US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
WT86 said:
I agree in theory, but on the other hand it's normal diplomatic procedure to keep quiet on an ally's domestic affairs. E.g., there wasn't much foreign comment on the abortion laws in Ireland, despite the law being very backward (in my view) until recently. Abortion is also mostly a state law issue in the US rather than a national issue, so you'd have to make clear that you're pushing back at Alabama or whatever rather than NY, where the law is slightly more liberal than in the UK. It's awkward for a foreign leader to thread that needle.

Where I would like to see the UK push back is on stupidity like annexing Greenland and other behavior that threatens or unsettles our allies. Even if it's only "trolling" it damages the western alliance and that's absolutely the UK's business.
Click to expand...
And what is the common denominator between pre80’s Ireland and the US states involved here.
A church with too much power or influence in government that’s not in touch with modern living rights outside of their doctrine.
My generation were the first to change that in Ireland, which we have progressively done since and there’s no way the current generation would let us slip back there.
 
Onholiday(somemightsay) said:
Yeh probably is easier from a lower down position.

Slightly disagree on Starmer staying quiet (although that is his default position on most things) - yes it will test our relationship with the US but I believe he stands to grow in stature and political gain with the UK and rest of Europe etc...........
Click to expand...

I expect that he's said something in European circles about it, and that there's a general consensus on how to deal with it.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
And what is the common denominator between pre80’s Ireland and the US states involved here.
A church with too much power or influence in government that’s not in touch with modern living rights outside of their doctrine.
My generation were the first to change that in Ireland, which we have progressively done since and there’s no way the current generation would let us slip back there.
Click to expand...
My point was more that the leaders of other countries avoided commenting on abortion law as it was considered Ireland's domestic affair, for better or worse. Similar to abuses of the rule of law during the Troubles, which the US largely ignored, or abuses of the law in the US which are ignored by the UK and Ireland, etc. That's normal diplomatic practice.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
What is mad is that the reason Biden dished out all those pardons in his last hours is being fully justified by Trump's rhetoric on a potential investigation and prosecution of Biden himself.

"They investigated us (for actual crimes) so we're gonna investigate them (for some made up bullshit), and we'll see how they like it".
Click to expand...
It is no way justified by any metric at all apart from people's partisanship, and I'm tired of people pretending it's anything different.

If Trump pardoned his whole family and all his political friends from any crimes they may have committed then you'd throw an absolute shit fit and call him a dictator. Which is what I said before, if your morals change depending on the person standing in front of you then your morals are a joke.
 
WT86 said:
I agree in theory, but on the other hand it's normal diplomatic procedure to keep quiet on an ally's domestic affairs. E.g., there wasn't much foreign comment on the abortion laws in Ireland, despite the law being very backward (in my view) until recently. Abortion is also mostly a state law issue in the US rather than a national issue, so you'd have to make clear that you're pushing back at Alabama or whatever rather than NY, where the law is slightly more liberal than in the UK. It's awkward for a foreign leader to thread that needle.

Where I would like to see the UK push back is on stupidity like annexing Greenland and other behavior that threatens or unsettles our allies. Even if it's only "trolling" it damages the western alliance and that's absolutely the UK's business.
Click to expand...
His constant attempts at destabilisation of Western alliances such as NATO and the UN and also the WHO is playing into the hands of our adversaries in a big way. I'm sure his reasons are not in the best interests of the USA.
 
It will be interesting to see where we are when the Olympics roll around in a few years and indeed the World Cup to a lesser extent, these attacks on the LGTB etc people could escalate in the coming years as rhetoric builds, be nice if countries felt that the USA was going backwards they’d boycott the games.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Meantime his ex-wife is an extraordinary philanthropist across a wide, wide variety of causes.

And there's no way Zuckerberg's wife is sticking with him btw.
Click to expand...
Both are interesting case studies. They both appear pretty meek. They both (most likely) started off with good intentions. They have both created products which unquestionably have benefits (although equally without question, not without significant downsides). They both have skillsets that may have been utterly worthless in another age.

The simple truth is that having that amount of wealth and power cannot be good for any human, or humanity more widely. It has to warp and corrupt to the very core. How can it not, when you can have anything you want? The more people acquire, the more they depart from reality. The more poeople acquire, the more protective they become about what they have.

It’s not about Zuckerberg and Bezos, it’s about human nature.

Having that amount of anything is neither good for those that have it, nor humanity more widely.

I’m not sure if there’s an answer without some form of meaningful global policy and enforcement, but people with that amount of power and wealth is toxic to them, and toxic to us all.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Both are interesting case studies. They both appear pretty meek. They both (most likely) started off with good intentions. They have both created products which unquestionably have benefits (although equally without question, not without significant downsides). They both have skillsets that may have been utterly worthless in another age.

The simple truth is that having that amount of wealth and power cannot be good for any human, or humanity more widely. It has to warp and corrupt to the very core. How can it not, when you can have anything you want? The more people acquire, the more they depart from reality. The more poeople acquire, the more protective they become about what they have.

It’s not about Zuckerberg and Bezos, it’s about human nature.

Having that amount of anything is neither good for those that have it, nor humanity more widely.

I’m not sure if there’s an answer without some form of meaningful global policy and enforcement, but people with that amount of power and wealth is toxic to them, and toxic to us all.
Click to expand...
It should be the first question to any Trump supporter. How do you feel about the three techbros on stage with Trump having as much wealth as one half of the rest of us Americans?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Both are interesting case studies. They both appear pretty meek. They both (most likely) started off with good intentions. They have both created products which unquestionably have benefits (although equally without question, not without significant downsides). They both have skillsets that may have been utterly worthless in another age.

The simple truth is that having that amount of wealth and power cannot be good for any human, or humanity more widely. It has to warp and corrupt to the very core. How can it not, when you can have anything you want? The more people acquire, the more they depart from reality. The more poeople acquire, the more protective they become about what they have.

It’s not about Zuckerberg and Bezos, it’s about human nature.

Having that amount of anything is neither good for those that have it, nor humanity more widely.

I’m not sure if there’s an answer without some form of meaningful global policy and enforcement, but people with that amount of power and wealth is toxic to them, and toxic to us all.
Click to expand...
Also, when you spend time consuming your own fawning press, you start to believe it. Also human nature. Few are immune.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Just watched the ICE in action getting hold of gang members etc, tbh the list of stuff they had done they shouldn’t be walking the streets but they are in sanctuary states/cities, so I looked that up, it’s ridiculous that they’ve got into that situation, basically very violent criminals have taken the piss there. I tend to agree with this policy with these types, if they are known and have red notices on them I wouldn’t want them in my country, if your a wanted rapist in your home country you dint have any rights in the USA and back you go.
Click to expand...
You bloody Right Wing Nutjob!!!


Ban!! A Trumpist out of the closet.... :p
 
HelloCity said:

Jeff Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon corporate policies​

www.irishstar.com

Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon policies

Amazon's modifications mirror similar actions taken by other major companies after Trump’s election victory, including Meta, McDonald’s, and Walmart
www.irishstar.com www.irishstar.com
Click to expand...

Giant corporation turns out not to have believed in the values it espoused and is happy to change them if it thinks it will protect shareholder returns. Hardly a shocker really. Since Friedman convinced large swathes of the developed world that shareholder primacy was all that mattered almost everything else has been noise and window dressing for PR purposes.
 
Dax777 said:
When you are used to getting preferential treatment, equal treatment begins to feel like oppression.
Click to expand...

Presume you are referring to white male privilege there? Cause historically and presently they're the folks still getting the preferential treatment and any attempts to rectify this seems to really piss off significant numbers of said white blokes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top