• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

scaramanga said:
I see you and I raise you Angela Rayner - the woman who probably doesn't even need to take off both shoes to count up to her IQ.
Click to expand...

Look at the title of the thread.
Last I looked, Angela Raynor was not part of whatever the current US incumbents are.

Seriously Scara, all jokes and banter aside, I think it'd be well worth you reading a little more deeply about exactly what is happening in the US. As if the last 48 hours haven't already shown, the ramifications globally are going to be immense.
 
monkeybarry said:
Absolutely not.
A secretary of state needs to understand and be able within the wider political and economic context.
They need to have some understanding of their department - but their job is essentially facilitation for the depts needs whilst balancing the electorates mandate and operating within the financial and political climate.
The experts in the fields that you mention must be involved in the conversations and advising on setting direction, but they are nowhere near being the right people to make the decisions.- they'd all want endless money and resources. A cabinet of government ministers have to operate within their brief and across their cabinet.
Click to expand...

You cannot foster and create good policy for your constituents unless you have very strong knowledge of the area you're in charge of. I don't think you understand quite how under-qualified some of these people are for the posts they're occupying. Kennedy will be the bridge between science he doesn't necessarily believe in and a financial climate designed to gut anything which doesn't directly feather a pocket and his own remedial understanding of health and medicine. I could go to Camden and find you a dozen anti-vaxx 'herbal tea and annubis cream-for-skin-cancer' merchants, but you don't want them in charge of things. BTW, I believe that some non-pharm medicines are excellent and I am not against alternatives to big pharma. But Kennedy is not about that.

I think to really grasp how utterly dangerous the current situation in the US is, that last line above has to be absorbed. The nature of the brief is utterly disturbing, as non-democratic as you can actually achieve short of just sending the army in to stamp on everyone. I 'think' we're both at the same conclusion, that technocratic facists running polocy are a terrible thing. So are their cucks...
 
thfcsteff said:
You cannot foster and create good policy for your constituents unless you have very strong knowledge of the area you're in charge of. I don't think you understand quite how under-qualified some of these people are for the posts they're occupying. Kennedy will be the bridge between science he doesn't necessarily believe in and a financial climate designed to gut anything which doesn't directly feather a pocket and his own remedial understanding of health and medicine. I could go to Camden and find you a dozen anti-vaxx 'herbal tea and annubis cream-for-skin-cancer' merchants, but you don't want them in charge of things. BTW, I believe that some non-pharm medicines are excellent and I am not against alternatives to big pharma. But Kennedy is not about that.
Click to expand...

Matthew D’Ancona (who I really rate as a political commentator) said on The Two Matts podcast this week that there is a coup well underway in the US, and most Americans - and most people around the world - are ignorant of this.

I tend to agree.
 
monkeybarry said:
Try listening to what she says and see what see does instead of judging her accent, background and gingerness
Click to expand...
It's not easy, her accent is impenetrable (unlike her mouth, according to a WhatsApp group people are getting in trouble for).

When I do understand her, she only reinforced my opinion.
 
thfcsteff said:
Look at the title of the thread.
Last I looked, Angela Raynor was not part of whatever the current US incumbents are.

Seriously Scara, all jokes and banter aside, I think it'd be well worth you reading a little more deeply about exactly what is happening in the US. As if the last 48 hours haven't already shown, the ramifications globally are going to be immense.
Click to expand...
Yet that's what the majority of your country wants. That's how democracy works.

We've got an electorate that clearly isn't fit to tie their own shoelaces either and we're stuck with far worse.
 
scaramanga said:
Yet that's what the majority of your country wants. That's how democracy works.

We've got an electorate that clearly isn't fit to tie their own shoelaces either and we're stuck with far worse.
Click to expand...

You will never even countenance that you might not have the full scope of facts of a situation. I personally think it weakens someone mate. Each to their own...anyway...

It is my country of residence. I am not a citizen. I suspect you added that to get this exact response, knowing it would needle me. Well done lad, well done.

We can argue what 'democracy' is in the modern context all day, but again, just THINK about what you're glibly saying. The US public did NOT vote for Elon Musk. They did NOT vote for a President who farms off responsibility for the 'promises' he made to a franklly unconstitutional 'body' and an unelected billionaire. That is NOT 'democracy'.
 
scaramanga said:
It's not easy, her accent is impenetrable (unlike her mouth, according to a WhatsApp group people are getting in trouble for).

When I do understand her, she only reinforced my opinion.
Click to expand...

Doing some extreme fishing on multiple fronts of late. Obsessing unreliable reports of salacious details of Rayner or even Tuchel is a hell of a niche fetish, all power to you, if it didn't seem so judgemental. You're a bit like a schoolchild who has just discovered swearing, doing it loudly on the bus because it gives them a thrill.

