neilj
Member
Posts: 5,995
|
Post by neilj on Dec 29, 2023 6:46:15 GMT
Interesting discussion about the causes of the civil war
From my understanding for the South indeed it was about States rights, but the primary state rights they were concerned with was the primacy of state law over Federal law when it came to slavery. Also they were concerned Federal law was restricting slavery to current states and wouldn't allow it in the new Western territories They Southern Srates believed, probably corectly, that the Federal and proposed Federal laws effect on slavery would have a detrimental effect on their economy (in the short term anyway) and way of life
For the Northern States it was initially atleast about saving the Union, although there was a vocal and growing anti slavery group as well
But to try and argue slavery was not a primary cause of the Civil War or not even mention it when asked for the causes, seems to me flawed, without it the Southern States would not have been concerned about the effects of Federal Law on their economy and way if life. Indeed in Haley's home State, South Carolina, it's ordinance of secession – the 1860 proclamation by the state government outlining its reasons for seceding from the Union – mentions slavery in its opening sentence and points to the “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” as a reason for the state removing itself from the Union.
Following the backlash Haley has now said "Of course the Civil War was about slavery," she told CNN. So why was it so difficult for her to even mention it as a cause when initially asked?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 7:07:22 GMT
To make the improvements we need for a stable and healthy economy actually means accepting that we have to pay more for home produced goods and that's probably something the electorate won't stomach simply because things will cost more and even fairly liberal people still shriek if you talk about any form of "protectionism". Unfortunately we also have countries, multinationals and oligarchs who already have a very firm grip on natural resources so even if we wanted to it's going to be very hard and painful to take a step back from the current world economic situation. Well I like your posts often shevii because you write interesting thought provoking ones -like the above. I think the Pandemic + normalised Monetary policy ( post QE) + Putin's energy war and imperial ambitions have fundamentallty changed things in so many ways. Chickens are coming home to roost in flocks -on cheap energy, cheap credit, global supply lines, ageing populations and healthcare, defence ...... -and I think you are right to say that ( mainstream) politicians are finding the right tools for it all, difficult to find. And in the wings, waiting to exploit the liberal democracies are Putin & Xi. And Trump too if he joins them ! The Uk has a labour shortage, and solving that through immigration is first fraut with difficulty and creates conflict, and second is fundamentally unsustainable - while we could of course currently add moe people, in the long run increasing the world population is utterly unsustainable. We need to reduce it.
Anyone wanting to reshore industry has to solve this problem of labour shortage. More industry needs more workers. Then the question becomes just why do we have such a shortage, and reasons vary from eg watching how traffic wardens patrol in PAIRS, to half the population now spending 3 years of their working life (about 5%) at university. Painters now use scaffolding instead of ladders, which has created a whole industry supplying scaffolding which was never previously necessary. Carers work in pairs. Muc of that is about safer working conditions, but that all has a labour cost.
Much of our difficulty stems from being rich. If you are rich, then you dont want to work. Why should you? And if you are rich, then you will soak up labour suplying your demands. Allow a millionair to freely enter the UK, and far from boosting our economy, he might well assist in drawing workers away from those manufacturing industries you might like to recreate.
Then we get to issue of mechanisation based on investment. The uK has been terrible for investment, and why wouldn it be? Government has in principle refused to do this itself. Industry will never do so voluntarily if its cheaper to manufacture in china, or cheaper even with our situation to employ workers. There is no one seeking to boost UK manufacturing industry in a real practical way. A few entrepreneurs perhaps, but as soon as their fledgling industries get big enough then they will move them abroad.
