http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post
GS explaining why it's fine in 3, 2...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post
GS explaining why it's fine in 3, 2...
Can he explain why it was AMAZING DIPLOMACY to say nothing about it 'because we don't say bad things about our allies' and then have the Home Secretary come out and call it 'Wrong and divisive' four/five days later while he's at it?
For all the comparisons to Thatcher, she might be the weakest idea of a 'leader' we've had in my generation of PMs. Will do literally whatever will make the papers less angry at her.
I fail to understand why we should offer a view on the domestic policy of an ally, beyond what action the government is proposing to take to protect the interests of British citizens.
Boris will take over soon and then everything will be brilliant again.Originally Posted by phonics
The already-known-for-being-outspoken Foreign Secretary seems like the ideal person to publicly register disapproval of an allies policy.
I saw a joke on Twitter and now it's got me thinking.
How many states do you think Dwayne The Rock Johnson would carry in a Presidential Election? 50?
It doesn't matter.
Actually, thinking about it, if he had Stone Cold on the ticket then it would be a clean sweep.
I can't be bothered to do my quote trick so I'm just going to say, SD, that was a very good joke.
He's 'entertaining' people from countries which ban Israeli passport holders from entering the country, and some which prevent you entering if you've even had the temerity to visit Israel before. The irony appears to have escaped him.
Scalia 2.0 for the Supreme Court.
I hardly thought I'd say this but it could have been worse.
It certainly could - we could be American and thus have any reason to give a shit what the makeup of the Supreme Court is.
http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/
*ahem*
-
Just found out that Steve Bannon made the majoirty of his personal fortune by buying a cut of royalties for Seinfeld when it was in it's first season.
That is probably the greatest irony of all time.
Some serious liberal tear potential there.
"It's a government about nothing" is quite a good summation so far actually.
I'm already bored of hearing about Steve Bannon. He ran what most people seemed to think was the shittest presidential campaign ever (could a 'normal' candidate have survived it?), but now he's Lynton Crosby and Otto von Bismarck rolled into one.
He's obviously not that, seeing as he's making a big mess of everything. But it does seem that he's pulling the strings.
Only insofar as any chief of staff (or whatever his title is) makes things happen. He still takes direction from somewhere, and ultimately needs his shit to be signed off by the same person, so making him out to be Rasputin just makes 'The Donald' look comparatively blameless.
Do you think that The Donald actually gives a fuck about policy? Insofar as that is concerned, he's taking advice from those close to him.
I think he will probably restrict himself to his main issues, but I think he will also be savvy enough not to just wave through any old shite without reading it (not to say he won't wave through shite; be he will have his reasons for doing it).
Christ, he's having a Black History Month gathering at The White House and it sounds mental.
First a Pastor opened up by saying he's been "on the phone to all the top gangs" in Chicago and "they want to negotiate with Mr. Trump" and then Trump made this speech on Martin Luther King
I have a dream. Oh man, you wouldn't believe the dream I got
A tremendous dream.
The best dream you could ever have.
The full transcript is amazing and has such gems as 'It's a big job, and it's not only housing, it's mind and spirit, right?'
The dreams love me. They love me.
Christ, you weren't kidding.
Big league.
Spoonsky is right. You are just reacting to the circular firing squad we keep open 24/7 on the American left. The left has not gone farther left. It is more audibly left because it is grassroots and not filtered through political doublespeak. The Tea Party was the same.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...bast/21705130/
Two weeks in and he threatens to invade an ally.Estevez said she "obtained confidential information" corroborating the content of the discussion.
"I don't need the Mexicans, I don't need Mexico," Trump reportedly told the Mexican president. "We are going to build the wall and you all are going to pay for it, like it or not."
...
"He even complained of the bad role the [Mexican] army is playing in the fight against narco trafficking," Estevez, who writes for Forbes and is close to Mexican journalist and anchorwoman Carmen Aristegui, said during an interview with Aristegui's eponymous news outlet.
...
