Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Grebfromgrebland

Also In The News

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SlaneyLCFC said:

It's not the senates job to do the houses work. "Witnesses" used loosely should of been presented at the house stage. Besides, as the Dems so desperately kept saying, if it was such an emergency that he should be removed immediately as thats what the American people deserve why did darth pelosi withhold the papers for so long before passing them on to the senate. She even said it would be unwise to proceed but went along with it anyway due to party pressure. Low and behold, it failed just like the "muh russia" and the Mueller investigation.

 

It's Trump derangement syndrome pure and simple. They still can't accept the result of the 2016 election, just like the Remoaners here in the UK regarding Brexit. As for Romney, he is a RINO. He is still bitter he didn't get the nomination to run for president and Trump did. His saving face by voting not guilty on the second vote to save face still won't do him any favours. Remember when the dems called Romney a disgrace and akin to hitler all those years ago and now is being hailed as "stunning and brave" by the typical left leaning media outlets and dem voters. 

 

Hypocrites and again only shows this is a bias against the president and nothing else.

All of this taken onboard, what exactly *should* the dems have done given the situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All of this taken onboard, what exactly *should* the dems have done given the situation?

Publicise it, out it to everyone, question him on it but recognise it's a situation you can't win and recognise so many will see this as a further indication you have never accepted his election and can only boost his electoral hopes just a few months before an election. Key thing in politics always has to be long term strategy for whenever that election is. I mean as Dan Hannan said yesterday on PL, this wasn't even conclusive opinion amongst the legal bods that it should go to impeachment, they just wanted to do it and knew they could because they gained the house.

 

The key thing was as always - look at it from the other side, not your own, then analyse.

 

Instead you've now got front page photos of him with "acquitted" in front of it, the Democrats looks like children, the speaker is showing herself up in front of the nation and Trump already openly campaigning with it. Twice in his speech last night he said how great the economy was and how even better it would be if the Democrats hadn't wasted so much money on impeachment. 

 

"The do-nothing Democrats wasting millions of taxpayers cash on a witch hunt" - that's now his "Get Brexit Done" for his 2020 relection.

 

As I say though - impossible to convince them of this as they are too far gone with the pathological hatred of the bloke to see any reason.

 

I can't remember another election in recent history where a political party has actually instigated campaign material for their opponents months before an election, the old saying about politicians being the stupidest cleverest people going is certainly true in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

Publicise it, out it to everyone, question him on it but recognise it's a situation you can't win and recognise so many will see this as a further indication you have never accepted his election and can only boost his electoral hopes just a few months before an election. Key thing in politics always has to be long term strategy for whenever that election is. I mean as Dan Hannan said yesterday on PL, this wasn't even conclusive opinion amongst the legal bods that it should go to impeachment, they just wanted to do it and knew they could because they gained the house.

 

The key thing was as always - look at it from the other side, not your own, then analyse.

 

Instead you've now got front page photos of him with "acquitted" in front of it, the Democrats looks like children, the speaker is showing herself up in front of the nation and Trump already openly campaigning with it. Twice in his speech last night he said how great the economy was and how even better it would be if the Democrats hadn't wasted so much money on impeachment. 

 

"The do-nothing Democrats wasting millions of taxpayers cash on a witch hunt" - that's now his "Get Brexit Done" for his 2020 relection.

 

As I say though - impossible to convince them of this as they are too far gone with the pathological hatred of the bloke to see any reason.

 

I can't remember another election in recent history where a political party has actually instigated campaign material for their opponents months before an election, the old saying about politicians being the stupidest cleverest people going is certainly true in this case.

With respect, that's not really answering the question - or if it is is heavily implying that there was no good option for the dems here and thus Trump could do pretty much as he wished and still come out on top. Is allowing (possible) electoral corruption because people might get angry at being ignored or going after it and being made a pariah because of those people a thing now?