The UK has left the EU just as renewed protectionism is striking the world, because it has to reshore manufacturing. That was completely insane, but the long term effects are going to make everything worse. The UK is simply now even less attractive.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 7:18:34 GMT
There is no single " the reason" for the American Civil War, just as the case for every other war. Slavery was one among many, and states rights was an important one. Anyone who argues that there was only one reason, and they know what it was, is either somewhat unaware of how war came about - or is partisan about aspects of current US society. It was about money. Slavery was essential to the economic model in the south. Not about the morality, but the money. 'Its the economy, stupid.' The Union didn't make the ending of slavery a war aim until half way through the war. Their primary "reason" for war was to prevent secession. But the reasons for secession were fundamentally rooted in disagreements over slavery. The US was reaching a stalemate in congress with slavery and the slave economy at the centre of the disagreements.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 7:21:21 GMT
Following on from Colorado the State of Maine has banned the traitor insurrectionist from running in the primary ballot for President. Pending confirmation from their supreme court. Maine is one of just two states that split their electoral college vote and while the State is small and appoints just 4 electoral college votes one of these was awarded to the rapist in 2020.
The republican controlled U.S. Supreme court will probably make a partisan ruling that the traitor should be allowed to stand because the presidency didn't meet the definition of office holder, although it clearly does, ,I doubt they will go as far as to say January 6th wasn't an insurrection but you never know with these charlatans.
But there's a more than zero probability that they will uphold states supremacy in setting their own rules.
If they did there would be the chance of the traitor appearing on some ballots not others, in the event that he remained the republican candidate in those circumstances and won the electoral college vote it's highly unlikely that these states, which could by then include states such as California and New York would accept his legitimacy , who knows what follows but it will be catastrophic.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 7:35:33 GMT
Following on from Colorado the State of Maine has banned the traitor insurrectionist from running in the primary ballot for President. Pending confirmation from their supreme court. Maine is one of just two states that split their electoral college vote and while the State is small and appoints just 4 electoral college votes one of these was awarded to the rapist in 2020. Its inevitable this has to come to the supreme court. Whether thats good or bad for anyone. There needs to be a test case to define the situation on eligibility to run for president. Europe needs to contemplate to what extent it can rely upon the US in any situation and how its interests majorly diverge from those of the US. Trump is simply a landmark in the collapse of perhaps the second world consensus post ww2. The first was state intervention and diverting wealth towards the masses. The second, reversing this and globalisation. The pendulum swings back, because the masses once again perceive they are losing out.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 29, 2023 7:49:20 GMT
I am quite a chilled person generally but not about politics, at least not in recent years. A bit of well focussed anger keeps you young I reckon! I and so many people I know my age (late forties) show zero signs of becoming more conservative with age, in fact quite the opposite, regardless of assets. I'm working on mercian and suspect he is swinging gradually leftward in his twilight years. When I met him I thought I detected a liberal inner self yearning to be released from within its hard and seemingly uncompromising conservative shell. He spoke movingly about how he now no longer gave the Droitwich homeless people, sleeping rough in the streets, a good kicking on his drunken way home from chess matches in the town. Instead, he engaged them in long conversation, much to the consternation of his long suffering wife, enquiring of them their background stories and how they came to be in such a dire predicament. Mercian may well be coming home. No more years of hurt. No more need for dreaming. Do not be surprised, leopards can sometimes change their crosses. Until I was about 50 I was a Tory voter, I think based upon my parent's predelictions, mutual self interest, a fear of the more radical left, the experience of the bad times around the Callaghan era, a more generalised lack of interest in politics and maybe even the feeling of Thatcher's ability to sort out the country after decades of bumbling on etc, etc. Tthinking back now, a quarter of a century later, it's still difficult to identify exactly what changed my attitude. More than anything maybe it was a change in personal circumstances. Up until that time my career was ever upward and at 48 I was in a job I loved, for which I was ideally suited and which I did well. A change of regime at the top, way above my pay grade, forced me to leave a job I adored and out into the world of the jobless senior manager. Two years job search yielded nothing and I ended up taking a temp. job at minimum wage in a call centre. True it did become a permanent job and I did rise through the ranks again, but to nowhere near my previous lofty position. I suspect it was my experience of suddenly being knocked off my pedestal that altered my political perspectives, if you like it removed the scales from my eyes. Don't get me wrong, we were never in the gutter but the reality of dealing with the Jobcentre, downsizing to get rid of the mortgage, widespread job application rejection, accepting effectively menial work brought me up sharp. I guess I could've gone the other way, to the right, in bitterness at my perceived misfortune but my sympathies moved leftwards as I realised the unfairness in society and felt that things should be improved for the majority, not made harder for them. So I moved out of the generally accepted trope that you get more right wing as you get older.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 7:56:21 GMT
