U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[aussieh]

Bit lame and vulgar, if you ask me.

[Francis Albert]

I'm old enough to remember slot TV's from British Relay, and my first ever VHS Video Recorder was rented from Curry's as they were way too expensive to buy outright, about ?300 which was a lot of money back then (1983), in the days where you got ?3 per hour (if you were lucky), ?120 per week, ?6200 per year wages, before tax & NI of course. 

Many folks nowadays don't know how lucky they are, they don't have a clue what life used to be like.

I think anyone who ever had cause to complain about the cost of a VHS video recorder has no idea how lucky they are.

[Francis Albert]

Bit lame and vulgar, if you ask me.

Might even be called a bit misogynist.

[Ulysses]

Bit lame and vulgar, if you ask me.

 

Possibly so, but it was relevant, and that's what really matters.

 

I do recall a poster here who occasionally displays some degree of common sense saying that Trump has mouthed off at all sorts of people in very crude terms so deserves the next four years of slagging. 

 

But for the life of me I can't just quite recall who it was. 

[Francis Albert]

Possibly so, but it was relevant, and that's what really matters.

 

I do recall a poster here who occasionally displays some degree of common sense saying that Trump has mouthed off at all sorts of people in very crude terms so deserves the next four years of slagging. 

 

But for the life of me I can't just quite recall who it was. 

But you think a British woman prime minister being portrayed as either anally assaulted or taken from behind is fair comment? Edited January 28, 2017 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

But you think a British woman prime minister being portrayed as either anally assaulted or taken from behind is fair comment?

 

Is that a question or a statement?

[Francis Albert]

Is that a question or a statement?

I think the clue is in the question mark at the end.

[Ulysses]

I think the clue is in the question mark at the end.

 

I think it isn't.

 

It doesn't make logical sense to start a question with the word "but" or the word "so".  The use of either word suggests a presupposition on the part of the questioner as to the answer.  There is an exception, of course, if the question follows a previous related statement and the word "but" or "so" is followed by a comma.

 

So, was that a question or a statement?

[Francis Albert]

I think it isn't.

 

It doesn't make logical sense to start a question with the word "but" or the word "so".  The use of either word suggests a presupposition on the part of the questioner as to the answer.  There is an exception, of course, if the question follows a previous related statement and the word "but" or "so" is followed by a comma.

 

So, was that a question or a statement?

Jeezuz. Do you think a British prime minister being portrayed as anally assaulted or taken from behind is fair comment? Or that it might just be faintly misogynist? Edited January 28, 2017 by Francis Albert

[niblick1874]

There was a time that a headline from the msm would suffice.

 

That is not the case anymore. They have been found out by enough to make a significant difference hence Trump being elected. One of there cons is to put their detractors in the minority and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Today everyone woke up to the headlines that Steve Bannon had told the msm to shut there mouth where as what he said was the msm should shut their mouth and listen for a change.

 

The more they do it the deeper the hole they dig themselves.  They did not see this coming.  

[Ulysses]

Jeezuz. Do you think a British prime minister being portrayed as anally assaulted or taken from behind is fair comment? Or that it might just be faintly misogynist?

 

Now now, FA, don't be getting into a huff.

 

See the question in the quote above?  That's not the question you asked me in the first place.  Why did you change your question? 

[niblick1874]

Now now, FA, don't be getting into a huff.

 

See the question in the quote above?  That's not the question you asked me in the first place.  Why did you change your question? 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/squirming

[Ulysses]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/squirming

 

FA may have asked an ill-defined question or he may not, but at least he has the capacity to understand why I'm asking and to explain his reasoning.

 

You, on the other hand, don't.  Honestly, you just don't, and I am being as restrained and as charitable as I possibly can be in the way I've chosen to say that.  So give it a rest, there's a good chap.

[elvoys]

I've just read that Trump has signed an Executive Order than bans entry to the USA of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Lebanon. He says that this EO is aimed at keeping radical Islamic terrorists out of the USA.

 

Interestingly, 18 of the 19 hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Citizens from those countries are still free to enter the USA.

 

Strange logic from Trump.

Lebanon and Iran clearly are because of the strong Netenyahu lobby in Trumps camp - Iran and their shia affiliates (ie Hezbollah) are seen as the greatest existential threat for them. But obviously on individual radicalised lone wolfs basis, it is ridiculous to have them there when say Pak or Afghans aren't on the list - two countries for whom bernandino and Orlando can be tracked from. One thing about the gulf state hypocrisy is there is yuge money being spent donestically in the states by their visits e.g uni students so they aren't stupid. You dont even need a visa to enter fron the UAE plus their comparatively advanced security services clamps down heavily on any threat at soirce. The Saudi absence however I'd agree is stupid when they make up a huge contingent of is numbers and have big ideological support there.

 

As far as the other States - Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, yemen. - these all are in a state of war to different degrees where there are sizeable active jihadist elements. Extreme vetting or temporary shutdowns from these places seems completely sensible imo.

