Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3459

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Edward and Sophie are the family who are supposedly closest to the Queen. I am not sure how much the Queen is still there, but sometimes I wonder if they are doubling down on these activities for her as I imagine she would take the loss hard. But it's the job of a monarch to accept and face reality. Unfortunately, as shown  with Andrew, that is something the Queen increasingly will not do...

At this point, as someone who was probably pretty pro-monarchy for a long  time, after everything with Andrew and Meghan Markle I think their time has passed. 

As for Miss Madison, that photo was leaked by a former friend/campaign person, which is not surprising as he is apparently a huge [!@#$%^&*] to everyone. He really screwed  up by going  around talking about Republicans inviting him to coke orgies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They live in a total bubble, is all I can come up with. Other than Princess Diana and now Harry, the rest appear to be completely disengaged from the people outside of their milieu. Still living in a “Past time Paradise”, as Stevie Wonder would say. They have a colonialist mentality, that somehow their former colonies remain vassal states and will fawn at their feet with the mere mention of kind words and flowery language. They need to get over themselves.

Maybe they believe that if they all repeat the same message, over and over, that will somehow make it true and people will believe them, despite the fact that their actions remain contrary to their words?

I admit, I am no fan of the Royal family, as they enriched themselves breaking the backs of my ancestors (much like England did). They just need to put actions behind their empty words or just go away.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You wouldn’t know he even won if you listened to BBC news. To them it wasn’t a resounding win because Macron is respected but “not loved”. That his margin of victory was only healthy because he was the only candidate standing in the way of the far-right. Do they not remember that Macron had to beat out other candidates (including Mélenchon) to get to the runoff, while Le Pen barely squeezed into the runoff herself? And Macron being the only alternative to LePen, well, isn’t that how it works when there are only two candidates left? Never mind the fact that Macron is the first French President to be re-elected in twenty years.

Now they’re going on about the “unsexy” parliamentary elections. It appears that BBC suffers from the same media disease as the U.S.: a fever for a horse race narrative. If they can’t find one, they’ll create one.


 

They didn’t have much to say about Slovenia.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I used to listen to the BBC a lot more than I do now. It's been tainted like many others peddling sensationalism and horse race garbage more and more.

My neighbor returned from a trip to France - she has family in Dieppe, so I trust her feedback more than anything I read anywhere based on her conversations with family and friends she talks to there and reads from there. 

Honestly there was never a danger in Macron not winning and as she told me yesterday, it was expected.

Sure there is still a lot of anxiety especially in the poorer parts of France. Normandy has a lot of poverty and hurt relatively speaking. But too many people there understand the danger of Le Pen and that movement.

Now keep in mind her family are not extremes on either side of the political spectrum  but they were talking about Melenchon when she was there weeks ago. He and Le Pen were actually polling neck to neck and had the youth vote been higher he would have easily beat her. And they were even saying then about Melenchon's strategy will be rallying for the PM position. That was not a common discussion point in any of the media and still isn't, but they believe he has a very good chance of pulling an upset unless Macron can agree on and form a real coalition with real commitments. So time will tell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I voted in yesterday's election (my mom is French). I've been hearing nothing but talk about Macron being a weakened figure and Le Pen on the cusp of taking power. The far-right, unfortunately, has been a mainstream movement in France for quite a while, and the last two elections should tell observers that. However, you are spot-on that Melenchon was within a whisker of stealing Le Pen's place in the second round. They are polar opposites when it comes to immigration, but the two do share some agreement on some economic policies. Both also side-eye the EU and NATO. And this kind of radicalism has attracted many. Many political trends at the moment across the world are heading in these radical, polarised streams, with people not so much wanting to fix the system, but break it and implement a new one.

I think Melenchon definitely wants to be PM -- if only to listen to the sound of his own voice! I don't have quite the starry-eyed view of Melenchon as some in the media do. A sizeable youth vote aside, Melenchon hankers for the good old days of Soviet communism and IMO that does not work. But if a disaffected France votes for his Union Populaire in the legislative elections, he has a chance of forcing a coalition on Macron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@Cat Thanks for sharing.  All of it is very unsettling in many ways and not surprising.  I know elections are not the same as they are here but margins like that would be called a landslide here. That's not to say that the fringes have not gained more momentum - that's happened here but we have only had one mainstream party embrace the fringes - perhaps because that party was the most vulnerable or perhaps because they have never been all that interested in democracy period(The Jim Crow south of 100 years post civil war was more fascist than democratic and that wasn't so long ago).  But of course republicans here never want to talk about that nor does our own media, who keeps celebrating the worst of the worst - people like Ron DeSantis and of course Trump.

I'd be very interested in whether Melenchon is a doer versus a talker.   The far left here always talks about what should be done but there is never a real plan on how to legislatively get things done. The members elected at least in our legislative branch always seem to be the least interested in helping craft legislation and spending their time on social media and chastizing other democrats than the real threat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Musk taking Twitter is awful news, among many chief reasons being it is almost certain Trump will be allowed back on, as goat man Dorsey retreats further into his ayahuasca vision quests rambling into the abyss about how he can 'prove' CNN engineered chaos in Ferguson.

That being said, I think it is ultimately transitory. Musk has the attention span of milk. He will get bored, break Twitter somehow and walk away in due course. It's not as if we don't have enough horrible shīt to deal with which is much more taxing.

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

    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
    • I love your ideas. I would love to see Jack grown up this confused unhinged individual. He should hold a grudge against both Brooke and Taylor.   
    • @chrisml

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Lois's return has been a bust. So disappointing that the writers have never written for her. As with Tracy, the pool of GH vets is so thin, there's no one to pair her with. Doubtful they would go to the trouble of properly recasting a legacy character and then sticking  him with Lois; they're obviously not that invested. If she wants to be on this show, it'll be as a noisy grandma who stays in the background. 
    • I love me some Anita and TT. They need to give her a good storyline and I know that it's coming. 
    • @Franko Thanks for tagging me. A few days ago I was talking in another thread about the rise of "snarky" critics for TV shows in the '90s online recaps, but this is just more along the lines of a mauling. There's also the unspoken reality that films like Steel Magnolias were seen as movies for women, so therefore they sucked. Pauline Kael also had her share of blunt, at times incredibly nasty remarks, but the vitriol is often balanced by her love for film. I'm not seeing that here.  With that said, the comment about Field's work becoming unbearable describes how I felt when I tried to sit through her and Maura Tierney on ER. 
    • I skipped most of Daniel too. I think it's awful he has kids with Nicole, Csrky5 and Chloe and Brady, Bo and Philip do not. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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