Good Morning America

charlesphoto posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Selfish "escape plans" are not the answer. That is part of the problem. (Germany isn't big enough to absorb 50% of the global population. And btw, it isn't the panacea for the world's problems IMHO).

Stay where you are and use your energy and influence to moderate extremism around you and retain democracy.

I would like to think that the UK and USA retain some sort of special friendship, but freely admit I have doubts about being a member of an "elite" club led by Trump and Boris. But running away won't solve the inevitable problems. If there was ever a time for rational-thinking, moderate people to stand up and play key influencial roles in society, it's now.

Oh god no, of course not. I was just trying to point out that even though my family and I a have an ultimate out if need be, we are still as terrified as those who don't have anything like that. But we plan on staying put, forever hopefully. There's a always the "Im moving to Canada" hyperbole every election, but that rarely becomes reality (for one thing its just not that easy unless you already have a passport). 

Man, I wish I wasn't even writing any of this. The news just keeps getting worse and worse. Does anybody, left or right, really think this small group of privileged rich white men give a whit what anybody says? 

The short answer is "No !"

BTW, I was trying to bolster your resolve (and that of others) to stay calm and help steer your country on a more moderate, steady course for the next 4 years. For sure we are going to have to do the same over here.

You get your new President end of January. We press the "OUT" button end of March.

The "West" will never be the same again, and IMHO not for the better, unless clear-headed, moderate thinking finds a way forward.

The root cause of the problem is that the muddy-minded brains are much more populous than the clear heads. So democracy could work both way, sometimes it could cause serious problems like Nazism, etc.

"Man, I wish I wasn't even writing any of this. The news just keeps getting worse and worse. Does anybody, left or right, really think this small group of privileged rich white men give a whit what anybody says?"

I think you should have been outraged about a group of privileged white men (and women, to be fair) who wield FAR more power the Trump will, and have been around for decades - in fact, they will mold him for the most part. He'll be on a short leash.  That is not a "conspiracy theory", that is just freaking paying attention.

How is it that no one here is focused on the illegal wars and the rampant death that have become part and parcel of US (and its EU vassals) foreign policy over the past 20 years. We all hated Cheney, and yet now people act like Hillary Clinton was some kind of sane angel, when in fact she is a bank/corporation controlled, blood-drenched, war monger, backed by the same cabal of people as Cheney was. If she is your definition of a clear head, then I really don't know what to think, because she was dangerous. VERY dangerous.

None of this means Trump isn't everything you say. He is a piece of s**t. He will be a terrible president, and on so many levels. I watched in stunned disbelief  - this election was literally the worst moment in US history since the War Between the States. (There was nothing "civil" about it.)

But to act like that woman was going to be good for the country (or the world) is just blind home team politics - this election was tantamount to getting to decide whether to take arsenic or cyanide.

The US/West is on a collision course with disaster, and has been for some time. You think Obama fixed the economy? You call this a recovery? Jesus F Christ, all he did was borrow $10 trillion dollars, and for that we got an inflated stock market that is in a bubble, a bond market that is about to go completely hay-wire, and ongoing wars with thousands more people dead. It was Bush continued. (Of course the damn republicans are upset that he didn't kill quite enough people, to sate a-holes like John "I Never Saw A Country I didn't Want To Bomb" McCain and his dips**t sidekick Lindsey Graham.)

So now we are talking about John Bolton for Secretary of State? Bolton is immensely dangerous. He, like Hillary & McCain, has never met a country he didn't want to bomb. They were both advocates of no-fly zones in Syria which the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff said would put the U.S. at war with Syria and Russia. They didn't care. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Bolton was a staunch advocate of bombing Iran. He needs to be kept as far from government as possible.

Unfortunately there are many more like him, and I am sure nothing will change, except we will spend ever more than $600 billion a year on war. We have no diplomats any longer.

People are upset that the dog crapped on the carpet while the house is literally on fire...and both of these candidates were walking into the inferno with gas cans.

The system is completely corrupt and degraded, and to think one party or the other is going to change that is simply fantasy.