 

If that is indeed true (and it might well be), then I think that it might be found that what you often say about people being ignored at the ballot box and thus choosing other methods cuts both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, that's not really answering the question - or if it is is heavily implying that there was no good option for the dems here and thus Trump could do pretty much as he wished and still come out on top. Is allowing (possible) electoral corruption because people might get angry at being ignored or going after it and being made a pariah because of those people a thing now?

 

If that is indeed true (and it might well be), then I think that it might be found that what you often say about people being ignored at the ballot box and thus choosing other methods cuts both ways.

I've exactly answered your question.

 

You asked what they should have done and I've told you.

 

Continue to speak about it.

Continue to question him publicly

Continue to reference it whenever possible

Use your friends in the press to keep the story going all the way to the election

 

That is a very good way of dealing with it.

 

If you want a good example of how to do that from a similar situation check out how the Tories did it with Corbyn's links to foreign regime. Had the Dems been the Tories they'd probably have created some bizarre treason law and drag him to court.

 

I'll tell you what you don't do, martyr him and write his re-election campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've exactly answered your question.

 

You asked what they should have done and I've told you.

 

Continue to speak about it.

Continue to question him publicly

Continue to reference it whenever possible

Use your friends in the press to keep the story going all the way to the election

 

That is a very good way of dealing with it.

 

If you want a good example of how to do that from a similar situation check out how the Tories did it with Corbyn's links to foreign regime. Had the Dems been the Tories they'd probably have created some bizarre treason law and drag him to court.

 

I'll tell you what you don't do, martyr him and write his re-election campaign. 

...but then you followed that up by saying it's probably a losing strategy anyway (and again, you might be right), so my own followup was on the lines of "what good would it do?"

 

Thanks for clarifying that you think such an idea might work if applied properly - guessing the idea here is don't go down the establishment investigation angle, instead just hit him with it from your party only. Perhaps that may well have been more successful. I guess we're only really going to know what the end result of all this is come November.

 

NB. One thing I will say is that the Dems, whoever their candidate may be, need to start hitting Trump on policy areas - womens rights, environmental issues, healthcare, white supremacist attacks, among others, rather than just focusing on this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...but then you followed that up by saying it's probably a losing strategy anyway (and again, you might be right), so my own followup was on the lines of "what good would it do?"

 

Thanks for clarifying that you think such an idea might work if applied properly - guessing the idea here is don't go down the establishment investigation angle, instead just hit him with it from your party only. Perhaps that may well have been more successful. I guess we're only really going to know what the end result of all this is come November.

 

NB. One thing I will say is that the Dems, whoever their candidate may be, need to start hitting Trump on policy areas - womens rights, environmental issues, healthcare, white supremacist attacks, among others, rather than just focusing on this.

Well you still might win, I mean it's going to be close, but fact you are close against this shambles shows what a cock up it's been whatever happens.

 

The last sentence makes no sense at all to me and I can't really believe you have written it.

 

That's pretty much exactly what you went at him with last time. Are you looking to win back Ohio and Penn or just increase your vote share in San Francisco? (I'll give you a tip, the people who care about those things you mention are going to vote for you anyway)

 

Do you really think rust belt workers are going to change their votes on environmental policy and women's rights? The odd white supremacist attack? The response to that from the WWC will be why you are talking about white terrorism whilst ignoring Islamic ones.

 

I'd be going at him on debt level, competence, failure to build his wall, Iran and Korea still developing nuclear weapons despite his macho threats - you win elections by attacking you opponent on the things they have let their own voters down on, not by basking in your own viewpoints on issues you've already cornered the market in.

 

I'll refer back to the election here, if Boris had spent weeks on taxation rather than Brexit he wouldn't have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well you still might win, I mean it's going to be close, but fact you are close against this shambles shows what a cock up it's been whatever happens.

 

The last sentence makes no sense at all to me and I can't really believe you have written it.

