Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5989

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3461

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Administrator

 

Every state having different voting laws is also messed up.   I understand IDs cost money, but it just boggles my mind that some people don't have ID - like how do you go through life without one, you know?  Weird.  Maybe have something like a "voting ID" (if you don’t have a passport or drivers license)  that's doesn't cost much, and something that's renewed every 10 years.   I'm not too sure about signature matching either.  I know my signatures aren't always the same, and it can change a bit over time.  So if doesn't match exactly, they throw your vote out?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

People may have ID's but not the "right kind" in some states.  Like most people have a social security card if they work and/or file taxes and/or apply for assistance and the list goes on,  but that is not considered a valid ID. My neighbor across the street is 78 and she has never had a credit card or ever applied for credit even though she owns a house.   

 

As for signature matching it's not me saying this it's our former County Clerk David Orr who is known as a nationwide election and voting expert. People from all over the country have consulted with him over the years. he is the one who is responsible for the signature matching and no matter what you think about your own signature, the characteristics analyzed to determine if you are that person look at certain aspects of the signature that you may not realize are always the same even if you think it's difference. It's a science based process.  And more accurate than an ID since an ID is verified by a person, many that cannot determine what are and are not fake. The signatures are compared by the election system based on your current signature and what is on file when you registered to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This is indeed very worrying, and IMO the US should defend Taiwan in any invasion attempt. It is a democratic nation and ally, and strategically hugely important. Not only does it produce the world's semiconductors (as the Twitter thread pointed out, US industries rely heavily on those), but its very existence resists China's encroaching dominance of the Asia Pacific region as a whole. Just look what is happening to Hong Kong. Taiwan will get that treatment tenfold -- China has no problem implementing the death penalty on its enemies.

 

Letting China ride roughshod over US bases in Taiwan (!) also sends the message that the US is weak, and will no longer support its allies. The message will resonate bigtime in Europe, Japan and South Korea, also home to US military bases. I know the US doesn't like to play Empire Police, but it is what it is. That is its role in the wider world, whether the NIMBYs like it or not. There needs to be balance between the world's major superpowers, and US-supported allies in the AP represent an important part of that balance.

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Freedoms that Hong Kong used to have are being taken away after Great Britain simply handed over the country to China without bothering to get those freedoms codified and enshrined constitutionally beforehand.

Also, Hong Kong has a much larger and powerful pro-China contingent within the government and a business class that were largely complacent, as well as compliant toward China, as China, is by far, their largest trading partner.

 

There are some similarities between Hong Kong and Taiwan, in terms of some ancestral connection to China (which proves to be a menace to both) but there are many differences, historically and culturally. 

China is a bigger existential threat to Hong Kong than it is to Taiwan, at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

For sure mainland China is a bigger threat to HK, because it is already there, encircling the city-state with its 'National Security' Law which now allows China to detain any HK resident for as long as it wants, with no recourse to legal representation. It also allows the country to spirit detainees across the border to be 'tried' under mainland law. Which is a very different legal system than what HK has been used to until recently.

 

Having visited HK in 2014, it breaks my heart to see this thriving, dynamic place have its identity and spirit broken like this -- handed over lock, stock and barrel by the British, and with the blessing of the local HK establishment. To see so many unarmed, young kids protest, despite the threat to their lives, and be arrested by masses of militarized police as 'terrorists' is laughable -- obscene actually.

 

Taiwan's preference for independence has only grown after seeing what is going on in Hong Kong. Maybe, as you say, China will hesitate before invading Taiwan (as well it should). However, as the Tweet I was responding to suggests, Xi is surrounded by military advisers -- who, I imagine, are keen to tell Xi what he wants to hear, and not what he needs to hear to make informed decisions. The guy is so paranoid, he is practically micro-chipping the few Uighurs he hasn't forced into slave labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's a very sad situation to see, with no easy solutions. I think that any solution that involves the possibility of an American or even American-led military presence in Taiwan will be anathema to the American people and not necessarily welcomed by the Taiwanese people either. 

From what I have read, the U.S. has been trying to produce microchips and transistors domestically and a few  Taiwanese companies have set up factories in the U.S., presumably in order to circumvent having to go through China's manufacturing and distribution system. That is all taking time, as technology marches on. Perhaps the power of the purse is the only way to have any influence in having a hand in turning back the repression on the Uyghurs but the world has become gluttons for cheaply made goods from China. Even Japan has given up the ghost in assembling and manufacturing their electronics.

I do think that if the Chinese government had less power to provide a prosperous life for their citizens, their people might begin to reconsider the "bargain" they made where they surrendered their civil liberties in order to eke out a more  "comfortable" lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some like Matt Stoller, who unfortunately too often veers into hysteria about China which drowns out any positive points, have written a lot about the stupidity of the US moving the semiconductor industry out of the country, and how many of the supply chain issues that have slowed the recovery this year are down to the US moving so much overseas and relying on slave labor. Sadly I don't think this is likely to change - it is just going to get worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The HK/Taiwan issues are close to my heart bc of some of my personal and work connections over the last decade. I can't countenance another war, but I also can't accept the US doing nothing if China tries to invade Taiwan and the country is poised for a worse fate than Hong Kong. There are no good answers. As for Matt Stoller, he's just another loud white blowhard like Stancil. I think Stoller in particular is insane on a great many topics; I don't take that wing of the dead-end left seriously at all and don't consider it remotely influential outside of that increasingly-waning niche group, which (like the right) is consistently struggling post-Trump to lay a glove on Biden, having failed to get him pulled from the ticket over Tara Reade or his supposed dementia.