Trump "even suggested to [Peña Nieto] that if they are incapable of combatting [narco trafficking] he may have to send troops to assume this task," she said.
Oh yes
Man it feels awesome to have a leader that you are proud of. Just cucking everybody left and right.
The only problem with that is that everyone knows he can't do it, so it just sounds like idiot bluster. At least "20% tax on imports" is a threat he could make good on.
And I very much mean "can't", not "won't". If he even contemplated invading an allied nation, he'd be out on his ass so fast, it'd be a race to see whether the army, the judiciary, or his own party would be the ones to bring him down.
Malcolm and Don had a lovely chat I see.
I truly can't understand why anyone would pick a fight with us. We're a totally inconsequential country in the big scheme of things.
We basically just dig valuable rocks out of the ground and sell them. That's our entire lot.
Surely everyone (except Theresa May it seems) will be lining up to be the next foreign leader that The Donald rants at for no apparent reason. Must do your domestic ratings the world of good.
Malcolm is loathed by the far right and struggles with most people left of centre.
It's a strange one but completely irrelevant with our buddy buddy bond going forward.I truly can't understand why anyone would pick a fight with us. We're a totally inconsequential country in the big scheme of things.
We basically just dig valuable rocks out of the ground and sell them. That's our entire lot.
Don't you think?
Trump's SCOTUS pick founded club called Fascism Forever
It seems that I wake up to a new diplomatic outrage every day. Nice.
It's basically the right-wing equivalent of teenagers waving around The Communist Manifesto. It means he was a prat as a kid, but I assume that's true of almost everyone who winds up in politics on either side.
I'm more concerned by his age that anything else. He's the youngest appointment in quite a while, and could easily be on the court for forty years. He basically sits in the same spot as Scalia, and would likely rule the same way in every major case, so it wouldn't really shake up the status quo too much. I don't see what the Democrats would have to lose by filibustering the nomination to try and get someone a bit more centrist on the court though. Say it again guys - obstruction costs you nothing.
It honestly amazes me that he is so bad at the diplomacy part. It's like the terms "soft power" or "goodwill" haven't existed in the business environment he's been marinated in.
He has apparently put Iran "on notice" now. Over/under on him launching a ground invasion of Yemen as a proxy for it?
Given that the geezer sounds about as qualified as you could possibly be (EXPERT), even amongst these sorts of people, does that make it harder to spin a convincing opposition to his appointment?
I found CENTCOMs response to that pretty funny.
"What do you think of putting Iran on notice?"
"No-one told us, we haven't done anything"
Sort of. He hasn't put down his views on a lot of the more controversial subjects for libs, so they can't attack him on the basis of him overturning Roe v. Wade or something like that. He's an outspoken originalist, which basically makes him a conservative roughly in the same mold as Scalia, but at least he seems sane.
The argument I've seen from the left for obstruction is rather that the GOP blocked Garland for a year, and some Dems want to play a game of chicken with Mitch McConnell saying essentially that "we'll keep the court at 8, and if you want it any other way you'll have to nuke the filibuster". Supposedly he would be very reluctant to do so. The risk involved would be RBG and/or Breyer croaking it in the next 4 years with the filibuster gone, which would mean The Don could see fit to place Sarah Palin there with no way of blocking it.
Yeah, judging from the content of the article it might even have been somewhat satirical, but it still struck me as an odd thing to do, even for a high-schooler. Seems to confirm that there's not much wrong with the guy though, if that's the first thing that gets dug up.
As for the obstructionist point, I don't know.. the narrative might be going the other way if they filibuster the nomination, with the evil elitist Democrats being painted as bad losers. I'm not sure anything the Republicans have done during the last eight years is going to matter much in that kind of discourse.
Stupid, yes; but you can't fault his adherence to the TTH style guide.
All of you who have Twitter accounts should post on his Twitter some support, using chimpout and seething in there. Imagine what a collective e-victory that would be when he uses them against those pesky liberals.
Reply With Quote
