Also in the news

[I am Rod Hull]

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60044270

 

Biden's first year done.

 

Overall summation: can do much better, must do much better, or lose at least one house of Congress in 2022 and be at risk at handing the keys to a competent neofascist (as opposed to Trump who fortunately wasn't that competent a one, or rather just an enabler of them) in 2024.

Question is what route to take on policy decisions? Continue to try to compromise to get things done, or go bullheaded and use the slim majority in both houses he has regardless?

Edited 19 January 2022 by leicsmac

[Guest SO1]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60044270

 

Biden's first year done.

 

Overall summation: can do much better, must do much better, or lose at least one house of Congress in 2022 and be at risk at handing the keys to a competent neofascist (as opposed to Trump who fortunately wasn't that competent a one, or rather just an enabler of them) in 2024.

Question is what route to take on policy decisions? Continue to try to compromise to get things done, or go bullheaded and use the slim majority in both houses he has regardless?

The names change but the results remain the same. Tough to change anything when your own party votes against you (Manchin and Sinama). Doesn't matter anyway as there are always other idiots for the ruling class and its Masters to use to further its agenda. Red or Blue means nothing. Just taking turns playing good cop bad cop.

[LCFCCHRIS]

On 14/01/2022 at 20:13, I am Rod Hull said:

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60044270

 

Biden's first year done.

 

Overall summation: can do much better, must do much better, or lose at least one house of Congress in 2022 and be at risk at handing the keys to a competent neofascist (as opposed to Trump who fortunately wasn't that competent a one, or rather just an enabler of them) in 2024.

Question is what route to take on policy decisions? Continue to try to compromise to get things done, or go bullheaded and use the slim majority in both houses he has regardless?

Hes had a shocker, Dems are finished against Trump, unless they've got a bit of a wildcard. Biden would lose and they all seem to hate Harris  

[Guest SO1]

1 hour ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Hes had a shocker, Dems are finished against Trump, unless they've got a bit of a wildcard. Biden would lose and they all seem to hate Harris  

Trump is a stooge. He had his chance and blew it. Everyone knows he's all talk and no action but at least he didn't start any new wars. Which Biden, or those who control him, seem to be doing their level best to start with Russia. Two long years+- until the next election. I'll be happy if the world hasn't been turned into Ash by then given my governments stupidity with Russia and China.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, SO1 said:

The names change but the results remain the same. Tough to change anything when your own party votes against you (Manchin and Sinama). Doesn't matter anyway as there are always other idiots for the ruling class and its Masters to use to further its agenda. Red or Blue means nothing. Just taking turns playing good cop bad cop.

Can't say I disagree about the nature of the situation, the facts stand for themselves.

 

Do say I disagree with the "burn them all" solution you propose as it won't be the weak and vulnerable people who need to be helped who will have power or be helped then; any of that kind of conflict is invariably followed by someone capable of winning that conflict taking power, viz. someone big, brutish and remarkably unconcerned about anyone other than them and theirs.

 

Find another solution.

 

4 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Hes had a shocker, Dems are finished against Trump, unless they've got a bit of a wildcard. Biden would lose and they all seem to hate Harris  

As per the post above, it isn't Trump that worries me so much as the Repubs actually putting up someone capable of and charismatic enough to enact the agenda they want, rather than just enabling it ala Charlottesville 2017 and Washington Jan 6th 2021.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60036911

 

The polarisation is as bad as it has been for a very long time. What's the way to solve it, if indeed there is one?

[Jon the Hat]

On 15/01/2022 at 03:23, Parafox said:

Banned but who checks what's going on in the rural areas, particularly the more remote areas of our county?

Or is a blind eye being turned? 

Surely the lobby groups opposed to this activity would be around. I guess they can't be at every location during a "hunt" and are more likely to be present at the initial gathering of the hunt. Once the hunt sets off over fields and hedges it would be hard to get any evidence of a live hunt of foxes.

I assume.

It's obscene and cruel. And I dislike foxes. Humane culling would be so much better.