DrMark, what would you like to see as the preferable, optimised system of government? Is there any system in the world past or present that you would hold up as a model answer that transcends your concerns?

Probably not Simon - it is difficult, because it ultimately comes down to human nature, and we have many, many centuries of concrete example that people suck. Not the vast majority, mind you, but it seems that the ones who lust for power end up being the worst examples of our species. With all the incredible innovation people are capable of, look how much of it has been directed towards coming up with new and better ways to kill each other.

I am sick of my country trying to achieve world empire status, murdering many tens of thousands to do it, and handing "We the People" the bill for the job...all so the top 1% can get what it wants. (All in the name of "freedom" and "democracy".) The only reason we spend as much as we do on military is because we are trying to control the planet, and because we are constantly getting ripped off by our military contractors, who view the Military Budget (I refuse to call it "Defense", because it is not) as a giant piggy bank to be raided in the finest corporate fashion.

I do prefer a parliamentary style - which obviously is FAR from perfect, but "smaller voices" can be heard and represented. This one party masquerading as two in the USA has devolved into a real mess.

I am 100% in favor of term limits, because we have these career parasites sucking off the government system and the taxpaying public for their entire lives. I would also abolish all elected officials' pensions as well, and they get no special health plan either - being a "public servant" shouldn't be a road to becoming a millionaire. And lobbies, PACs, etc would be GONE. And Citizens United is an unmitigated disaster.

These kinds of reforms would not be THE solution, but it might go a pretty good bit of the way towards "taking out the trash" that infects the system because the financial rewards are so great. I think some (a few, not many) start out with decent motivations, but the system is so dirty and corrupt that it inevitably leads to corruption.

I have often joked that the best form of government would be a truly benevolent dictator.

DrMark posted:

Probably not Simon - it is difficult, because it ultimately comes down to human nature, and we have many, many centuries of concrete example that people suck. Not the vast majority, mind you, but it seems that the ones who lust for power end up being the worst examples of our species. With all the incredible innovation people are capable of, look how much of it has been directed towards coming up with new and better ways to kill each other.

I am sick of my country trying to achieve world empire status, murdering many tens of thousands to do it, and handing "We the People" the bill for the job...all so the top 1% can get what it wants. (All in the name of "freedom" and "democracy".) The only reason we spend as much as we do on military is because we are trying to control the planet, and because we are constantly getting ripped off by our military contractors, who view the Military Budget (I refuse to call it "Defense", because it is not) as a giant piggy bank to be raided in the finest corporate fashion.

I do prefer a parliamentary style - which obviously is FAR from perfect, but "smaller voices" can be heard and represented. This one party masquerading as two in the USA has devolved into a real mess.

I am 100% in favor of term limits, because we have these career parasites sucking off the government system and the taxpaying public for their entire lives. I would also abolish all elected officials' pensions as well, and they get no special health plan either - being a "public servant" shouldn't be a road to becoming a millionaire. And lobbies, PACs, etc would be GONE. And Citizens United is an unmitigated disaster.

These kinds of reforms would not be THE solution, but it might go a pretty good bit of the way towards "taking out the trash" that infects the system because the financial rewards are so great. I think some (a few, not many) start out with decent motivations, but the system is so dirty and corrupt that it inevitably leads to corruption.

I have often joked that the best form of government would be a truly benevolent dictator.

The Emirates, Oman and some of the other Gulf States all have benevolent dictatorships and seem to work reasonably well.

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

I don't see too much in common between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, or the Scottish National Party etc. It's not like they are all one party masquerading as three or so.

Brexit has thrown people from all of our parties into internal party conflict, but that still leaves two very distinct groups of Levers and Remainers. And even some are able to work together on that cause without colluding on other issues.

Perhaps you should emigrate to the Emirates or the UK................?

...........as for war-mongering.............

try Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden or Japan.

Too funny...

