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

So Trump calls the leader of Pakistan out of the blue, with no preparation and expresses hope that he can pop in and visit sometime. I don't like Trump but I cannot help but think what a bad idea that is. 

Pakistan has an extreme element that doesn't take too kindly to Westernized politicians and personalities. Look at what happend to Benazir Bhutto.   Oh well, Trump was probably just lying as he often does.

 

ETA- According to an article in the NYT, Trump offered the Prime Minister of Pakistan 
 

“to play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country’s problems.”

 

Good grief. I'm just going to quote a comedienne who recently said, "I hope this fool don't get us all killed!" 

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe this is one of those times he was supposed to be taken seriously not literally? Did you see that speech in Cincinnati yesterday? He was talking about how at one point months ago he had said "Carrier is not leaving the country". So some Carrier worker was on TV saying he knew they wouldn't leave because Trump said so. Then Trump saw it and thought "Oh, well I didn't actually mean that Carrier wouldn't leave. That decision was made 18 months ago. I just meant corporations in general wouldn't be leaving." But because the guy had so much faith Trump thought he had the step in. 

 

I mean, WTF is anyone supposed to do with a man who thinks like this? He actually says something as specific as Carrier is not leaving, but that's not what he actually means? Talk about causing chaos in the international community. How is anyone going to know when the President of the United States means what he says? I cringe whenever I see an article about how we are in a "post fact or Post truth America", but it's coming true right before our eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't been on board with the electoral college choosing Hillary because I thought it would lead to chaos but more and more I realize that we're going to get chaos with this guy in the White House. At least with Hillary most of the chaos would be domestic, not international. 

Edited by marceline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Speaking of...

 

Let's say the electoral college goes along with the popular vote and chooses HRC.  Would the fact that she officially conceded the election to Trump mean she would be disqualified (for lack of a better word) from accepting the victory that the electoral college potentially could hand her?  (In other words, would Trump remain as President-Elect regardless of the electoral college's decision?)

 

Moreover, if she were allowed to assume the presidency after all, would she be beholden to keeping Trump's cabinet picks in place?  Or would those picks be scrapped and she would be allowed to put together her own cabinet?

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

My understanding is that concession is a courtesy nothing more. It's a tradition that honors our peaceful transition of power. It's not like if she'd refused to concede Donald couldn't be president. All of Trump's cabinet picks would be scrapped because he would no longer be president-elect. 

 

As much as I want Trump out of office I shudder at what would happen to and with Hillary if she took office under those circumstances. She's given so much and for her to have to deal with that level of vitriol would pretty much mean she could never leave the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like pandelerium is going to happen come January 21st. It's like he's trying to hold off on his secrets, scandals, voter tampering and his pending cases of fraud from coming out until after he gets inaugurated.

 

I'm hoping 'n praying for a Christmas miracle on Dec. 19th when the Electoral College votes. I holding out hope that it's in the works behind closed doors, not wanting hints to leak out beforehand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

Well, the U.S. media and some of the public may have accepted "Post fact America" but clearly Pakistan, in releasing the transcipt and going against diplomatic policy, seems intent on putting this on the record- which to me, implies that they intend to hold PEOTUS to his word, regardless of whether Trump was cavalier or not.

Pakistan may have also released the transcript with the bonus of tweaking the Indians, with whom they have a very contentious relationship (if you can call it that). India's response was dripping with sarcasm.

 

At the risk of sounding slightly salty, I have to admit, I'd love to have seen some of the expressions of those Republican leaning Indian-Americans in NJ who, a few weeks before the election feted Trump with that dinner, flew in some Bollywood actors and dancers to perform those silly dance sequences in cheesy camoflauge gear, with choreography that mimicked suicide bombers and Indians struggling against each other. 

Please register in order to view this content

 Some of these people would perceive Pakistanis as enemies. I wonder how they feel about their Trump votes now?

Also, Trump complementing the Pakistani PM, the country and the people-- does this mean that Pakistan citizens will or won't be on that Muslim Registry?  

 

Thanks for this. I'm chuckling reading them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are also a lot of people who have given up. Something like 95 million Americans who should be in the labor market are not. I really wonder how these people are making it day to day.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.html

 

Edited by Juliajms
I was wrong. It's not a record, just a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There's a thing called the "informal labor sector" or as some people I know would say "side hustles".  There were also stories of people 'doubling up' in terms of shelter, families pooling their resources. It's been challenging for many years for many people. 

I know because during the recession, after my department was eliminated at the newspaper where I worked, I knew that I wouldn't be able to complete my Masters degree while living in my Manhattan studio whose rent was escalating quickly, so I actually moved back with family who owned a multi-family home. For me, I had some office, administrative and a variety of writing skills so I could do a number of editing tasks for other artists, writers, students and small businesses and entrepreneurs as a freelancer (which I still do).

In terms of the living situation, yes, it was a challenge and it did involve a measure of loss of autonomy and I also found myself pitching in where I might not have done, had I been on my own but it was what I needed to do and I imagine others did the same and many clearly still are.

 

Actually there are people who have probably lived most of their lives on the margins, trying to eke out a living within the constraints of the informal labor sector. It's a shame that they went mostly ignored until the 'Great Recession'.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
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.




  • Recent Posts

    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
    • I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was Dumas this whole time.
    • Tamara Tunie was serving up grand dame diva fierceness.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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