The fact is even if (big if) the hun tis genuinely trail hunting, they will inevitably come across actual foxes from time to time.

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as humane culling though, farmers tend to shoot them and leave them to die imo.

[marbles]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The fact is even if (big if) the hun tis genuinely trail hunting, they will inevitably come across actual foxes from time to time.

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as humane culling though, farmers tend to shoot them and leave them to die imo.

There is no answer.

The lies, name calling and just flat out ridiculous behavior from BOTH sides has gotten completely out of control.

 
Some think splitting up the country is the answer - maybe it is.  

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, marbles said:

There is no answer.

The lies, name calling and just flat out ridiculous behavior from BOTH sides has gotten completely out of control.

 
Some think splitting up the country is the answer - maybe it is.  

Polarisation is a big problem worldwide.

 

But in the long run I honestly don't think increased separation will help. Firstly because greater isolation will naturally lead to greater levels of mistrust, misunderstanding and ultimately conflict, and secondly because there are some issues that are truly global and on those a more divided humanity will surely fail.

[marbles]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Polarisation is a big problem worldwide.

 

But in the long run I honestly don't think increased separation will help. Firstly because greater isolation will naturally lead to greater levels of mistrust, misunderstanding and ultimately conflict, and secondly because there are some issues that are truly global and on those a more divided humanity will surely fail.

The suggestion is not to separate down party lines - which would quickly lead to even more mistrust, but dividing up the US into separate countries.

Some states already have the capabilities to operate completely on their own.  Some (California) are such a complete disaster, they would probably become barren wastelands.

Maybe that would still lead to conflict.  Maybe conflict is inevitable.  That's what the leaders seem to want. 

 

 

 

[Footballwipe]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

The suggestion is not to separate down party lines - which would quickly lead to even more mistrust, but dividing up the US into separate countries.

Some states already have the capabilities to operate completely on their own.  Some (California) are such a complete disaster, they would probably become barren wastelands.

Maybe that would still lead to conflict.  Maybe conflict is inevitable.  That's what the leaders seem to want. 

 

 

 

Just interested in this comment. What makes California a disaster? You're in Texas, a state that is desperate to ban abortions and has it's own electrical grid which failed so spectacularly last year. Not exactly grounds for "best country ever" if it set up on its own.

 

Genuinely intrigued as to the definition of CA being a "complete disaster."

[FoxesDeb]

17 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Just interested in this comment. What makes California a disaster? You're in Texas, a state that is desperate to ban abortions and has it's own electrical grid which failed so spectacularly last year. Not exactly grounds for "best country ever" if it set up on its own.

 

Genuinely intrigued as to the definition of CA being a "complete disaster."

Plus doesn't Texas still have the highest number of executions in the US? 

 

It's a third world country in all but name. 

[marbles]

Just now, Footballwipe said:

Just interested in this comment. What makes California a disaster? You're in Texas, a state that is desperate to ban abortions and has it's own electrical grid which failed so spectacularly last year. Not exactly grounds for "best country ever" if it set up on its own.

 

Genuinely intrigued as to the definition of CA being a "complete disaster."

Correct about our power grid last year - for the first time ever.

Despite last years debacle, Texas continues to be one the top states that people move to (number 2 in 2021) 

Yes, we do currently have the strictest ban on abortions.  Not the only in the US, but by far the strictest.

We do have a low cost of living.  No state tax. Plenty of jobs.

 

California

Extremely high cost of living 

High taxes

Regulations regarding everything make it a nightmare for businesses leading to companies moving out, or not moving to

Rampant homeless population

Pollution/smog

Government debt

Disappearing middle class. They are either becoming lower class, or moving out of the state 

 

 

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Plus doesn't Texas still have the highest number of executions in the US? 

 

It's a third world country in all but name. 

The modern definition of “Third World” is used to classify countries that are poor or developing. Countries that are part of the “third world” are generally characterized by (1) high rates of poverty, (2) economic and/or political instability, and (3) high mortality rates.

 

I see you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Some of us are not opposed to the Death Penalty.

