- Edited
mdgoonah41 surely that would be tossed or shifted to the next election cycle if upheld. there's no way a rule like that can be enforced less than 2 weeks from an election and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters
2024 US Election
Gazza M It feels inexorable because mainstream political discussion is all about the discourse, media influence and control, persuasion, populism, the vote and voter behaviour and psychology ... and there's occasional commentary about elite capture and oligarchy, but the mainstream is still not seriously admitting what's necessary: a restoration of mass political power followed by a vast expropriation of goods from a tiny elite of billionaires who the masses and the world at large have absolutely no need for.
- Edited
JazzG have you read "I Alone Can Fix It"?
It's a horror story. And its subject is Trump's final year in office. You might feel differently once you've read it.
Burns - Oborne isn't saying Trump and Johnson invented this battery of the truth - he actually holds Tony Bliar mostly responsible for it. But he is saying the way in which Johnson in particular just lied and lied and lied to suit his own ends (and damage others) was pretty unprecedented - see lying to the Queen to prorogue Parliament.
As for Starmer and his approval ratings - he's had 3 months in office. I don't think anyone over here expects him to magically sort everything out in that time. I wish the BBC, in particular, had been a bit more attentive to our previous governments and their failures.
Perhaps that's expecting too much when you have Robbie Gibb, Theresa May's former director of Comms heading up BBC News output - and then sitting on the BBC board with oversight on their impartiality!
The problem is truth has never been sexy. What’s sexier is stories of hordes of Latin gang members and Congolese, Haitians frying up poodles, and your son leaving in the morning for school and returning a girl in the evening. That’s much more gripping, and captures that basic, tribal spirit that forces us into our laagers. Painting these pictures has always worked - you see it now in South Africa with the anti-immigrant movement, with the French right, Modi (a truly special character).
That, And she’s a woman. Many American men will not vote for her based on this.
Yeah the Starmer/labour point is the general public right now don't really like any politicians so people don't get much grace let alone a labour government when so much of the media it's controlled by right leaning bodies. So I'm not as surprised more disappointed but I want to see what they deliver. The budget is probably the first chance on that side
On the truth stuff my point was mainly this is why politics have become so terrible because we in the public don't value it so it encourages liars and people who have no interest in helping wider society step into politics because they never pay a price for it in votes.
I understand the anti establishment feeling that drives lots of these movements but as you mentioned in your post Burnwinter this has happened before and most of the time they make the ordinary people's lives much worse. I get the pull off Trump saying he's anti establishment or Farage I'm the voice of the people but they are lies they are the most establishment kind of people with their wealth. If the public allows themselves to be taken in by these obvious liars then I'm not really sure how you can improve democracy because people willing to tell you lies will always make it sound like they have a better idea.
- Edited
The left also has to give up on trying to replicate mythical 20th-century ideas about direct action, labour organizing, and protest. We need new tools, linguistically and in practice. Labour, in particular, needs to be both more practical and more visionary.
And identity politics needs to go back to where it came from: fascism. It has no place on the left, and it only serves to frame the argument on power's own terms.
Anyone catch Harris interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN? She fumbled the bag on the border question (and willing to accept putting $650 million into building that stupid wall) and then claimed to have raised kids.
Bryant huh? she has step children
She did not raise them though. They were 15 and 20 when they got married.
USArsenal so my parents didn't raise me after the age of 15? thats news to me and my therapist
USArsenal I got foisted with a stepdad when I was 14. Mum didn't actually marry him till I'd just turned 22 but, whether I wanted him or not (mostly not, but he's alright really), he was part of my upbringing.
Obviously, I don't know the specific family situation here, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable for her to say this. Especially if there's an attack line - as happens here - that childless people (
) somehow care less about the future than people with kids.
The truth involves nuance and detail, something modern society has no time for. I’m staggered by how many people will have uncompromising views with no research to back it up except for a TikToc they saw.
Tapping into greed, hate and fear is a far simpler method of getting people on your side, especially in the age of social media algorithms.
Well, being part of your upbringing does not equal being raised by. I know it seems like semantics, but its not. I have a stepmother, and she has been in my life since i was 13, but i still wouldn't say she raised me, i would say that she was/is a part of my life (and i have a completely fantastic relationship with her).
As for their family dynamic, the 'kids' lived with their biological mother, so I would really say that she did not raise them. Im not going to attack anything, but i think she over-stated her involvement with those kids. Just my opinion.
USArsenal Well, being part of your upbringing does not equal being raised by. I know it seems like semantics, but its not
I dunno, it seems like it might be semantics to me, but maybe I'd feel differently if I'd had a stepmother and not a stepfather. Regardless, I'd still say it doesn't seem like the most egregious claim to have made, but...
USArsenal As for their family dynamic, the 'kids' lived with their biological mother, so I would really say that she did not raise them. Im not going to attack anything, but i think she over-stated her involvement with those kids. Just my opinion.
If this is true, then, yeah, I tend to agree with you.
the childless women thing is a red herring, just like so many other pieces of trash they've thrown into the waters to just distract people and create a permission structure for people to vote for the bigoted racist.
RocktheCasbah As for Starmer and his approval ratings - he's had 3 months in office. I don't think anyone over here expects him to magically sort everything out in that time. I wish the BBC, in particular, had been a bit more attentive to our previous governments and their failures.
The problem for Starmer is he is being held up to the same standards as wanted to hold the previous government to. You can't call the previous government corrupt then the moment you get into office you take tens of thousands of clothes, glasses, tickets and god knows what else. He's finding out the hard way it is a lot easier being in opposition than in government.
RocktheCasbah have you read "I Alone Can Fix It"?
It's a horror story. And its subject is Trump's final year in office. You might feel differently once you've read it.
I'll take a look.