Liar Liar

It's kinda sad that 'conservative' today has come to mean support for the already well to do and cuts for social programs and less help for the needy. You'd wonder why they win elections? But too often the needy don't vote thinking what's the use. And media is managed by money and corporations. The odd thing is so many believe media is balanced or even liberal when it is a corporate entity that relies on corporations for support. The Internet changed that a bit but it also opened up Pandora's box of idiocy and conservative wealth money now controls much of it.

"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'
 
The Conservative party in the UK changed aroud the time of Thatcher. They used to be retired Wing Commanders and the local industrialist. Now they are property developers and lobbyists. My Grandparents voted tory but they wouldnt recognise this.

And of course the media is owned by tax dodging corporations. No surprise that they are attacking the candidate who wants them to pay their share.
 
I don't have much to say. I thought her primary raison d'etre for being appointed as the British PM is to shepherd the Brexit process to completion. She's clearly initiated the process, that even as an MP who was in the "remain" camp; thus it's not clear to me what else, beyond seeing it through, she's "on the hook" to accomplish (excepting just general governance by dint of being the PM). At least May isn't just outright incompetent and unfamiliar with how to get things done in government.

Being an American, I don't follow what she does and doesn't do. I went to several social events in Europe this past weekend, and May never came up among the Brits there as a topic of conversation. I infer from their silence about her that the people with whom I conversed don't see her as a problem. In contrast, a few weeks back, I went to an event in Tahoe, well "outside the Beltway," and Trump came up plenty. Sorry.
 
I don't have much to say. I thought her primary raison d'etre for being appointed as the British PM is to shepherd the Brexit process to completion. She's clearly initiated the process, that even as an MP who was in the "remain" camp; thus it's not clear to me what else, beyond seeing it through, she's "on the hook" to accomplish (excepting just general governance by dint of being the PM). At least May isn't just outright incompetent and unfamiliar with how to get things done in government.

Being an American, I don't follow what she does and doesn't do. I went to several social events in Europe this past weekend, and May never came up among the Brits there as a topic of conversation. I infer from their silence about her that the people with whom I conversed don't see her as a problem. In contrast, a few weeks back, I went to an event in Tahoe, well "outside the Beltway," and Trump came up plenty. Sorry.
She has been on the scene for a few years now and generally under the radar. As Home Secretary her main task was to reduce immigration and she failed to even dent it.
She was elected by the tories as the best of a bad bunch. She understands that brexit will be a disaster but wants to be PM.

The scrutiny she is getting now shows up a host of flaws, chiefly her failure to consult. The manifesto they brought out was a disaster and has helped Labour close the gap from 20 to 5. But she was better than Gove,Johnson and the others. Just!
 
[The Internet] also opened up Pandora's box of idiocy.

It sure has.

those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans.

I could not agree more. That Republicans have deluded millions of middle class individuals into thinking the GOP aims to serve their interests is beyond me. It'd be far more plausible is it that, as Pew found, large quantities of formerly middle class households have become upper income households. That reality, however, doesn't fit the GOP's "working people" narrative that has so successfully persuaded "average" Americans that the GOP cares about their well being.
 
I don't have much to say. I thought her primary raison d'etre for being appointed as the British PM is to shepherd the Brexit process to completion. She's clearly initiated the process, that even as an MP who was in the "remain" camp; thus it's not clear to me what else, beyond seeing it through, she's "on the hook" to accomplish (excepting just general governance by dint of being the PM). At least May isn't just outright incompetent and unfamiliar with how to get things done in government.

Being an American, I don't follow what she does and doesn't do. I went to several social events in Europe this past weekend, and May never came up among the Brits there as a topic of conversation. I infer from their silence about her that the people with whom I conversed don't see her as a problem. In contrast, a few weeks back, I went to an event in Tahoe, well "outside the Beltway," and Trump came up plenty. Sorry.
She has been on the scene for a few years now and generally under the radar. As Home Secretary her main task was to reduce immigration and she failed to even dent it.
She was elected by the tories as the best of a bad bunch. She understands that brexit will be a disaster but wants to be PM.

The scrutiny she is getting now shows up a host of flaws, chiefly her failure to consult. The manifesto they brought out was a disaster and has helped Labour close the gap from 20 to 5. But she was better than Gove,Johnson and the others. Just!
Sounds like she's a blessing in disguise for Labour.
 
I don't have much to say. I thought her primary raison d'etre for being appointed as the British PM is to shepherd the Brexit process to completion. She's clearly initiated the process, that even as an MP who was in the "remain" camp; thus it's not clear to me what else, beyond seeing it through, she's "on the hook" to accomplish (excepting just general governance by dint of being the PM). At least May isn't just outright incompetent and unfamiliar with how to get things done in government.

Being an American, I don't follow what she does and doesn't do. I went to several social events in Europe this past weekend, and May never came up among the Brits there as a topic of conversation. I infer from their silence about her that the people with whom I conversed don't see her as a problem. In contrast, a few weeks back, I went to an event in Tahoe, well "outside the Beltway," and Trump came up plenty. Sorry.
She has been on the scene for a few years now and generally under the radar. As Home Secretary her main task was to reduce immigration and she failed to even dent it.
She was elected by the tories as the best of a bad bunch. She understands that brexit will be a disaster but wants to be PM.

The scrutiny she is getting now shows up a host of flaws, chiefly her failure to consult. The manifesto they brought out was a disaster and has helped Labour close the gap from 20 to 5. But she was better than Gove,Johnson and the others. Just!
Sounds like she's a blessing in disguise for Labour.
She would be if they werent in such a mess. They have some great policies but the right and left of the party are a each others throats. Its crazy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top