I think that a lot of the disenchantment with centrist policies (whether leftish or rightish) is that all the mainstream parties ignore concerns of ordinary people. They are too concerned with following the latest fashionable nonsense. A good example was Brexit. All the main parties had a conspiracy of silence about the EU for years. Membership was never to be questioned. On the contrary, the EU was used by all parties as the scapegoat for measures they wanted to introduce. Its just like Cameron blaming the liberals for his not being economically tough. Whereas most probably he was perfectly happy to moderate the wishes of his right wing, in the interests of gaining votes at the centre. (which all worked splendidly in 2015). The problem for brexiteers is having blamed the Eu for everything which ever went wrong, having left there is no discernable improvement in anything while the UK economy stagnates further. To be clear, it wasnt forced to do, only if it wanted to win the next election. It chose to adopt a brexit friendly position so as to win that next election. If thats what you man by forced then I agree, but it was a choice to ignore their real consensus view that the EU benefitted the UK. To deliberately worsen the economy of the UK so as to personally become the government. If there had been honest debate about the EU in parliament and possibly referenda on the various treaties we might still be in the EU. Funny how brexit was promised as a solution to immigration, but has made no difference whatsoever. Unsurprising, because consistent government policy for 50 years has been to encourage immigrations to solve labour shortages. A death penalty is irrelevant to the problems of crime control. Whatever happened it would make no difference to crime levels, but it is certain innocent people would be executed, and this would create a massive controversy. That chap imprisoned for 20 years for a rape he didnt do is today guest editor on R4. One point he raises is the system conspires to prevent re-investigation of crimes once a verdict has been given and prevent people maintaining their innocence. Certainly capital punishment helped with that. Im not convinced the death penalty per se has much cut through. Immigration, yes. I wonder how many votes a party would get with the sole policy of banning charges for street parking? Likely get my vote (under a system where that vote would be meaningful).
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 8:03:04 GMT
.Blimey !-where to start ? I am a voter. We get presented with choices every few years. In 2019 it was a government led by Johnson-or one led by Corbyn. So no contest for me. Thats interesting...I dont thing the identity of the two leaders made any difference for me. It really IS irrelevant, the leader is simply a PR person who has to take the large majority of their MPs with them to run a government. Neither could have done ANYTHING opposed by even a large minority of their MPs. Just look at recent events.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,789
|
Post by Danny on Dec 29, 2023 8:16:04 GMT
Until I was about 50 I was a Tory voter, I think based upon my parent's predelictions, mutual self interest, a fear of the more radical left, the experience of the bad times around the Callaghan era, a more generalised lack of interest in politics and maybe even the feeling of Thatcher's ability to sort out the country after decades of bumbling on etc, etc. Thinking back now, a quarter of a century later, it's still difficult to identify exactly what changed my attitude. More than anything maybe it was a change in personal circumstances. Up until that time my career was ever upward and at 48 I was in a job I loved, for which I was ideally suited and which I did well. A change of regime at the top, way above my pay grade, forced me to leave a job I adored and out into the world of the jobless senior manager. Two years job search yielded nothing and I ended up taking a temp. job at minimum wage in a call centre. True it did become a permanent job and I did rise through the ranks again, but to nowhere near my previous lofty position. I suspect it was my experience of suddenly being knocked off my pedestal that altered my political perspectives, if you like it removed the scales from my eyes. Don't get me wrong, we were never in the gutter but the reality of dealing with the Jobcentre, downsizing to get rid of the mortgage, widespread job application rejection, accepting effectively menial work brought me up sharp. I guess I could've gone the other way, to the right, in bitterness at my perceived misfortune but my sympathies moved leftwards as I realised the unfairness in society and felt that things should be improved for the majority, not made harder for them. So I moved out of the generally accepted trope that you get more right wing as you get older. I dont think you are alone. The core conservative policy has always been conserve the wealth of the rich. Thatcher did what she did on the public understanding it would benefit the many, whereas in reality it benefitted the rich. So long as the rich(er) coincided with the many, it was a viable policy in a democracy. In the first wave, people benefitted from being given their council houses or shares in privatised companies. But longer term those companies became private monopolies fleecing the population, while house prices have soared with the withdrawal from the market of the biggest player, state builders. Major fell as this conservative promise began to fail publicly. Brown fell because con adopted euroscepticism, after they singularly failed to attract enough centre voters to their policies, who had begun to suffer from them. Since then the economic argument to vote lab for most has grown steadily, while the voter pull of euroscepticism continues to shrink. A perfect storm for con. While many are arguing con will now move further to the right, its an interesting question whether brexit has drawn the teeth of the right in the UK. We did what they demanded, it failed.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 29, 2023 8:28:34 GMT
sda
A very interesting glimpse into your personal backstory and it's a powerful and instructive one too. Thanks for sharing it with us.