Edited January 28, 2017 by elvoys

[Nookie Bear]

Possibly so, but it was relevant, and that's what really matters.

 

I do recall a poster here who occasionally displays some degree of common sense saying that Trump has mouthed off at all sorts of people in very crude terms so deserves the next four years of slagging.

 

But for the life of me I can't just quite recall who it was.

Ha. Slagging off and criticising is fine but the cartoon is childish and just a bit shit.

 

Anyway, I look forward to Steve Bell's prophet mohammed cartoon next week.

[AlphonseCapone]

Jeezuz. Do you think a British prime minister being portrayed as anally assaulted or taken from behind is fair comment? Or that it might just be faintly misogynist?

Does it matter she is British Prime Minister? Not sure that's the most important area to highlight really.

[Unknown user]

Does it matter she is British Prime Minister? Not sure that's the most important area to highlight really.

Ah he's just generally offended and clearly finding it hard to pin down the main culprit here. Bet his computer screen's covered in tea spray.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Does it matter she is British Prime Minister? Not sure that's the most important area to highlight really.

You are correct.

Being the PM is irrelevant.

[Francis Albert]

Now now, FA, don't be getting into a huff.

 

See the question in the quote above?  That's not the question you asked me in the first place.  Why did you change your question?

Even as chief nitpicker on JKB I struggle to see a great difference in the meanings of the two ways I expressed the question- I just reworded it to address your linguistic and logical sensitivities, in my usual friendly and helpful way! Edited January 28, 2017 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

Does it matter she is British Prime Minister? Not sure that's the most important area to highlight really.

It was just to identify the portrayal as that of a specific and known woman.

 

If Hillary had been portrayed in the same posture there would be people with placards outside the Guardian offices.

[Ulysses]

Ha. Slagging off and criticising is fine but the cartoon is childish and just a bit shit.

 

 

You'll have to take that up with the people who are slagging off and criticising. 

 

The cartoon is relevant, both to the comments made by the posters to whom I was responding and in a wider context.   Your initial assertion was that the cartoon was lame and vulgar, then it was that the cartoon was childish and a bit shit.  Maybe it's all four, but satire often is.

[Space Mackerel]

You'll have to take that up with the people who are slagging off and criticising. 

 

The cartoon is relevant, both to the comments made by the posters to whom I was responding and in a wider context.   Your initial assertion was that the cartoon was lame and vulgar, then it was that the cartoon was childish and a bit shit.  Maybe it's all four, but satire often is.

It's actually a take on a painting held in the British museum about a Duchess or something and her lover.

[Ulysses]

Even as chief nitpicker on JKB I struggle to see a great difference in the meanings of the two ways I expressed the question- I just reworded it to address your linguistic and logical sensitivities, in my usual friendly and helpful way!

 

 

There's a vast difference.

 

Why?

 

Because you portrayed the cartoon as "misogynist", but your own question was itself chauvinist (rather than sexist or misogynist), because it left open the question of whether it would be OK to run the same cartoon if the PM was a man.  Moreover, the question was chauvinist in another way, by concentrating on the cartoon's apparent wronging of the Briton while ignoring its uncharitable portrayal of the American.  When you're bandying about terms like "misogynist", you need to be careful not to be sexist (or more accurately, chauvinist) yourself in what you post.

[Ulysses]

It's actually a take on a painting held in the British museum about a Duchess or something and her lover.

 

Does the painting contain a multi-layered insult of the lover? 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Ulysses

[Space Mackerel]

Does the painting contain a multi-layered insult of the lover? 

The original has the lady clearly laid on her back. I'm assuming that from this cartoon well, you know, family site and all that.

[elvoys]

It was just to identify the portrayal as that of a specific and known woman.

 

If Hillary had been portrayed in the same posture there would be people with placards outside the Guardian offices.

Still waiting on the Guardian or feminists generally celebrating Mays appointment. Funny how that one works, one would almost think it was maybe more about being the right 'kind' of woman.

[elvoys]

Corona's costing 20% more this summer you say........gee thanks POTUS.

 

The Mexican Tennant's. San Miguel is where its at.

[aussieh]

Trump is interfering in German politics now.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The Mexican Tennant's. San Miguel is where its at.

 

San Miguel is Spanish is it not?  Or is there a Mexican brewed San Miguel?

 

Partial to Pacifico Clara myself.

[AlphonseCapone]

Still waiting on the Guardian or feminists generally celebrating Mays appointment. Funny how that one works, one would almost think it was maybe more about being the right 'kind' of woman.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/is-theresa-may-the-most-feminist-prime-minister-ever/amp/?client=ms-android-samsung

 

Author of the article, very much a feminist;

 

http://www.radhikasanghani.com

 

Maybe try looking and you'll find it, though that might not suit your agenda.

[aussieh]

Donald's banned list, why no Saudi?

