US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Wow this was 2 days ago yet wasn't posted in here
It should've been. Bernie is a major force in American politics.
On the issue of respecting those you disagree with profusely politically, I dunno, I'm divided. From the POV of actual politicians it makes sense - there's little to be done in being critical of someone who's just died, and as a representative you're probably going to come across poorly and as being bitter/unable to handle opposing opinions.
From the POV of the average voter - I'm unsure. On the one hand, yeah, it's good to be able to get on with those with whom we disagree. To an extent that's how the world works. We meet plenty of people who hold views which vastly differ from our own but don't necessarily chastise them for it, even if those views run contrary to our own worldview. For the most part.
But that's me speaking from a fairly lofty position of privilege. I'm not American, but if my social situation were transferred from the UK to US I'd probably still be in a far, far better position than many Americans who've repeatedly been fecked over by the Republicans, and indeed by the Dems to an extent. Nor have I ever really felt the impact of one of the many wars that figures like McCain have tended to support.
From that perspective, it can seem a bit patronising to be told to be respectful to someone whose actions have had a directly negative impact on your life. If I'm being fecked over by the Republicans by not getting free healthcare, from a personal POV, why should I have any less hatred for McCain than Trump just because he'd be nice to me in public and isn't as much of a dick on social media?
From the POV of the average voter - I'm unsure. On the one hand, yeah, it's good to be able to get on with those with whom we disagree. To an extent that's how the world works. We meet plenty of people who hold views which vastly differ from our own but don't necessarily chastise them for it, even if those views run contrary to our own worldview. For the most part.
But that's me speaking from a fairly lofty position of privilege. I'm not American, but if my social situation were transferred from the UK to US I'd probably still be in a far, far better position than many Americans who've repeatedly been fecked over by the Republicans, and indeed by the Dems to an extent. Nor have I ever really felt the impact of one of the many wars that figures like McCain have tended to support.
From that perspective, it can seem a bit patronising to be told to be respectful to someone whose actions have had a directly negative impact on your life. If I'm being fecked over by the Republicans by not getting free healthcare, from a personal POV, why should I have any less hatred for McCain than Trump just because he'd be nice to me in public and isn't as much of a dick on social media?
Wow this was 2 days ago yet wasn't posted in here
I believe Bernie was fairly good mates with him anyway, both have been serving for a long time so would've known each other well.
It should've been. Bernie is a major force in American politics.
The comment section on both those tweets are gold.
When will the establishment media give up their Russia obsession and return to talking about important matters like healthcare ?
What were McCain's signature pieces of legislation? All I'm hearing is that he was a war hero who was in the Congress for ages.
He was involved with McCain - Feingold campaign finance legislation.
https://www.campaignsandelections.com/campaign-insider/a-decade-of-mccain-feingold
Obviously the Russians have hacked Bernie's twitter account.
I'm sorry but am I wrong for wanting more from McCain in his last few months on Earth?
He had the perfect fecking opportunity to come out and speak out loudly against Trump and everything he is doing. He didn't have to be nasty, or like a bitter or ranting old man, he could have been elegant and spoken with dignity. He just had to tell the truth.
I just feel him keeping quiet is a missed opportunity from him. He could have gone out in style and if he really cared about his country and political party then he could have definitely spoken out more vehemently in defence of what he professed to love so much.
He had the perfect fecking opportunity to come out and speak out loudly against Trump and everything he is doing. He didn't have to be nasty, or like a bitter or ranting old man, he could have been elegant and spoken with dignity. He just had to tell the truth.
I just feel him keeping quiet is a missed opportunity from him. He could have gone out in style and if he really cared about his country and political party then he could have definitely spoken out more vehemently in defence of what he professed to love so much.
Think maybe this time last year he could have, but he's been pretty ill in fairness since before Christmas.
You're right in the sense that loads of these GOP senators are still going along with all this. They're complicit.
Ultimately for all his maverick rhetoric he agreed with Trump on a lot more than he'd like to admit, and was never going to turn on his own party.
Then he should have resigned and let there be an election instead of doing not working and letting the pro trump governor pick a pro trump replacement. fecking over the country till the end.
For sure. He was ultimately still a Republican and was never going to vote against standard Republican policies that Trump also happened to support. On the other hand, he was one of a handful who didn't kiss the ring and capitulate on Russia (or the ACA) which ultimately made Trump dislike him to the end.
Last edited:
Eh - I dunno, he was occasionally quite critical on Russia but for someone quite influential only ever spoke out against it occasionally and never moved to take any substantive action as such. Could've probably been more vocal if he wanted to be.