neilj
The Haley reluctance to admit a self evident truth about one of the main causes of the American Civil War, namely slavery, reveals one of the basic tenets of populist politics.
Never challenge the myths believed by your followers even though you know them to be false. Indulge the falsehoods and revel in the lies. Perpetuate them too.
Populists are the arch manipulators. They know more than anyone that they are peddling pernicious fantasies, but if the route to power is paved with such baloney, then it's a path well trodden.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 29, 2023 8:52:12 GMT
.Blimey !-where to start ? I am a voter. We get presented with choices every few years. In 2019 it was a government led by Johnson-or one led by Corbyn. So no contest for me. Thats interesting...I dont thing the identity of the two leaders made any difference for me. It really IS irrelevant, the leader is simply a PR person who has to take the large majority of their MPs with them to run a government. Neither could have done ANYTHING opposed by even a large minority of their MPs. Just look at recent events. So, you don't think that the identity, political views and personality of a Prime Minister has got any relevance to the government he or she then goes on to lead? They are mere impotent playthings to be kicked around by MPs? We might as well consider the respective merits of glove puppets come general election time. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. Whilst UK Prime Ministers don't have untrammeled executive power, even in our diminished democracy, they do still exert enormous personal influence over the nature of the government they lead. The nation they govern too. Party leaders are key too to how their parties fare in General Elections. Many voters cast their votes on the basis of who they would prefer to be their Prime Minister and leader of the country. It's just about the most important voting determinant there is, I think. Certainly for those less wrapped up in the minutiae of micro-politics. Which, needless to say, is the vast majority of our fellow citizens. EDIT: A further thought. The idea that the personalities of political figures like Thatcher, Blair and Johnson weren't crucial to the nature and efficacy of the governments they formed and then led is preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 29, 2023 9:04:07 GMT
oldnat the economics and morality of slavery was the core reason for the U.S. Civil war, read contemporary accounts before making assumptions. The fact that Hayley didn't mention it at all as a reason is beyond bizarre Of course it's bizarre that Haley didn't mention slavery. It would be like discussing the causes of Brexit without mentioning immigration. only 10x more so. & of course slavery was the fundamental cause of the War. Disunion may have triggered it, but the primary cause of disunion was the issue of slavery in the Old South & the western territories; the clash of two nationalists rooted in different political economies. State's rights then as now are a cover for gaining political power for precise ends. oldnat writes Haley presented a partial view of history. A view of history excluding the primary cause is propaganda not history. Oldnat says "In a Federal system as in many others there is an on -going tension between the Union and it's constituent parts". Whatever can he be thinking of. 0
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 29, 2023 9:10:06 GMT
PS. The tragedy of the War was that after 4 years & a million casualties, the South was allowed to re-assert State's Rights & reduce the black population to neo-serfdom.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,995
|
Post by neilj on Dec 29, 2023 9:27:08 GMT
This is good news There has also veen a huge backlash within Israel against Netanyahu, his days in power and that of his far right associates are surely numbered
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 29, 2023 9:27:41 GMT
PPS. In 1990 I was in the S Carolina state capital, Columbia. On top of the Legislature, 3 flags: a Huge Confederate one; a large State one; a tiny Stars & Stripes. I had a snack in a nearby cafe. The black waitress yelled to the kitchen: put more beef in his sandwich he's English. There were a bunch of fat guys with thumbs in braces I took to be particularly evil-looking used-car salesmen. The waitress said "No honey, they are State Senators"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2023 9:50:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 29, 2023 9:51:56 GMT
