All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[DrNewGod]

Just copypaste this and remove the spaces around "the" and this link should work now.
https:// the conversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818

Also,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...private-wealth
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55975199



Basically a sliver and a small hole into the evil orgy scene of EWS (metaphorically speaking in terms of the disgusting evil things rich people do behind close doors) came out over some dealings back in 1973, and that raised issues about what else could the Queen be hiding.

Interesting indeed. Thanks.

[4saken1]

Maybe Republicans might to go with The Bible instead?

One could only hope. They might actually learn something from the teachings of Jesus. Ah, who am I kidding? They'd probably stand behind the podium masturbating while they read passages of eternal damnation from the Old Testament.

[OopsIdiditagain]

Swiss ‘burka ban’ accepted by slim majority




They tried to do this a few years ago and it didn't work out back then. Some of these posters though...

[Mister Mets]

Manchin, for his part, has expressed he would be willing to amend the filibuster to make it so you actually have to filibuster the legislative session.

This might be the best way to get Democratic reforms through. Especially since Schumer has found ways to play with procedural motions like this to shorten debate and get cloture for nominee votes.

One suggestion that makes sense is to change the filibuster so that instead of sixty Senators voting to end it, forty Senators should routinely vote to keep it going.

Procedural hurdles are stalls. Everyone knows that. Doesn’t stop them from trying to stall to show their constituents they are giving the president what-for.



No, but I think that’s his point. All the stories right now are about why we had to fight to keep Manchin on board. Meanwhile, Trump is actively campaigning to get incumbent Senators on his side of the aisle taken out. That’s kinda remarkable how normalized that is. It would be a huge story if Sanders was going to West Virginia to try to primary Manchin.



Frankly, I think it is clear it is bad politics to hold up a time-sensitive piece of legislation for a provision that doesn’t even have support from 8 members of the Democratic Senate caucus (at least in part—I’m sure a few of them decry the lack of bipartisanship to raise it).

If Democrats are really concerned with getting a minimum wage hike, it might be better to tie it to an omnibus immigration reform package. Romney and Cotton argued for increasing the minimum wage to ten dollars along with promoting a nationwide e-Verify. Put that in an immigration bill so that it a) ensures the incentives for continued undocumented immigration go down, but you get b) the people who are already here the ability to become residents and eventually citizens and c) a reform on immigration processes that increase limits on Visas and get economic refugees into the country faster. Plus, this seems to be a way to peel off a few Republican votes for the proposal. Manchin, for his part, is willing to raise it to $11 an hour. It is a shame it is so low, but that is an increase of almost $4 an hour. Democrats need to know when to notch a victory. Get Manchin’s proposal in there—maybe fight to raise it to $12–and get that immigration bill through Congress.

I think a minimum wage bill should be standalone. It shouldn't be part of an omnibus.

It would not make sense as part of an immigration reform package, because that's already going to be a tough sell. To get a higher minimum wage, there would have to be serious concessions to Republicans (such as codifying that undocumented immigrants do not count for future censuses) that Democrats would not want to push.

what


.................

If Republicans are screwing up, it doesn't mean it's a good thing if Democrats are doing something that's bad but not as bad. If the Yankees show up to a game high, and the Red Sox are drunk, the Red Sox still have a problem.

Much of the Democrats in disarray items in the news comes from analysts who want Democrats to win, and don't want Republicans to get an opportunity.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Pretty much.

The difference is that people in the UK, and I mean actual people, not just Tories and conservatives, actually really do love Queen Elizabeth, her grandson Prince William and Kate Middleton. Queen Elizabeth represents a living connection to World War II and the "finest hour", the only major political figure to do so. So there's a lot of nostalgia real estate tied to her. That makes it career suicide for anyone trying to make the UK a republic. If Scotland leaves (which will be hard but is within range of possibility) that might be the domino that brings it down. Recently Bahamas voted to remove the Queen as Constitutional Head and become a proper republic.

In America, people don't love Kelly Loeffler, not even her voters. They might like her money, or appreciate her work for white nationalism and oligarchy, but her personally, nada.

Why not Harry? Isn't he the only war vet in generations?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why not Harry? Isn't he the only war vet in generations?

Prince Harry has a controversial ping-pong history. He used to be a rowdy party dude drinking and tearing up. One time he wore a Nazi costume at a party (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/w...i-costume.html). Prince William was seen as the responsible one for picking up the water for the layabout kid brother who partied with supermodels and drank up the place.

Then Harry joined the army and had a "Redemption arc" partly in response to all that. And now he's come out the other side marrying Meghan Markle. I'd say Harry is more popular in America than in UK these days. But Harry and Meghan's rebellion against the royal family has a mixed polarizing event there, just like Princess Diana was a popular figure internationally but more divisive at home.