Don Atkinson posted:

DrMark posted:

Probably not Simon - it is difficult, because it ultimately comes down to human nature, and we have many, many centuries of concrete example that people suck. Not the vast majority, mind you, but it seems that the ones who lust for power end up being the worst examples of our species. With all the incredible innovation people are capable of, look how much of it has been directed towards coming up with new and better ways to kill each other.

I am sick of my country trying to achieve world empire status, murdering many tens of thousands to do it, and handing "We the People" the bill for the job...all so the top 1% can get what it wants. (All in the name of "freedom" and "democracy".) The only reason we spend as much as we do on military is because we are trying to control the planet, and because we are constantly getting ripped off by our military contractors, who view the Military Budget (I refuse to call it "Defense", because it is not) as a giant piggy bank to be raided in the finest corporate fashion.

I do prefer a parliamentary style - which obviously is FAR from perfect, but "smaller voices" can be heard and represented. This one party masquerading as two in the USA has devolved into a real mess.

I am 100% in favor of term limits, because we have these career parasites sucking off the government system and the taxpaying public for their entire lives. I would also abolish all elected officials' pensions as well, and they get no special health plan either - being a "public servant" shouldn't be a road to becoming a millionaire. And lobbies, PACs, etc would be GONE. And Citizens United is an unmitigated disaster.

These kinds of reforms would not be THE solution, but it might go a pretty good bit of the way towards "taking out the trash" that infects the system because the financial rewards are so great. I think some (a few, not many) start out with decent motivations, but the system is so dirty and corrupt that it inevitably leads to corruption.

I have often joked that the best form of government would be a truly benevolent dictator.

The Emirates, Oman and some of the other Gulf States all have benevolent dictatorships and seem to work reasonably well.

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

I don't see too much in common between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, or the Scottish National Party etc. It's not like they are all one party masquerading as three or so.

Brexit has thrown people from all of our parties into internal party conflict, but that still leaves two very distinct groups of Levers and Remainers. And even some are able to work together on that cause without colluding on other issues.

Perhaps you should emigrate to the Emirates or the UK................?

DrMark, thanks for the reply - its not easy is it - as you say one is fighting human nature and we are all human. The UAE for me is definitely not a model I could possibly endorse - certainly for temporary work immigrants and freedom of expression- personal family experiences on that one within last decade - shocking

S

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

 

Excuse me?!! £75k an annual salary well below the average on this forum? Just where do you get that from? I do read the occasional post which smacks of total disconnect with the real world and the disposable income most people have, but this assertion just takes the biscuit. I thought the "considerably richer than yow" attitude belonged to the Harry Enfield Show, but obviously it's alive and well here. I can only assume you believe the cost of being a Naim owner implies some form of financial exclusivity? Well excuse me for breathing, but I belong to the salary bracket much closer to the National average wage, rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the £100k + "decent company expenses" to which you obviously refer. 

Perhaps you don't intend to come across as a patronising, condescending rich kid. If so, you need to pick your words with a little more care and humility.

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

 

Excuse me?!! £75k an annual salary well below the average on this forum? Just where do you get that from? I do read the occasional post which smacks of total disconnect with the real world and the disposable income most people have, but this assertion just takes the biscuit. I thought the "considerably richer than yow" attitude belonged to the Harry Enfield Show, but obviously it's alive and well here. I can only assume you believe the cost of being a Naim owner implies some form of financial exclusivity? Well excuse me for breathing, but I belong to the salary bracket much closer to the National average wage, rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the £100k + "decent company expenses" to which you obviously refer. 

Perhaps you don't intend to come across as a patronising, condescending rich kid. If so, you need to pick your words with a little more care and humility.

Wind yer neck in. Read my words more carefully before shouting your mouth off.

I think your main point is .....YOU are on the lower end of what I guess is the average on this forum.

You have absolutely no idea at all as to what my current income is, or my previous incomes. I might be even worse off than you, for all you know .