Thats interesting...I dont thing the identity of the two leaders made any difference for me. It really IS irrelevant, the leader is simply a PR person who has to take the large majority of their MPs with them to run a government. Neither could have done ANYTHING opposed by even a large minority of their MPs. Just look at recent events. So, you don't think that the identity, political views and personality of a Prime Minister has got any relevance to the government he or she then goes on to lead? They are mere impotent playthings to be kicked around by MPs? We might as well consider the respective merits of glove puppets come general election time. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. Whilst UK Prime Ministers don't have untrammeled executive power, even in our diminished democracy, they do still exert enormous personal influence over the nature of the government they lead. The nation they govern too. Party leaders are key too to how their parties fare in General Elections. Many voters cast their votes on the basis of who they would prefer to be their Prime Minister and leader of the country. It's just about the most important voting determinant there is, I think. Certainly for those less wrapped up in the minutiae of micro-politics. Which, needless to say, is the vast majority of our fellow citizens. EDIT: A further thought. The idea that the personalities of political figures like Thatcher, Blair and Johnson weren't crucial to the nature and efficacy of the governments they formed and then led is preposterous. I am certain you are completely wrong in this, crossbat11. Leaders are thrown up and fashioned by the political cultures within which they exist. Stark staring obvious to me. Mystical qualities such as “charisma” are an absurd fantasy. They are endowed ex poste facto.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 10:02:41 GMT
SDA Thanks for sharing that it's interesting to see how others life experiences impact their world view.
For Faith after 40+ years in Nursing finishing as the trust on site senior manager for one of the largest and most prestigious NHS trusts in the country combined with being a senior trade union representative elected by over 25,000 members and being an adjudicator panellist at the NMC ( a sort of Nurse judge)finishing a career and finding that no one really values all that experience is a bit of a sea change. Mind you the Lib Dems did ask her to consider standing as a parliamentary candidate so maybe something interesting to come.
Faith like me* voted Labour all her life until 2017 and was a Labour party member for considerably longer than me, as a serving police officer I wasn't allowed to join a political party, but as I mentioned before the party isn't so doctrinal as some and converts aren't looked down upon.
* Ok hands up I voted for the alliance in 1983
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 10:10:59 GMT
Rafwan Really If someone with the cross party appeal of 1997 Tony Blair had been leader of Labour in 2017 rather than Jeremy Corbyn we'd now have a Labour government with a massive majority and we wouldn't have left the European union. Whether you call it character or charisma doesn't matter for the majority who don't think about politics at all other than briefly at a general election these types of factors do matter. Vanilla extract man Starmer despite being in public a personality vacuum currently benefits from the fact that he behaves in a far more prime ministery fashion than the incumbent Sunakered. This rather than his policy position will influence millions of voters.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 29, 2023 10:18:18 GMT
So, you don't think that the identity, political views and personality of a Prime Minister has got any relevance to the government he or she then goes on to lead? They are mere impotent playthings to be kicked around by MPs? We might as well consider the respective merits of glove puppets come general election time. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. Whilst UK Prime Ministers don't have untrammeled executive power, even in our diminished democracy, they do still exert enormous personal influence over the nature of the government they lead. The nation they govern too. Party leaders are key too to how their parties fare in General Elections. Many voters cast their votes on the basis of who they would prefer to be their Prime Minister and leader of the country. It's just about the most important voting determinant there is, I think. Certainly for those less wrapped up in the minutiae of micro-politics. Which, needless to say, is the vast majority of our fellow citizens. EDIT: A further thought. The idea that the personalities of political figures like Thatcher, Blair and Johnson weren't crucial to the nature and efficacy of the governments they formed and then led is preposterous. I am certain you are completely wrong in this, crossbat11 . Leaders are thrown up and fashioned by the political cultures within which they exist. Stark staring obvious to me. Mystical qualities such as “charisma” are an absurd fantasy. They are endowed ex poste facto. Are you sure there isn't a bit of lingering Corbyn love/knee jerk defence going on here???