I know that can be hard to understand for some - just as hard to understand why someone would be against it  

 

 

 

Edited 20 January 2022 by marbles

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

The modern definition of “Third World” is used to classify countries that are poor or developing. Countries that are part of the “third world” are generally characterized by (1) high rates of poverty, (2) economic and/or political instability, and (3) high mortality rates.

 

I see you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't think the US falls into any of those definitions then? 

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

You don't think the US falls into any of those definitions then? 

You and I are not on  the same page.

I took your post as saying "Texas", which would mean you are incorrect.

 

If you are talking about the US as a whole -

Yes, politically.

Not economically.  Nor are we considered to have a high poverty rate.

 

So I stand by my statement, that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

Edited 20 January 2022 by marbles

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, marbles said:

You and I are not on  the same page.

I took your post as saying "Texas", which would mean you are incorrect.

 

If you are talking about the US as a whole -

Yes, politically.

Not economically. 

I said 'country' so I'm not sure why you thought I meant Texas. Texas is a state within the country of the US. 

 

And yes, the US probably meets some of the definitions of third world, Texas as a state is probably a little further down the scale of what we Europeans would class as developed. 

 

The anti abortion, gun ownership and capital punishment laws all needed consigning to history decades ago in a civilized society. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62576/

 

https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A OECD Data%2C 2019.,country average of 10.7 percent.

 

 

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

25 minutes ago, marbles said:

You and I are not on  the same page.

I took your post as saying "Texas", which would mean you are incorrect.

 

If you are talking about the US as a whole -

Yes, politically.

Not economically.  Nor are we considered to have a high poverty rate.

 

So I stand by my statement, that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/six-ways-america-is-like-a-third-world-country-100466/

[Smudge]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

The suggestion is not to separate down party lines - which would quickly lead to even more mistrust, but dividing up the US into separate countries.

Some states already have the capabilities to operate completely on their own.  Some (California) are such a complete disaster, they would probably become barren wastelands.

Maybe that would still lead to conflict.  Maybe conflict is inevitable.  That's what the leaders seem to want. 

 

 

 

Isn't California's GDP about 3 trillion? That rates above all other states and in the top ten in the world. Indeed a few years ago it was higher than the UK's

[Countryfox]

37 minutes ago, marbles said:

You and I are not on  the same page.

I took your post as saying "Texas", which would mean you are incorrect.

 

If you are talking about the US as a whole -

Yes, politically.

Not economically.  Nor are we considered to have a high poverty rate.

 

So I stand by my statement, that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

 

29 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I said 'country' so I'm not sure why you thought I meant Texas. Texas is a state within the country of the US. 

 

And yes, the US probably meets some of the definitions of third world, Texas as a state is probably a little further down the scale of what we Europeans would class as developed. 

 

The anti abortion, gun ownership and capital punishment laws all needed consigning to history decades ago in a civilized society. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62576/

 

https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A OECD Data%2C 2019.,country average of 10.7 percent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

 

 

Civilised discussion over tapas and a few glasses of wine here, or a shootout in the US?! 🙄 

[marbles]

15 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Civilised discussion over tapas and a few glasses of wine here, or a shootout in the US?! 🙄 

I’ve never had tapas, and I don’t drink.  I do own a gun, but I prefer not to shoot it at someone - so not sure where that leaves us.

 

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine (at least until the left takes over everything   )

 

You can say anti-abortion laws are uncivilized.  I can say, so is killing a child.

 

You don’t have to like our gun laws (or lack there of).  I don’t like them either, but it’s far too late to change course now.

 

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

8 minutes ago, marbles said:

I’ve never had tapas, and I don’t drink.  I do own a gun, but I prefer not to shoot it at someone - so not sure where that leaves us.

 

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine (at least until the left takes over everything   )

 

You can say anti-abortion laws are uncivilized.  I can say, so is killing a child.

 

You don’t have to like our gun laws (or lack there of).  I don’t like them either, but it’s far too late to change course now.

 

 

 

The US being a third world country is not my opinion, though, all the evidence is there. I even posted some of it for you.