[Arse 'Friends' Dyslexic?]

It's getting closer...

 

[Francis Albert]

Trump is interfering in German politics now.

Like when the Trump hacked Merkel's phone? Oh wait the was when Obama was President.

[elvoys]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/is-theresa-may-the-most-feminist-prime-minister-ever/amp/?client=ms-android-samsung

 

Author of the article, very much a feminist;

 

http://www.radhikasanghani.com

 

Maybe try looking and you'll find it, though that might not suit your agenda.

As I said, was waiting so thanks for fetching.

[Francis Albert]

There's a vast difference.

 

Why?

 

Because you portrayed the cartoon as "misogynist", but your own question was itself chauvinist (rather than sexist or misogynist), because it left open the question of whether it would be OK to run the same cartoon if the PM was a man.  Moreover, the question was chauvinist in another way, by concentrating on the cartoon's apparent wronging of the Briton while ignoring its uncharitable portrayal of the American.  When you're bandying about terms like "misogynist", you need to be careful not to be sexist (or more accurately, chauvinist) yourself in what you post.

You are I am afraid losing me. I said I thought it was a little misogynist precisely because I though it unlikely that a similar image of Cameron or Boris or (stretching credibility) Corbyn would have appeared. I may be wrong about that but if so it doesn't follow that I am chauvinist or sexist.

[elvoys]

San Miguel is Spanish is it not? Or is there a Mexican brewed San Miguel?

 

Partial to Pacifico Clara myself.

You're right. Brain not got much to go on to find other saving grace exports...

[Maple Leaf]

Donald's banned list, why no Saudi?

Why indeed.  Or Pakistan, or Afghanistan?  Millions of people in those countries hate the USA with a passion.

[Peebo]

You're right. Brain not got much to go on to find other saving grace exports...

Dos Equis is a very worthy beer export.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Peebo

[Nookie Bear]

You'll have to take that up with the people who are slagging off and criticising.

 

The cartoon is relevant, both to the comments made by the posters to whom I was responding and in a wider context. Your initial assertion was that the cartoon was lame and vulgar, then it was that the cartoon was childish and a bit shit. Maybe it's all four, but satire often is.

It's lame, vulgar, childish and shit.

 

Is it signifying rape? Looks like it. Not my scene but I suppose rape is amusing if we don't care for lady on the receiving end.

[Peebo]

Donald's banned list, why no Saudi?

America First, and all that.

[AlphonseCapone]

As I said, was waiting so thanks for fetching.

You're welcome. Glad to have helped correct your wrong assumptions.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Dos Equis is a very worthy beer export.

 

As is Dos Equis Clara and Tecate is ok as well, but I'm not a huge fan of Red Pig though.

[deesidejambo]

Building a big wall is bonkers.

 

And charging Mexico for it is double-bonkers.

[Peebo]

As is Dos Equis Clara and Tecate is ok as well, but I'm not a huge fan of Red Pig though.

Never had Red Pig.

 

For Dos Equis fans in Edinburgh, they sell it in Topolobamba on Lothian Road.

[Sharpie]

Building a big wall is bonkers.

 

And charging Mexico for it is double-bonkers.

 

Building a big wall is bonkers.

 

And charging Mexico for it is double-bonkers.

 

Even more so when you see film of the 80 feet deep tunnels the drug traffickers use to get under the present fences.  Having dealt with the criminal element for 36 years of my life there is one thing I will always give them credit for, it is their ability to conceive, construct, and enact, to overcome any advances, improvement, or strategy the legislators come up with to defeat them. 

[aussieh]

Why indeed. Or Pakistan, or Afghanistan? Millions of people in those countries hate the USA with a passion.

I was thinking more about 9/11 Mapes, I can't remember the exact total number of Saudi nationals, but a right few were involved.

[aussieh]

It's lame, vulgar, childish and shit.

 

Is it signifying rape? Looks like it. Not my scene but I suppose rape is amusing if we don't care for lady on the receiving end.

It's a joke, you'd probably laugh if it was the FM, eh nooks.

[Maple Leaf]

I was thinking more about 9/11 Mapes, I can't remember the exact total number of Saudi nationals, but a right few were involved.

15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis.

 

But Saudis have lots and lots of lovely oil, and they buy billions of $$ worth of arms from the US every year, so there is no way the Americans will restrict them in any way.

[luckydug]

What do you expect her to do? Tell Trump to stuff his trade, knowing he would react in the same way he is with Mexico?

 

Trump will be away in four years, but trade goes on forever and May can't jeopardise the long term just to make some sort of moral point.

 

Even letting him hold her hand ffs.

Just how far will the 'special relationship' go ?

[Nookie Bear]

It's a joke, you'd probably laugh if it was the FM, eh nooks.

I genuinely wouldn't, and this place would go mental (rightly) if it happened.

 

Anyway, just a shitey cartoon...Let's move on.