Don Atkinson posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

 

Excuse me?!! £75k an annual salary well below the average on this forum? Just where do you get that from? I do read the occasional post which smacks of total disconnect with the real world and the disposable income most people have, but this assertion just takes the biscuit. I thought the "considerably richer than yow" attitude belonged to the Harry Enfield Show, but obviously it's alive and well here. I can only assume you believe the cost of being a Naim owner implies some form of financial exclusivity? Well excuse me for breathing, but I belong to the salary bracket much closer to the National average wage, rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the £100k + "decent company expenses" to which you obviously refer. 

Perhaps you don't intend to come across as a patronising, condescending rich kid. If so, you need to pick your words with a little more care and humility.

Wind yer neck in. Read my words more carefully before shouting your mouth off.

I think your main point is .....YOU are on the lower end of what I guess is the average on this forum.

You have absolutely no idea at all as to what my current income is, or my previous incomes. I might be even worse off than you, for all you know .

I read your original words with great care, as I have your conceited reply. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

 

Excuse me?!! £75k an annual salary well below the average on this forum? Just where do you get that from? I do read the occasional post which smacks of total disconnect with the real world and the disposable income most people have, but this assertion just takes the biscuit. I thought the "considerably richer than yow" attitude belonged to the Harry Enfield Show, but obviously it's alive and well here. I can only assume you believe the cost of being a Naim owner implies some form of financial exclusivity? Well excuse me for breathing, but I belong to the salary bracket much closer to the National average wage, rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the £100k + "decent company expenses" to which you obviously refer. 

Perhaps you don't intend to come across as a patronising, condescending rich kid. If so, you need to pick your words with a little more care and humility.

Come on!

Don simply said "I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum". What's so patronising or condescending about that? I don't believe he claimed to be on a higher salary himself, did he?

I would guess that his guess is wrong, and that the average salary of those who post on this forum is less than £75k, but it was just a guess, as is mine.

There are many more things to get legitimately wound up about on this forum. Don's guess isn't one of them.   

Hmack posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary which is decent but not teriffic. I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum. Of course they get expenses to cover their office and staff and travel from constituency to/from Westminster etc but despite a few "Expense scandals" these expenses are no more than the average forum member would expect any decent company to provide.

 

Excuse me?!! £75k an annual salary well below the average on this forum? Just where do you get that from? I do read the occasional post which smacks of total disconnect with the real world and the disposable income most people have, but this assertion just takes the biscuit. I thought the "considerably richer than yow" attitude belonged to the Harry Enfield Show, but obviously it's alive and well here. I can only assume you believe the cost of being a Naim owner implies some form of financial exclusivity? Well excuse me for breathing, but I belong to the salary bracket much closer to the National average wage, rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the £100k + "decent company expenses" to which you obviously refer. 

Perhaps you don't intend to come across as a patronising, condescending rich kid. If so, you need to pick your words with a little more care and humility.

Come on!

Don simply said "I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum". What's so patronising or condescending about that? I don't believe he claimed to be on a higher salary himself, did he?

I would guess that his guess is wrong, and that the average salary of those who post on this forum is less than £75k, but it was just a guess, as is mine.

There are many more things to get legitimately wound up about on this forum. Don's guess isn't one of them.   

What Don's post implied is that this forum is the preserve of the rich, and his remarks in respect of expenses, which most people (especially those in the public sector) don't receive, were particularly annoying to me. My guess, for what it's worth, is that the majority who visit this forum are not in receipt of salaries that place them in the top 0.5% of the world's earners. Most will have saved long and hard for the possessions they enjoy. Don's personal circumstances are immaterial. What is not is the impression given, whether deliberate or simply careless, that the majority of Naim owners are rich kids with burgeoning expense accounts! You disagree with that? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I'm off to listen to some music!!

Tim

Don Atkinson posted:

 

UK MPs get c.£75kpa as a salary..... I would guess it is well below the average salary on this forum.

 

(*) The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962.......   They get a decent salary, I guess much in line with Mr Average on this here forum.

(Your "guess" at Mr Average on this forum might differ from mine !)

Whilst you first comment didn't, in my opinion, come over as disrespectful, it did make me think that maybe this is not  the right forum for a basic lad like me.......