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • The air...is looooooooooong gone.  
    • From what I remeber reading, it seemed as if it all completely falls apart post-Labine and Mayer around a year later when Ben is sent to prison around June 1976. Ben's departure undoes one of the major story threads that had carried the show for many months. Without a catalyst of Ben's ilk in the wings, there wasn't much to carry either story for the two women (Betsy and Arlene). Arlene was briefly paired in a one-sided attraction with Ray before becoming involved with Ian Russell. I believe the Schneiders introduced Ian as a suave businessman interested in Arlene who was also considering a dalliance with Meg. That would have been delightful but Upton arrives and quickly shifts the narrative to Arlene as a kept woman / prostitute (though I only think she was sleeping with Ian, but maybe I'm wrong).  I think it is Upton who transitioned Ben from complicated heel with a romantic appeal to a tortured, brooding romantic lead with a complicated past. I'm not sure that was the smartest move. Upton must have believed that Ben's near rape was his redemption arc, but I don't think it was enough. There is something deliciously wicked about Ben becoming involved with Mia after the death of Mia's stepson Jim Marriott, who had confessed his love for Mia before racing off on his motorbike and being hit by Ben's car. I could see the appeal, but I don't think it completely worked.  There should have been an angle involving Betsy (who had been a reporter I think when she first appeared) investigating Jim Marriott's accident, possibly with Jamie Rolins who was I believe district attorney. Betsy and Ben growing closer as Betsy grows closer to the truth. Ben confiding in Mia as Andrew continues to make Ben his surrogate son setting in motion the same dramatic situation with Andew's second wife being in love with his son/surrogate son.  I think Betsy and Jamie Rollins were together while Ben was in prison, but I don't think they had much to do. I may be wrong. Meg should have gone after custody making it seem like Jamie and/or Betsy were unfit leading to a case with social services which would have brought Diana Lamont back into the mix causing emotional angst for Diana as she works with Jamie to provide him the child she couldn't.  The Felicia / Eddie / Charles stuff seems rather generic once you get to Charles' paralysis and sexual dysfunction. Felicia's pregnancy and her death seemed to bring an end to a story that really wasn't strong enough to be frontburner. The Lynn Henderson stuff always seems rather movie of the week rather than developed for an ongoing story.  In the past, I agreed that it might have been possible that the story had become so disjointed that they needed to freshen up and add new story elements as Upton did but others have suggested that the elements themselves should have just been considered.   For example, I'm not a huge proponent of Rick and Cal as a couple, but I do think there was some mileage of actually reintroducing Barbara into the mix trying to reconnect with Hank, carrying a torch for Rick, causing conflict in the Sterlings marriage with Bruce and Van taking sides over Barbara vs. Cal, and Barbara maneuvering her way into the Beaver Ridge Complex making her business partners with Rick and Meg, which would give her a new rival.  When Ben returned, there should have been a question of how true his redemption was rather than just jumping in head first to a new role.  I think the Schneiders might have been script writers for Ann Marcus on "Search for Tomorrow," but I may be wrong on that.  Upton introduced the Marriotts in Janaury, 1977. Christian Marlowe's Andy Marriott seemed to be in the mold of Ben. I don't know if the story was any good, but I think Upton towards the end hinted an Andrew / Meg / Andy storyline which I thought would have been interesting. I think Upton had some interesting concepts, but from my understand, the execution was awful. 
    • Is there a new drinking game I don't know about?
    • But... the air of mystery and intrigue as they say it...
    • Chelsea wore this Episode #39, April 21, 2025, to watch the family karaoke. https://wornontv.net/508945/ https://shopafrm.com/products/shailene-dress-pink-petal

      Please register in order to view this content

      Preview of the upcoming May 10, 2025 Saturday Night Live: Régine Chassagne of "Arcade Fire" will wear the  same pink petal sheer mesh print but a top instead of a dress (Editorialist link) or (Nordstrom link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHUNjOYjBOg screengrab of youtube:
    • I didn't wanna "ruin" it for you if Raven hadn't left on her midnight trip to London yet.  But based on where she's going -- and who she'll be staying with -- you can assume there will be some drama when she returns! I believe she even says to Logan or Eliot Dorn before she leaves, "My stepfather, Ansel Scott, always had a 'thing' for me!" lol.  
    • Introducing Genoa City's hottest story in Daytime: April and May are going to be a LONG edit lol. If there's enough demand I'll compile "Abbott Communications" as well.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Greg and Paige were an interesting choice for a couple.  I do think the lack of focusing on the generational differences hindered their long term potential. I think Laura had learned to keep her feelings close to her vest, especially after the hell she went through in her early years on the show.  The last scene of her trying to keep her tears inside as she drove away was the first time we had seen Laura really express what she was feeling after two or three seasons of her keeping her true self hidden from everyone.. even Greg.
    • I guess my hunch may be right about her. I'm still very split about it. My husband thinks she is a joke, doesn't like her acting and thinks she is over the top. At the beginning I liked her a lot... And I definitely don't agree with my husband about her acting... But still something just puts me off when Felicia is on screen. It's like they are pushing her to be this grand dame too much. It doesn't come off natural, but very staged and superficial. Wearing a head piece and a gown doesn't make you suddenly be that. In most cases it makes people look foolish... when they are still wearing a huge hat while sitting in someone's ugly kitchen talking about stuff. To me... the actress and character shine the most when she seems down to earth and talking through something troubling. When the fluff and glitz is less and the REAL is more. When they act like she is Joan Crawford that's when I start wondering what is going on. She isn't. And some of the wardrobe choices for her have been horrific.  Of course all of these impressions are personal ones and I don't claim to know what the character will become in the future or what it was when she started.  I'm only saying my natural response to her now.   Then I'll blame him too! Thank you for the compliment. I'm sorry to respond so late but that's the first time I'm reading these comments.   More like criticism to the show and the way they are portraying her. I still like the actress a lot.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy