The Political Thread

[Fantasy Lover]

There was a huge petition to stop Trump coming here but they don't seem to care. I really wish he'd stop going after Khan, do you know that a while back he was petty enough to challenge him to an IQ test?

Khan would win, I'm certain of it.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Many Khans, including the ones he insulted.

 

This one, especially, and he would kick a** without repercussions. Not sorry, khan't resist!

 

[Pseudonym]

Strangely enough I had never associated Khan with, er, Khan. And now I won't be able to unsee it. I'm not sure whether to thank you or not. 

 

*Goes into happy little daydreams of the way BC Khan would deal with Trump*

[Fantasy Lover]

I did it the moment he got elected.

[Pseudonym]

WTF, talking about things not being reported, there was a massive terrorist attack in rush hour in Kabul on Wednesday that killed over 150 people and injured over 300. That's massive! Why don't these people count enough to be reported on?

[Fantasy Lover]

Maybe because it's the middle East?

[J.P.]

They did report it shortly. Also about Tehran today.

 

There are also concerns about the possible withdrawal from Human Rights Council.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/06/531752892/trump-administration-warns-that-u-s-may-pull-out-of-u-n-human-rights-council

How is it received in US? What may be the consequences?

[Fantasy Lover]

Has he gone mad?

[T.o.b.y]

Has he gone mad?

What do you mean, gone?

[J.P.]

I don't know what it would mean - will USA stop to follow the Human Rights' terms? The headlines feel like that, but… well, they are headlines.

[Fantasy Lover]

What do you mean, gone?

yeah, I realised it the moment I posted it, he lost his marbles a long time ago.

I don't know what it would mean - will USA stop to follow the Human Rights' terms? The headlines feel like that, but… well, they are headlines.

Let's hope it just stays to a withdrawal of the counsel.

[Surelock]

So today I learned that back in 2009, Trump signed an ad in the New York Times urging action to be taken against Climate Change:

 

http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol I wonder why Trump decided to change his mind into Climate Change being a conspiracy by China a few years later? I bet money had something to do with it.

[Arcadia]

I bet you're right.
 

They did report it shortly. Also about Tehran today.
 
There are also concerns about the possible withdrawal from Human Rights Council.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/06/531752892/trump-administration-warns-that-u-s-may-pull-out-of-u-n-human-rights-council
How is it received in US? What may be the consequences?

It's the first I've heard of it (haven't been home to see the news today). As near as I can tell, the issue is that the Trump people think the council is unfair to Israel, and too generous to countries that violate human rights. It doesn't seem to be in the public consciousness much yet, not the way the climate change thing is.
 
Normally I would say withdrawing from the council is an empty threat, but ... who knows. But I wouldn't interpret that to mean that the US no longer upholds human rights ... just that we're so smugly superior, we think we know better than anyone else the proper way to go about doing so.

[Fantasy Lover]

Today is a big day, today Comey gives his testimony and Britain choses a new government, I hope Labour wins.

[J.P.]

 

Lol I wonder why Trump decided to change his mind into Climate Change being a conspiracy by China a few years later? I bet money had something to do with it.

Mind? Which mind? He's always saying things that he thinks serve his agenda at the moment. It's not the first time he contradicts himself. Before election he kept bashing Obama for things he's doing now. Like playing golf.

[Arcadia]

I predict the Comey testimony turns out to be a big nothing. He's just protecting himself by going public with whatever he has to say, imo. Smart cookie.

 

Hope I'm wrong. :p

[Pseudonym]

Sadly you're probably right. :(

[Pseudonym]

That first responder cop who took on the London terrorists with his baton was stabbed in the eye. :o

[Arcadia]

Geez....... ugh. Horrible.

[Pseudonym]

Hm, we have a hung parliament apparently. 

[Fantasy Lover]

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/8/15762938/john-mccain-comey-testimony-question meanwhile, John McCain has lost his marbles.

[Arcadia]

Hm, we have a hung parliament apparently. 

 

Help out a poor, dim American here ... why is that a big deal, exactly? Since a divided government is a normal (and sometimes desirable) state of affairs in our congressional system, I've never quite figured out why it's so catastrophic in a parliamentary system.

 

Although I agree it hasn't been working too well for us lately......

[Pseudonym]

Well, I can't say I'm an expert, but the way I understand it is this; it essentially means that the Tories (the Conservatives) don't have enough seats to pass anything - they are outnumbered by all the other parties who would tend to be opposed to most of their policies. Whilst we want all the parties represented enough to debate policies and put forward the concerns of their constituents, there also needs to be a party with a large enough majority to actually pass laws and get things done. As it stands now, if the Tories want to pass a law, and all the others decide that nah, they don't want to support that, nothing can get done. Similarly none of the other parties have a big enough representation to get anything done either, so the whole thing grinds down to a standstill. The only way it can be resolved is for the two main parties to form stable agreements with other smaller parties which will give them enough votes to break any stalemate. The Tories and one of the Irish parties are cosying up together at the moment so it looks like that's what will happen - whilst there are policies they disagree on their core values are aligned enough to allow them to work together.  

 

Theresa May was hoping it would go the other way, she would get a lot more Tory seats, and would be able to pretty much steamroll Labour and the other parties when it came to negotiating the terms of Brexit. 

 

Eurgh, that was wordy, hope it made some sense!

[Pseudonym]

Just came across this - Frankie Boyle's prediction of the hellish future awaiting us after the election of Trump. Warning it's very dry, very dark, pretty on the nose and has some swearing, but it made me laugh. 

And by the way, when he takes a potshot at Swansea... that's where I am. 

 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

Well, I can't say I'm an expert, but the way I understand it is this; it essentially means that the Tories (the Conservatives) don't have enough seats to pass anything - they are outnumbered by all the other parties who would tend to be opposed to most of their policies. Whilst we want all the parties represented enough to debate policies and put forward the concerns of their constituents, there also needs to be a party with a large enough majority to actually pass laws and get things done. As it stands now, if the Tories want to pass a law, and all the others decide that nah, they don't want to support that, nothing can get done. Similarly none of the other parties have a big enough representation to get anything done either, so the whole thing grinds down to a standstill. The only way it can be resolved is for the two main parties to form stable agreements with other smaller parties which will give them enough votes to break any stalemate. The Tories and one of the Irish parties are cosying up together at the moment so it looks like that's what will happen - whilst there are policies they disagree on their core values are aligned enough to allow them to work together.  

 

Theresa May was hoping it would go the other way, she would get a lot more Tory seats, and would be able to pretty much steamroll Labour and the other parties when it came to negotiating the terms of Brexit. 

 

Eurgh, that was wordy, hope it made some sense!

 

Thanks, Pseud. It makes sense, except that I'd think you'd want the different parties to have to work together, instead of one being able to steamroll all the others. That's how our system is supposed to work ... but as I said, it hasn't been lately, because one party has too much power. I'd much rather see compromise between the sides, like we used to have. But it's become a bad word.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm afraid I don't understand why this affects Brexit, either ... I thought that was a done deal. But I guess not. What's to negotiate?

 

I'll have to look at the Frankie Boyle thing when I don't have other people around, but I doubt he's any darker than I am about our future.