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 10:42:41 GMT
Interesting take on refuk's election chances on of all places GBeebies, the Gbebiees"journalist" /work experience participant gets schooled in reality on from all people a representative of conservative home. youtu.be/AuMdgu0KCyM?si=hqncRR4Jk73zbLFV
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 29, 2023 12:04:54 GMT
Rafwan Really If someone with the cross party appeal of 1997 Tony Blair had been leader of Labour in 2017 rather than Jeremy Corbyn we'd now have a Labour government with a massive majority and we wouldn't have left the European union. Whether you call it character or charisma doesn't matter for the majority who don't think about politics at all other than briefly at a general election these types of factors do matter. Vanilla extract man Starmer despite being in public a personality vacuum currently benefits from the fact that he behaves in a far more prime ministery fashion than the incumbent Sunakered. This rather than his policy position will influence millions of voters. But the key is always likely to be whether voters are content - or not - with the government in office at that particular time. I suggest that is not determined by how charismatic or otherwise one party leader is compared with another.If voters feel happy with the status quo , they are not likely to be swayed by an Opposition Leader who happens to be more charismatic than the PM currently in office. Why did people vote for Attlee rather than Churchill in 1945 - and again in 1950? I doubt that it had much to do with charisma. In 1959 voters voted for Macmillan in preference to Gaitskell - but I suspect that owed much more to the prevailing sense of affluence than the personalities of the two leaders. In 1970 people ousted the incumbent - and more charismatic - Harold Wilson and replaced him with the apparently unappealing Ted Heath because they decided not to repeat their experience of the 1966 - 70 years.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,995
|
Post by neilj on Dec 29, 2023 12:12:17 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 12:19:47 GMT
neilj So this week's parliamentary trivia quiz answer to the question " who spouts the most bollocks " Is James , Daily! Presumably Mr Daly's salary as an MP + expenses and additional income of £20,000 last year and a family business means his family aren't in any danger of poverty. The additional two tickets with hospitality to horseracing at Cheltenham worth £660, two tickets with hospitality for the football Championship Play Off Final at Wembley worth £500, and two tickets with hospitality for golf tournament The Open at St Andrews worth £900. Probably came in handy maybe he gave them to his kids!
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Dec 29, 2023 12:31:38 GMT
Following on from Colorado the State of Maine has banned the traitor insurrectionist from running in the primary ballot for President. Pending confirmation from their supreme court. Maine is one of just two states that split their electoral college vote and while the State is small and appoints just 4 electoral college votes one of these was awarded to the rapist in 2020. The republican controlled U.S. Supreme court will probably make a partisan ruling that the traitor should be allowed to stand because the presidency didn't meet the definition of office holder, although it clearly does, ,I doubt they will go as far as to say January 6th wasn't an insurrection but you never know with these charlatans. But there's a more than zero probability that they will uphold states supremacy in setting their own rules. If they did there would be the chance of the traitor appearing on some ballots not others, in the event that he remained the republican candidate in those circumstances and won the electoral college vote it's highly unlikely that these states, which could by then include states such as California and New York would accept his legitimacy , who knows what follows but it will be catastrophic. It would be the ultimate irony if many US states, having had their legislature rule against Trump, reckoned that their only recourse against a Federal system that acted against their interests, was to secede from the USA, to form a union of New American States (or similar). If the NAS were sufficient in number and GDP to be seen by the UN as the successor state, rather than the (25? 30?) remaining USA, then things would indeed be "interesting".