Well there was an investigation underway for nearly the entire time and he's been sick or much of this year. Speaking out more may have been a good idea but ultimately it wouldn't have changed anything as everyone already knew he was anti-Trump.
Also he killed the bill that was going to destroy Obama care. Trump didn't like that too much.
usually when an ana navarro tweet gets posted on here I think about how her dad was in the contras but now this is what I'll think about
He defended Kerry and criticized the idiots taking pot shots at him. (I presume you knew this and the comment was tongue-in-cheek)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5612836/ns/politics/t/mccain-deplores-anti-kerry-ad/
God, that still makes me angry. Kerry was an utterly boring centrist politician, but it was bullshit how ads in service of filthy rich, daddy's boy, draft-dodger W. Bush somehow managed to paint a genuine (and principled) war hero as some elitist, effeminate anti-patriot.
But then the American right have always preferred war criminals.
That always did strike me as disgraceful, even back then when I was in high school.
Kerry saw Vietnam, then came back and protested against it. Bush joined the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards and patroled the Gulf of Mexico.
But then he criticized John Kerry for brining up his Vietnam service in the first place and in 2008 he took their money!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/john-mccain-and-swift-boa_b_110428.html
If anything, politicians were too soft on Palin, especially Biden in their televised debate.
Speaking of this clown, the irony in the wingnuts attacks on NFL players protesting (racist at its core) while not once bitching about Palin draping herself in a flag and later signing a flag for a fan, both violations of 4 USC 8.
Joe was very good in that debate. If he attacked her more, he would've played right into the mansplainin' trap which would've allowed her to come out ahead in terms of public sympathy.
Chuck Schumer's cut a deal to fast track judges in exchange for a building being renamed after John McCain. What actually is the point of the Democratic party?
"but why not vote for 90% of what you want"
Looking at the primaries across the board, it's really Trump's party now. His candidates keep winning.
I'm getting really fecking bored of all this McCain coverage.
The Bern v Amazon getting into a twitter spat today....
Amazon seems to have the better argument here.
Amazon exploits temporary workers and contractors that do not get paid well at all. These worker do lot of work done for them at a low cost and poor benefits, and they have of course neglected to mention that in their response to Bernie Sanders. Amazon are fully responsible for these workers low pay and poor benefits in a moral sense as ultimately they choose to hire them knowingly how bad they are getting paid. There are zero chance that the staff at Amazon that hired these contractors and temporary workers did not fully know what terms they would be working on.
In their response there are bits like this:
"Senator Sanders’ references to SNAP, which hasn’t been called “food stamps” for several years, are also misleading because they include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or chose to work part-time — both of these groups would almost certainly qualify for SNAP"
This is incredibly petty as whether you call it SNAP or food stamps is incredibly irrelevant to the subject. Bernie just uses food stamps as that what most people likely know this government run program as and this shows they are feeling the heat, when they are getting this petty. Also notice that they do not deny that they have full-time employees on the SNAP program in their wording and Amazon should not be subsidized with tax dollars as it is incredibly successful in raking in profits and tax dollars would be better spend elsewhere like education.
They have offered Bernie a tour at fulfilment centers but these would obviously be guided tours that would be prepared for it and as such serve no purpose to begin with.
In their response there are bits like this:
"Senator Sanders’ references to SNAP, which hasn’t been called “food stamps” for several years, are also misleading because they include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or chose to work part-time — both of these groups would almost certainly qualify for SNAP"
This is incredibly petty as whether you call it SNAP or food stamps is incredibly irrelevant to the subject. Bernie just uses food stamps as that what most people likely know this government run program as and this shows they are feeling the heat, when they are getting this petty. Also notice that they do not deny that they have full-time employees on the SNAP program in their wording and Amazon should not be subsidized with tax dollars as it is incredibly successful in raking in profits and tax dollars would be better spend elsewhere like education.
They have offered Bernie a tour at fulfilment centers but these would obviously be guided tours that would be prepared for it and as such serve no purpose to begin with.
Last edited:
Yep. Used to work at an Amazon warehouse on contract when I was in uni. Was a shite job and the other guys working full hours didn't fare much better.
great country we've got here
Harvard finally getting called out over this
It's very interesting what's being proposed here in California regarding bail for accused people. Everybody knows that the system favours the rich and if you can't find money you are going to languish in jail. I hope this passes and leads to national reform of a disgraceful system.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/28/642795284/california-becomes-first-state-to-end-cash-bail
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/28/642795284/california-becomes-first-state-to-end-cash-bail
I had the same impression too, to be fair, and I have been critical of Amazon in the past. Sanders - while he has a point - seems to have been totally off on the average salary, for example.Of course you think that.