If Rayner has gone down on someone and it was consensual on both fronts, what the flying fudge does it have to do with your smarmy self?
 
monkeybarry said:
To be fair, you are one step away - at least you have the pretence of an open election in your model, albeit a select and restricted profile of person rather than "any commoner".

Either way, it's the antithesis of UK democracy and a step backwards from all the freedoms fought for from Magna Carta onwards
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my position mate. But you do you.
 
Mikey10 said:
Matthew D’Ancona (who I really rate as a political commentator) said on The Two Matts podcast this week that there is a coup well underway in the US, and most Americans - and most people around the world - are ignorant of this.

I tend to agree.
Click to expand...
The underreaction in most of MSM is bizarre. Ignoring what is happening won't stop it. Probably the opposite.

There is a lot going on, but two of the stupidiest coup actions in the last day or so were to fire the people who looked after the nukes (and then try to rehire them) and posting confidential data on the DOGE website which is unsecure and is being hacked over and over.
 
Last edited:
LutonSpurs said:
I don't think you understand my position mate. But you do you.
Click to expand...
I actually think you might be right - I thought this was the UK politics thread!!! Doh

Yeah, re; US politics - it's batbrick crazy and has never really had cohesion or collaborative policy making. Which isn't a huge surprise - it's essential 30-40 ideologies within one sovereign state, so a Federal policy suitable for all is unrealistic, and having greatly variable State level is bonkers.

My point still stands re: freedom for anyone to stand though, not restricting candidates to certain cross sections - that's how you create tyranny.
 
thfcsteff said:
You cannot foster and create good policy for your constituents unless you have very strong knowledge of the area you're in charge of. I don't think you understand quite how under-qualified some of these people are for the posts they're occupying. Kennedy will be the bridge between science he doesn't necessarily believe in and a financial climate designed to gut anything which doesn't directly feather a pocket and his own remedial understanding of health and medicine. I could go to Camden and find you a dozen anti-vaxx 'herbal tea and annubis cream-for-skin-cancer' merchants, but you don't want them in charge of things. BTW, I believe that some non-pharm medicines are excellent and I am not against alternatives to big pharma. But Kennedy is not about that.

I think to really grasp how utterly dangerous the current situation in the US is, that last line above has to be absorbed. The nature of the brief is utterly disturbing, as non-democratic as you can actually achieve short of just sending the army in to stamp on everyone. I 'think' we're both at the same conclusion, that technocratic facists running polocy are a terrible thing. So are their cucks...
Click to expand...
Sooooo, I actually thought I was posting in the UK Politics thread!!! Doh.

Re: the US - the system is terrible; appointing anyone to a role rather than having to appoint an elected official. But that's what happens when you have a system has one individual being so powerful - it's relies on individual morals rather than collective.

That said, the vote for president does lead itself to transactional politics. If Kennedy does deliver on Health or McMahon on Education etc, they'll be gone. They are essentially the CEO of their area - they need to know how to foster delivery, that doesn't necessarily mean understanding the business area in detail, it just means understanding the goals and reaching them.
 
monkeybarry said:
Sooooo, I actually thought I was posting in the UK Politics thread!!! Doh.
Click to expand...

No worries mate, it happens doesn't it...


monkeybarry said:
Re: the US - the system is terrible; appointing anyone to a role rather than having to appoint an elected official. But that's what happens when you have a system has one individual being so powerful - it's relies on individual morals rather than collective.
Click to expand...

Agreed to an extent, but there were some pretty effective checks and balances in place. He started dismantling the support structure for those during his first term with the supreme court shenanigans, and now is 'delivering' on destroying them.



monkeybarry said:
That said, the vote for president does lead itself to transactional politics. If Kennedy does deliver on Health or McMahon on Education etc, they'll be gone. They are essentially the CEO of their area - they need to know how to foster delivery, that doesn't necessarily mean understanding the business area in detail, it just means understanding the goals and reaching them.
Click to expand...

The main problem there is that Kennedy is setting most of the 'goals' for Health within the administration, ditto McMahon on Education. They are the CEO operating for 'shareholders', but essentially, the 'shareholder in chief' doesn't care so long as money is either saved or re-appropriated and his 'sponsors' are given whatever they signed up for/want. I agree re: transactional government -something I don't think most of the voting public understood sadly- but the nature of this transactionalism is becoming very dangerous. There are structures and depts being gutted which are integral to the health and safety of the US -take the seed bank stuff, take the nuclear maintenance slashes- and most dangerous of all is an unelected billionaire with a 'chip' missing somewhere running roughshod in areas of deep national (and international) finance and power. Put it this way. I go the gym, try to look after myself, etc, but recognise that in order for it to work, I have to balance what I eat. I like to have two dark chocolate digestives with my evening cuppa; most evenings I ponder four, but remind myself that two is enough.
After I saw the nuclear staffing reduction fiasco, I reached for four and finished Gangs of London season 2 with the missus. I have to be careful not to make this a 'four biscuit year' but there's a growing side of me that says does it REALLY fudging matter (LOL - sort of)...
 
monkeybarry said:
I actually think you might be right - I thought this was the UK politics thread!!! Doh

Yeah, re; US politics - it's batbrick crazy and has never really had cohesion or collaborative policy making. Which isn't a huge surprise - it's essential 30-40 ideologies within one sovereign state, so a Federal policy suitable for all is unrealistic, and having greatly variable State level is bonkers.