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Dec 29, 2023 12:38:51 GMT
Following on from Colorado the State of Maine has banned the traitor insurrectionist from running in the primary ballot for President. Pending confirmation from their supreme court. Maine is one of just two states that split their electoral college vote and while the State is small and appoints just 4 electoral college votes one of these was awarded to the rapist in 2020. The republican controlled U.S. Supreme court will probably make a partisan ruling that the traitor should be allowed to stand because the presidency didn't meet the definition of office holder, although it clearly does, ,I doubt they will go as far as to say January 6th wasn't an insurrection but you never know with these charlatans. But there's a more than zero probability that they will uphold states supremacy in setting their own rules. If they did there would be the chance of the traitor appearing on some ballots not others, in the event that he remained the republican candidate in those circumstances and won the electoral college vote it's highly unlikely that these states, which could by then include states such as California and New York would accept his legitimacy , who knows what follows but it will be catastrophic. It would be the ultimate irony if many US states, having had their legislature rule against Trump, reckoned that their only recourse against a Federal system that acted against their interests, was to secede from the USA, to form a union of New American States (or similar). If the NAS were sufficient in number and GDP to be seen by the UN as the successor state, rather than the (25? 30?) remaining USA, then things would indeed be "interesting". Things would also be 'interesting' in the sense of downright scary for those of us in the wider world where Russia, China and others would feel they could act with impunity. We need a strong, united USA whether we like it or not, at least until Europe finally, fully (the penny is beginning to drop) wakes up to the fact that it needs to be military superpower in it's own right.
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Dec 29, 2023 12:52:28 GMT
It would be the ultimate irony if many US states, having had their legislature rule against Trump, reckoned that their only recourse against a Federal system that acted against their interests, was to secede from the USA, to form a union of New American States (or similar). If the NAS were sufficient in number and GDP to be seen by the UN as the successor state, rather than the (25? 30?) remaining USA, then things would indeed be "interesting". Things would also be 'interesting' in the sense of downright scary for those of us in the wider world where Russia, China and others would feel they could act with impunity. We need a strong, united USA whether we like it or not, at least until Europe finally, fully (the penny is beginning to drop) wakes up to the fact that it needs to be military superpower in it's own right. At the moment, though, the ones who would much prefer to create Gilead, are the ones who are also attempting to undermine the current USA (which of course plays into the hands of Russia and, to a lesser extent, China). Perhaps, it will be "you can have strong, or you can have united. But not both"
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 29, 2023 12:56:19 GMT
*** ADMIN ***
The new "member", Barax has been booted from the forum.
It was obvious that his/her only interst was spamming the forum and all their posts have been deleted.
Thank you to those who flagged this up to me.
As said before, Proboards are usually good at weeding the spammers out, but, the odd one does get through.
I hope all members had a good Christmas and look forward to a, hopefully, good 2024. With elections in many countries, including both the UK an the US, it could be a busy year for UKPR2...
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 29, 2023 13:22:21 GMT
Melania Trump having completed her fourth post nuptial agreement , which appears to mean she is no longer required to be in the same continent with the traitor has left the rapist with a quandry. Step forward ex parking garage lawyer Alina Habba, Habba a deranged right wing fanatic and truly incompetent lawyer is now the traitors lead council. Her role is apparently multi putpose. She is almost exactly the same age as the traitors daughter wife Ivanka.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 29, 2023 13:35:13 GMT
For your entertainment, mined from deep within the Guardian, a reminder of where bonkers right-wing culture wars gets you:
"8 March | Miriam Cates says children are being subjected to extreme sex education
At PMQs, Rishi Sunak was lobbed a soft ball from the hard right. The MP for Penistone (which she probably thinks is secret porn code) and Stocksbridge claimed that sex education now comprises “Graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely and 72 genders”. Would the prime minister do something about it?
Amazing! I always get to 50 genders and forget the rest: they’re not putting condoms on bananas any more. Luckily, Cates’ claims turn out to be the purest fantasy. The 72 genders thing appears to be sourced to a single school on the Isle of Man, which has its own government anyway. The oral sex thing, recounted in a report by Cates’ own thinktank, is a description for a lesson plan explaining the difference between penetrative and non-penetrative sex, which I have read, and found to be resolutely ungraphic. The choking thing is based on a blog post (for adults) written by someone who does not deliver sex education in schools. Well, whatever. Sunak commissioned a review anyway.
