercrombie's advertising deliberately targeted minors to have these values. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/apr/19/abercrombie-fitch-netflix-documentary-fashion-discrimination It was a situation that unfortunately had an outreach of millions of millennials when we were teenagers. The thing that drives me nuts about the whole thing is that it was not some secret that we were blinded by. The comedy skit show Mad TV had a whole series of sketches on Abercrombie grooming straight boys to have sex with one another, and how when they finally hired non-white people, they were required to hide in the back and never be out on the floor. The US Supreme Court found Abercrombie to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act 8 years ago for religious discrimination against muslim women's scarves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission_v._Abercrombie_%26_Fitch_Stores To me, hearing the stories of the models who went to the private residences is also an important piece of this; I don't know why anyone would leave them off the victim list.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it was common knowledge?  I just think the BBC should report the news, not play detectives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Toast said:

So it was common knowledge?  I just think the BBC should report the news, not play detectives. 

 

You find news by playing detective. Investigative journalism doesn't go against their no bias policy.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So it was common knowledge?  I just think the BBC should report the news, not play detectives. 

 

They've also investigated atrocities committed in Ukraine. So is that news or playing detectives?

Share this post


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

So it was common knowledge?  I just think the BBC should report the news, not play detectives. 

Yes in the 1990s-2000s. I had best friends who worked there, but also best friends who regularly "joked" about how many steps they could take into the store without being kicked out for being too ugly/brown. Their shopping bags had photos that are all suggestive shots of naked men. This is a company that sells khakis and rugby shirts. Ofcourse their principal photographer has also been sued for sexual assault several years ago.
I'm a woman who does not wear khakis; I really should not have in-depth knowledge of this fucking clothing store but it was their mission to harass teenagers 20 years ago so I do.

I think all journalists need to have ethical investigative skills, regardless if their position is the morning show, weather, red carpet, etc. Otherwise, why even bother watching them? Just look up an illiterate airhead on tiktok.
My local newspaper, Boston Globe, has won several awards for playing detectives: exposing the FBI/Mafia crime network, as well as the Catholic church pedophilia. Both of these topics impacted everyone in Boston. I think the collapse of supporting the local journalism industries leads to a collapse of democracy; you just get Rupert Murdoch dictating what you cover. The press are referred to as the 4th estate as they have such an important role.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's great to know that the UK isn't the only political basket case in the developed world.

 

You've got Trump coming out and saying he didn't commit fraud, when the Court has found he did. He says the Banks got paid and made loads of money. Fair enough, but the US taxpayer seems to have been defrauded of millions of dollars. The same taxpayers that he is asking to vote for him?

 

Then you have Matt Gaetz attempting to oust Kevin McCarthy. The same Matt Gaetz who was alleged to have had relations with minors? How's that going anyway? And then he says this is all about Congress passing laws, when what he is doing is stopping that process. Incredible!

 

It's all a very new low. Imo.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lilham said:

My local newspaper, Boston Globe, has won several awards for playing detectives: exposing the FBI/Mafia crime network, as well as the Catholic church pedophilia. Both of these topics impacted everyone in Boston. I think the collapse of supporting the local journalism industries leads to a collapse of democracy; you just get Rupert Murdoch dictating what you cover. The press are referred to as the 4th estate as they have such an important role.

 

Without wishing to trivialise your valid and well-made point, I'd just like to say that Spotlight is a great film about the Catholic Church scandal.

 

And to try to highlight how Toast's OP differs from your example, the Boston Globe is a privately owned company and what their owners choose to spend their money on is up to them. But the BBC is funded by the licence fee, paid by British citizens. I guess her argument is whether this is a worthwhile use of that money. I'd argue yes, but understand why others might think not.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use