With your second comment, I feel it's a bit rich (see what I did there......) claiming that 75 grand is a 'decent' wage !!!

                          Bloody peasants !

Don Atkinson posted:

 

(Your "guess" at Mr Average on this forum might differ from mine !)

I think it's the wife's opinion that really matters.... 

This could run and run, but I promise this will be my last word, if not yours. Don, you really are a patronising git! I understand only too well that the prime principle of expenses is 'no profit, no loss'. What they should not be is an underhand means of supplementing income.

As for my 'interpretation' of your original words - if you are unable, or unwilling to appreciate how that might have happened, then I feel sorry for you. You'd best stick to the rarefied atmosphere of this forum, as I fear you'd be torn to shreds in the real world.

Timmo1341,

I sincerely hope this does not run and run. If you have followed this particular thread, you will have noticed that opinions on the topic in question have varied, to say the least, and that there have been some heated exchanges between contributors.

However, I don't recall instances where anyone has resorted to name calling of this type.

Hopefully it stops here.

You could understand the bickering, mud slinging, name calling,  if it was Trump and Clinton.........  But forum members.... ....

https://www.washingtonpost.com...t-trump-backer-says/

With 5,000 to 10,000 people to round-up, process and deport every week to meet Trump's targets, I guess this is a reasonable approach.

I speak of US politicians - I seldom have anything to say about UK politicians because they are not "mine" - kind of like walking into your house and making a derogatory comment about your decor. It's not my place to say...I don't pay them.

US Congressman make around $174,000 plus benefits and expenses - some abuse this (the expenses) more than others.

But that is not how they get rich. It is the influence peddling and the campaign contributions, and the abuse that goes with that, as well as the insider trading on securities that appears to be fairly rampant. (They passed a bill on this in 2012, but gutted key aspects of it in 2013. Naturally the first bill was trumpeted with much fanfare...the second, not so much.)

Then there is the revolving door between large corporate donors and congressional staffers and congressmen themselves afterwards. A legal "pay to play" system.

As an older gentleman years ago once told me in Texas, where many state and local elected offices had a token salary; "Why do you think a guy spends over $100,000 of his own money on a campaign to get elected to a railroad commissioners  job that only pays $5,000 a year?"

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...t-trump-backer-says/

With 5,000 to 10,000 people to round-up, process and deport every week to meet Trump's targets, I guess this is a reasonable approach.

But... but... but... Trump never advocated a Muslim registration (according to Jason Miller, President-Elect Trump's communications director)...

President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false.

The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe, but the president-elect plans on releasing his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.

Obviously he never watched this on NBC...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...o?CMP=share_btn_link

DrMark

Very similar to the UK. Basic state salary of politicians has little bearing on overall remuneration. Whilst there are some who doubtless enter politics for altruistic purposes, a considerable number seem to mysteriously end up with associate directorships and consultancy arrangements that dwarf their state salaries. We are meant to have in place controls on lobbying that prevent the flagrant financial abuses of the past, but there exists much doubt as to their efficacy. 

Who knows, perhaps it is precisely because of the electorate's despair with what they perceive as the dirty games played by the career politicians that we have had wake up calls on either side of the Atlantic? 

[@mention:1566878603948763] and [@mention:46901101887305210] ... they do say that the first bar to being a politician should be the desire to be a politician.

Personally the financial payment for being an MP (or Senator, etc) isn't the problem - the amount isn't excessive to my mind.  What I do find a problem is the behind the doors discussions, meetings, etc.

In the UK the big problem (to my mind) is the undue influence exerted by the media - mostly owned by non-dom billionaires.  The meetings they have with politicians are so secretive - it was said Rupert Murdoch came and went to No.10 via the back door (and maybe still does) to avoid public scrutiny.  An MPs diary should be an open book (excluding personal meetings of course though what is considered personal is debatable - a party attended by "celebs" and "industry figures" is not personal) and meetings with powerful commercial interests should not be secret and should even be minuted.  

We need more openness in politics so that we (the people) can make real informed decisions.