***
10 March | Nadine Dorries says Gary Lineker has to decide if he’s a Labour party candidate
Gary Lineker is not a Labour party candidate, but he is a football presenter who occasionally has political opinions. He got in trouble for one of them in the spring, when he described the government’s rhetoric on immigration as “not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”. While it’s not clear what this had to do with his ability to present Match of the Day, it is clear that it was a chance to have a go at the liberal elite, the BBC and anyone who thinks the stop-the-boats policy is half-baked at the same time. At the time of writing, Nadine Dorries no longer has her job, but Lineker still has his.
***
22 August | Susan Hall says Notting Hill carnival should be moved to a park
Susan who? The Conservative mayoral candidate for London has not been making a tremendous amount of headway in her campaign to unseat Sadiq Khan, and her views on Notting Hill carnival are sadly yet to move the needle. Hall was arguing that violence at carnival meant that it was time for it to be exiled. The founding chair of the Black Police Association, Leroy Logan, said that the extent of trouble each year was roughly comparable with football matchdays. No word yet on when Hall expects Arsenal to decamp to Hampstead Heath, or what the difference in dogwhistle value could possibly be.
***
20 September | Rishi Sunak says he will not allow you to be forced to have seven different bins
I am trying to imagine where I’d put them. Maybe one on the roof, for the messier pigeons? Anyway, as part of a series of measures improvised to demonstrate his hostility to green crap, Rishi Sunak came up with the idea of scrapping “plans for households to have seven recycling bins”. Now he just had to find someone who was planning it. He found the answer in a Defra proposal for standardising recycling collection, which referred to seven different kinds of rubbish. Then former environment secretary George Eustice told Channel 4 News it “wasn’t government policy” but that the government was being “assailed by representations of this sort”. Well, I get assailed with representations that I should stop eating crisps in bed. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
***
2 October | Claire Coutinho says Labour is relaxed about taxing meat because Keir Starmer doesn’t eat it, Mark Harper calls time on the “sinister” misuse of so-called 15-minute cities, Thérèse Coffey promises to scrap an EU rule banning bendy bananas and says “the only things that have rights to roam are farmers, their pigs and cattle”
A busy day: it must be Tory party conference! Labour is not planning a meat tax. Fifteen-minute cities are an innocuous urban planning concept turned into a dastardly plot by some of the internet’s most slow-witted conspiracy theorists. The bendy bananas thing is a myth that got going literally 30 years ago. Denying people the right to access more than 8% of the English countryside, meanwhile, seems like a weird move these days, with voting rights no longer being restricted to landowners. A month later, Coffey left the cabinet, and now roams free on the backbenches.
***
4 November | Suella Braverman says some homeless people are living on the streets as a lifestyle choice
When I say attack line tombola, I really want you to picture Braverman playing it: pulling tickets out of a spinning drum, and just saying what she sees. Carrot sticks are degenerate! Metal detectorists swear too much! Trumpets are corrupt! In the event, she went with the homelessness thing. It is, of course, completely and utterly bogus, unless you think “being subject to a chronic shortage of affordable rental accommodation and probably facing a mental health crisis” is a lifestyle choice. Braverman’s solution to the problem: ban tents. She now sits on the backbenches as a lifestyle choice, and also because she was fired.
***
27 November | Rishi Sunak refuses to talk to the Greek prime minister about the Parthenon marbles
A marginal inclusion, since most observers believe that Sunak had a genuine fit of pique over an interview Kyriakos Mitsotakis gave in which he had the temerity to restate his government’s longstanding and well-understood position that the marbles should be returned to Athens. But it sneaks in because of how Sunak tried to frame the cancelled meeting subsequently: at PMQs, he cast Keir Starmer’s criticism as evidence that the Labour leader backed “Brussels over Britain every single time” (and also likes the Ode to Joy, the hated anthem of the faceless Eurocrat class). Greece is in the EU, it’s true, but the view of EU leaders will have absolutely no bearing on where the sculptures end up. They are, presumably, too busy taking a protractor to their fruits."
|
|