 

That's pretty much exactly what you went at him with last time. Are you looking to win back Ohio and Penn or just increase your vote share in San Francisco? (I'll give you a tip, the people who care about those things you mention are going to vote for you anyway)

 

Do you really think rust belt workers are going to change their votes on environmental policy and women's rights? The odd white supremacist attack? The response to that from the WWC will be why you are talking about white terrorism whilst ignoring Islamic ones.

 

I'd be going at him on debt level, competence, failure to build his wall, Iran and Korea still developing nuclear weapons despite his macho threats - you win elections by attacking you opponent on the things they have let their own voters down on, not by basking in your own viewpoints on issues you've already cornered the market in.

 

I'll refer back to the election here, if Boris had spent weeks on taxation rather than Brexit he wouldn't have won.

...so again it's a lose-lose situation where if those issues are raised they are ignored because people don't care, but if they're not they don't get addressed anyway? How edifying.

 

That being said, I'd agree that winning is the more important thing and as such whichever way is most likely to do so is the way that should be chosen, so yeah, if floating voters really prioritise stuff like "the wall" over, I don't know, the future of civilisation itself, then that's where the onus should be. I would still say that healthcare is still an issue that needs to be fought either way because that does seep into Trumpland as well as everywhere else too.

 

NB. The number of white supremacist attacks in the US since Trump took power far outnumber that of Muslim ones - if people want to make the point of "what about the Muslims?" then I'm not sure why their obviously erroneous viewpoint should be entertained, barring the caveat that even they in their ignorance have a vote.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...so again it's a lose-lose situation where if those issues are raised they are ignored because people don't care, but if they're not they don't get addressed anyway? How edifying.

 

That being said, I'd agree that winning is the more important thing and as such whichever way is most likely to do so is the way that should be chosen, so yeah, if floating voters really prioritise stuff like "the wall" over, I don't know, the future of civilisation itself, then that's where the onus should be. I would still say that healthcare is still an issue that needs to be fought either way because that does seep into Trumpland as well as everywhere else too.

 

NB. The number of white supremacist attacks in the US since Trump took power far outnumber that of Muslim ones - if people want to make the point of "what about the Muslims?" then I'm not sure why their obviously erroneous viewpoint should be entertained, barring the caveat that even they in their ignorance have a vote.

You've completely missed my point. Of course you mention the environment and all those things, but you don't fight a campaign on issues you have already cornered the vote in. Leave that for your rallies.

 

Maybe leave the wall (as that's probably Trump's cornered market) - but how could not even mention going at Trump on the 1.9 trillion debt, the whole economic boom that ends with the bust, before identity politics, this is massive among that ever smaller pool of swing voters that decide elections.

 

On the last point, you mention both. You don't automatically drift into that leftist group think of "make it about the white people first" that I would expect to come out of the mouth of Omar, when you actually need a lot of white voters to come back to you. 

 

When Dominic Cummings started the vote leave campaign he drew a pie chart on the wall and divided it into three sections.

 

Leave - 40%

Remain - 40%

Undecided - 20%

 

He then immediately draws a line through the 80% and says not a single thing we do over the next two months should be directed at any of these, they are irrelevant to this referendum.

 

You've got to do that and whatever that undecided number is drag as much as it over to you, you won't do that preaching about white terrorists and trans rights. 

 

Find out what they want, find out what they hate about you, find out what they hate about Trump then work from there.

 

In August last year Cunmings was holding focus groups with undecideds and a girl from Bishop Auckland when asked what she wanted from politics said "I just wanna get Brexit done" and that resonated with all the focus groups after. 

 

I'd imagine somewhere someone in America once said he wanted to make America great again as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

You've completely missed my point. Of course you mention the environment and all those things, but you don't fight a campaign on issues you have already cornered the vote in. Leave that for your rallies.

 

Maybe leave the wall (as that's probably Trump's cornered market) - but how could not even mention going at Trump on the 1.9 trillion debt, the whole economic boom that ends with the bust, before identity politics, this is massive among that ever smaller pool of swing voters that decide elections.