My point still stands re: freedom for anyone to stand though, not restricting candidates to certain cross sections - that's how you create tyranny.
Click to expand...

I think you're right to an extent, it is a strange system in a nation which is the size of Europe with essentially 50 different 'mini countries' within it, but the balance between State and Federal gvmt has worked very well under several administrations that I've seen, and only tends to get weird when religious nutters and right-wing facists get involved.

And yes. Freedom to stand is important, however the inflection point we are at sees the standards and accuracy of information people use to become aware increasinly compromised, destroyed, or reframed as 'truths' when they are opinions. Very dangerous. We're back at Cambridge Analytica, etc.
 
thfcsteff said:
No worries mate, it happens doesn't it...




Agreed to an extent, but there were some pretty effective checks and balances in place. He started dismantling the support structure for those during his first term with the supreme court shenanigans, and now is 'delivering' on destroying them.





The main problem there is that Kennedy is setting most of the 'goals' for Health within the administration, ditto McMahon on Education. They are the CEO operating for 'shareholders', but essentially, the 'shareholder in chief' doesn't care so long as money is either saved or re-appropriated and his 'sponsors' are given whatever they signed up for/want. I agree re: transactional government -something I don't think most of the voting public understood sadly- but the nature of this transactionalism is becoming very dangerous. There are structures and depts being gutted which are integral to the health and safety of the US -take the seed bank stuff, take the nuclear maintenance slashes- and most dangerous of all is an unelected billionaire with a 'chip' missing somewhere running roughshod in areas of deep national (and international) finance and power. Put it this way. I go the gym, try to look after myself, etc, but recognise that in order for it to work, I have to balance what I eat. I like to have two dark chocolate digestives with my evening cuppa; most evenings I ponder four, but remind myself that two is enough.
After I saw the nuclear staffing reduction fiasco, I reached for four and finished Gangs of London season 2 with the missus. I have to be careful not to make this a 'four biscuit year' but there's a growing side of me that says does it REALLY fudging matter (LOL - sort of)...
Click to expand...
I completely agree with all of that - I think it's a terrible system, because it relies on the President being of good moral character.

We're there effective checks and balances in place? Any process is only as good as it weaknesses or it's mechanisms to minimise impact if it's exploited outside of the spirit of the policy. Those checks and balances failed - Trump bested them.

Everything that's happens has been mandated by the US electorate. That includes Kennedy setting direction for health. I don't like it - but I don't get to tell the Americans they are wrong.

The most important thing to remember is that one of the founding fathers (Washington I think, but may be someone else) stated that the Constitution would need amending and would only last in it's current form until it was taken over by tyranny.
It's an experimental system that is outdated.
 
monkeybarry said:
I completely agree with all of that - I think it's a terrible system, because it relies on the President being of good moral character.

We're there effective checks and balances in place? Any process is only as good as it weaknesses or it's mechanisms to minimise impact if it's exploited outside of the spirit of the policy. Those checks and balances failed - Trump bested them.

Everything that's happens has been mandated by the US electorate. That includes Kennedy setting direction for health. I don't like it - but I don't get to tell the Americans they are wrong.

The most important thing to remember is that one of the founding fathers (Washington I think, but may be someone else) stated that the Constitution would need amending and would only last in it's current form until it was taken over by tyranny.
It's an experimental system that is outdated.
Click to expand...

There were decent checks and balances with respect to house, senate, and most importantly, the courts. He removed a layer of that when he fudged around with the supreme court in his last term. I agree that Trump/Republicans found a way around. I personally think the country is far too bound up in it's belief in the constitution as essentially, this is a document which has had little to no major refresh or update since it was written and is as such open to some wild interpretations which -as you suggested- rely on some form of moral standard.

I partially disagree re: the US electorate, and this is where I think the information people get/sources is very important. With regards to Kennedy, i could probably agree that people knew he was potentially coming -albeit I think they're uneducated as to who he is- but Musk is something different altogether. I don't think the electorate voted for an unelected non-politician (albeit I DO think it is a great debate to have, as maybe I am still too entrenched in my belief/hope that most people here are actually decent?)...

I just got to the end of your post and saw the constitution comment. As you will have seen, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back