[Malvolio]

http://https://frontier.yahoo.com/li...002130329.html

This is how you deal with "problematic" films. You don't lock them away and pretend like they never happened. You air them, you discuss them and you learn from them. You learn to do better in the future.

[babyblob]

http://https://frontier.yahoo.com/li...002130329.html

This is how you deal with "problematic" films. You don't lock them away and pretend like they never happened. You air them, you discuss them and you learn from them. You learn to do better in the future.

The answer is for sure not locking them away, I liker that TCM will still air them and I have no problem with the talk before the film. I dont think they should be pulled from store selves. I have no problem with someone saying they do not want to watch these films or any film or show or book they find upsetting. That is there right. But I do have a problem with some one telling me I can not watch or read these media. I think people yelling about cancel culture is over done but I am an adult, let me decide what is fine for me to watch and read. Censorship should not happen unless a crime is being committed or encouraged.

The problem is we are judging them through todays lenses. The movies we are making now may not hold up in 50 or 60 years. Maybe in the future they will talk about how violent the movies are or some thing. Things in 2021 are not the same as 1961 and things in 1061 were not the same as 1901 and etc...

Gone with the Wind, Jerry Lewis Asian character in Breakfast at Tiffanys yes they are pretty culture insensitive at best. But I still enjoy these movies. I still enjoy Huck Finn. We should not be judged by what we read or watch.

[Malvolio]

The answer is for sure not locking them away, I liker that TCM will still air them and I have no problem with the talk before the film. I dont think they should be pulled from store selves. I have no problem with someone saying they do not want to watch these films or any film or show or book they find upsetting. That is there right. But I do have a problem with some one telling me I can not watch or read these media. I think people yelling about cancel culture is over done but I am an adult, let me decide what is fine for me to watch and read. Censorship should not happen unless a crime is being committed or encouraged.

The problem is we are judging them through todays lenses. The movies we are making now may not hold up in 50 or 60 years. Maybe in the future they will talk about how violent the movies are or some thing. Things in 2021 are not the same as 1961 and things in 1061 were not the same as 1901 and etc...

Gone with the Wind, Jerry Lewis Asian character in Breakfast at Tiffanys yes they are pretty culture insensitive at best. But I still enjoy these movies. I still enjoy Huck Finn. We should not be judged by what we read or watch.

Er, that was Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Jerry Lewis played an Asian character in a different movie.

[babyblob]

Er, that was Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Jerry Lewis played an Asian character in a different movie.

Sorry. My mistake. my statement stands. I still enjoyed the movie.

[Kirby101]

With Gone with the Wind, it was written to be "Lost Cause", slavery wasn't bad propaganda to promote an idealized version of the innocent South. It has always been problematic, not just by today's lens.

[DrNewGod]

Prince Harry has a controversial ping-pong history. He used to be a rowdy party dude drinking and tearing up. One time he wore a Nazi costume at a party (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/w...i-costume.html). Prince William was seen as the responsible one for picking up the water for the layabout kid brother who partied with supermodels and drank up the place.

Then Harry joined the army and had a "Redemption arc" partly in response to all that. And now he's come out the other side marrying Meghan Markle. I'd say Harry is more popular in America than in UK these days. But Harry and Meghan's rebellion against the royal family has a mixed polarizing event there, just like Princess Diana was a popular figure internationally but more divisive at home.

I'd love to hear our UK constituents on this. I've heard exactly the opposite from some of my British friends re: affection toward William and Harry. Could be a YMMV thing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'd love to hear our UK constituents on this. I've heard exactly the opposite from some of my British friends re: affection toward William and Harry. Could be a YMMV thing.

Maybe, but anyway the world would be well short of them both. Regardless of who they are in real life, their existence is fundamentally parasitic and it's an act of living injustice for them to continue as they are and keep the titles and privileges they still have, and that includes Mr. Meghan Markle as well, for all his little rebellions against the crown.

[babyblob]

With Gone with the Wind, it was written to be "Lost Cause", slavery wasn't bad propaganda to promote an idealized version of the innocent South. It has always been problematic, not just by today's lens.

80 years ago they would not have been saying it was bad. SO the point of the movie is a problem.. But again that is looked at through are eyes because again 70 80 years ago no one was going on like they are today about how bad the topics in movie was.

[JCAll]

80 years ago they would not have been saying it was bad. SO the point of the movie is a problem.. But again that is looked at through are eyes because again 70 80 years ago no one was going on like they are today about how bad the topics in movie was.

People were absolutely protesting Gone with the Wind back then, even when the the book was released before the movie even started filming. Then all through filming, after it was released, and during it's many rereleases. People don't really think about things like this, but everything in the past that people have a problem with today, there were people having the same problems at the time.