 

On the last point, you mention both. You don't automatically drift into that leftist group think of "make it about the white people first" that I would expect to come out of the mouth of Omar, when you actually need a lot of white voters to come back to you. 

 

When Dominic Cummings started the vote leave campaign he drew a pie chart on the wall and divided it into three sections.

 

Leave - 40%

Remain - 40%

Undecided - 20%

 

He then immediately draws a line through the 80% and says not a single thing we do over the next two months should be directed at any of these, they are irrelevant to this referendum.

 

You've got to do that and whatever that undecided number is drag as much as it over to you, you won't do that preaching about white terrorists and trans rights. 

 

Find out what they want, find out what they hate about you, find out what they hate about Trump then work from there.

 

In August last year Cunmings was holding focus groups with undecideds and a girl from Bishop Auckland when asked what she wanted from politics said "I just wanna get Brexit done" and that resonated with all the focus groups after. 

 

I'd imagine somewhere someone in America once said he wanted to make America great again as well.

I think I got your point and talked about it in the second paragraph ("winning is the more important thing and as such whichever way is most likely to do so is the way that should be chosen, so yeah, if floating voters really prioritise stuff like "the wall" over, I don't know, the future of civilisation itself, then that's where the onus should be"). I think you may well be right - or at least I have no reason to doubt it. However, that doesn't mean that I like it, hence my irritation about it all - having to pander to people who clearly don't care about other people beyond their own line of sight for the sake of getting stuff done doesn't sit well with me, but then I guess politics is often about compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who always assumed Phillip Schofield was gay anyway? Didn't know he's was married.

 

Spitting Image certainly knew.....

 

 

"We might be single, handsome and gifted, but when we're around shirts don't get lifted"

 

😂

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, speaking of white supremacists, here's one of those "odd" (few?) cases up in court today:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51413425

 

Where, exactly, did he get the idea of "cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by the invasion" from, I wonder - and the fortitude to act on the idea and that now was a good time?

 

In other news, not entirely sure of Nate Silvers maths if Bernie has jumped so much from just finishing second in Iowa but...

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arkie Bennett said:

Schofield's sexuality makes absolutely no difference to how irritating and dislikeable he is.

This might just be me, but I think whenever a famous person comes out, it makes it such an issue when it really isn’t one. Can’t have been easy for the bloke granted, but he’s announced he’s gay. So what. Be who you want to be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arkie Bennett said:

Schofield's sexuality makes absolutely no difference to how irritating and dislikeable he is.

Well, I for one, disagree. IMO he is one of the nicest and most likeable presenters on TV. His sexuality is of no issue to most right thinking people, including you, obviously. I don't know what you find irritating or dislikeable about him tbh.

I find the likes of Graham Norton, Alan Carr, much more irritating (but not dislikeable), because they almost play up to their sexuality. that's irritating. Schofield has never done that. I guess it's a matter of opinion. We can all name irritating and annoying presenters, regardless of their sexuality.

 

In particular... Tess Daley, Piers Morgan... et al...

 

Edited by Parafox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bert said:

This might just be me, but I think whenever a famous person comes out, it makes it such an issue when it really isn’t one. Can’t have been easy for the bloke granted, but he’s announced he’s gay. So what. Be who you want to be. 

It's the press, innit?

Press making a big issue out of it for clicks and sales. Maybe that's why it takes high profile individuals a long time, with much soul searching, to make the decision to open up and face the potential fallout. Imagine if any of us came out and then had the press camped on our doorstep as if being gay was some kind of huge issue that needed front page headlines? 

Shouldn't matter in this day and age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bert said:

This might just be me, but I think whenever a famous person comes out, it makes it such an issue when it really isn’t one. Can’t have been easy for the bloke granted, but he’s announced he’s gay. So what. Be who you want to be. 

This is true but, why do gay people feel the need to anounce their sexuality to everyone, which kind of goes against the so what be who you want to be mantra.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...