**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

What I meant by subservient is that it would be akin to saying 'here's the guy you asked for, sir'. Not a good move.

Basically, by saying what he did, Donald just guaranteed Farage will never get the job. His chances went from < 1% to 0.

[Poopadoop]

Well he won, so he is smarter than everyone thought he was a year ago when people said he was a joke.

Many people, myself included, still think he's a joke. It's just not as funny now that he's in power.

[OngBonga]

Not a good reason. And I bet you never actually thought about it until today for that matter. Just like Trump.

You're just talking out of your arse now. Have you stolen my weed?

I never thought about whose responsibility it is to employ ambassadors? Of course not, I'm not a government minister. That doesn't mean I am totally clueless as to how these things are done. My favourite blogger is a former ambassador.

Our ambassadors are employed by the government. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to employ those they deem fit for the role. Maybe the Queen can technically have a say, I'm not sure about that. But it's obviously not a decision for foreign governments.

[OngBonga]

What I meant by subservient is that it would be akin to saying 'here's the guy you asked for, sir'. Not a good move.

Basically, by saying what he did, Donald just guaranteed Farage will never get the job. His chances went from < 1% to 0.

It went from 0% to 0%.

[Poopadoop]

My favourite blogger is a former ambassador.

That right there probably means you know more about how it works than Trump.

[Poopadoop]

It went from 0% to 0%.

Either way you get my point. If you start letting other countries choose your ambassadors, you might as well let them set your foreign policy for you as well.

[Poopadoop]

What I would love to see the May gov't do now is make a statement recommending some democrat be appointed US ambassador in London.

[Poopadoop]

I have to give Trump credit for one thing: His last little speech he put on twitter actually sounded pretty reasonable for the most part.

[wufwugy]

What I would love to see the May gov't do now is make a statement recommending some democrat be appointed US ambassador in London.

I totally get your position on this. Trump is asserting dominance. I wouldn't ask a member of the UK to like it. However, implicit in what Trump said is that the UK will get a better deal overall by making Farage the US liaison. This puts May and fam in a pickle. I think it actually raises the probability that Farage gets the post, because, let's be honest, there ain't no way he would get it otherwise.

As for the idea that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, he has been more productive than any other modern President-Elect so far. Plus he's bringing the bust of Churchill back into the White House (the one Obama shat on). Did you read the story on how that happened? Farage asked Trump to do so and Trump was delighted to comply. Perception-wise, Farage is already putting the UK in a better position in the eyes of the US.

It may be the case that May is in a position where not putting Farage up for Ambassador to the US is a lose-lose situation.

[wufwugy]

Farage could even be thought of as a golden goose for the UK regarding Trump. The UK is in a position more than probably any other country to benefit by the actions of the Trump presidency. Trump likes Brexit, he likes Farage, he wants to renegotiate trade....guess who he's gonna wanna trade a good deal more with? The UK. That also is what you guys want. Farage as ambassador could be very important in deepening trade ties between the US and UK.

[wufwugy]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

[OngBonga]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

Nige in Europe is one of the best things that ever happened to the world.

[Poopadoop]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

Yes they love him so much they refused to give him a seat in parliament seven times in a row. Obviously they were saving him for a greater destiny - Trump's lapdog.

[Poopadoop]

Lol Farage is not going to be the ambassador. Wuf you are living in a bigly dream world.

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

[OngBonga]

ITT a Canadian knows who the British public loves more than the British do.

[Poopadoop]

ITT a Canadian knows who the British public loves more than the British do.

I know he's lost 7 straight elections to parliament. Not a sign of popularity afaik.

And i've lived here 14 years. Not like I just got off the boat.

[OngBonga]

It's a good job elections aren't popularity contests.

[Poopadoop]

Since when?

You liking someone doesn't make them popular in the whole country.

[OngBonga]

It's a good job I'm not the only person who likes Farage.

[Poopadoop]

Ok Ong he's a national hero. You win.

[OngBonga]

I think he might actually be. Certainly he is with those who voted to leave the EU, which, might I remind you, was over half of those who bothered to vote.

[OngBonga]

I reckon more people in England like Farage more than Andy Murray.

[Poopadoop]

Yes because the only reason they voted Brexit was because Farage the UKIP leader was pushing it, nothing else.

[Poopadoop]

I reckon more people in England like Farage more than Andy Murray.

If we're talking non-sequiturs, he's also more popular than brussel sprouts. Maybe he can get either Murray or brussel sprouts to run against him in the next election. Might be close, but I think he could win maybe.

[OngBonga]

Once again, poop confusing popularity with electoral success.

Yes because the only reason they voted Brexit was because Farage the UKIP leader was pushing it, nothing else.

This isn't the point. He wasn't the reason people voted to leave, but he played a key role in making the referendum happen. Those who wanted to leave recognise that. Farage is an immensely popular man with those who hated the EU and heard him speak in their parliament. And that is a lot more people than you seem to think.

Some people just don't seem to learn, do they? First Brexit happened, then Trump. Two things that we were told would not happen, they happened. Why? Well they happened because people voted for it. Why did people think it wouldn't happen? Media.

You think Farage is unpopular because the media portray him as some kind of smug racist. We're not falling for it. That's why Brexit happened. The proof is right there. It happened. So why do you think that Farage is unpopular? Are all your friends left wing hipsters who think open door immigration is a national obligation?

[rong]

Most of the people who voted to leave didn't do so due to Nige and I don't think they give him any credit due to his role in getting brexit to a referendum. Most of those voters voted for a change from the status quo, the fact that that change happened to be brexit is irrelevant.

So no, I don't think he is popular and I really don't see him getting the ambassador position.

[Poopadoop]

Once again, poop confusing popularity with electoral success.

I know, it's crazy right? Judging a politician's popularity by how many people vote for him! Next I'll be judging a car model's popularity by how many they sell in a year...

By your logic, since he's popular with you and your ilk, and he championed a cause that narrowly won a referendum vote, by extension he's popular with the entire country.

The fact that despite all this popularity he enjoys, people still don't vote for him is just proof that electoral success is a poor measure of a politician's popularity. And here I was thinking people really just didn't like him much on the average.

[OngBonga]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

[OngBonga]

The Huff claim Corbyn is "as unpopular as Farage".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0f475601c1bda

I might stick some money on Corbyn winning the election. He's leader of an electable party, a position that Nige sadly has not held.

[OngBonga]

I'm telling you this... if Nige was Tory leader, he'd be PM with a huge majority. None of this hung parliament bullshit.

[Poopadoop]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

26% approval.

Being the least unpopular arguably isn't the same as being popular.

[OngBonga]

26% approval.

Being the least unpopular arguably isn't the same as being popular.

Not bad for someone whose party only went on to get 12.6% of the vote. He clearly reaches out beyond his party, which the vast majority of politicians fail to do.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rld_b-gdnworld

Not that surprised.

[wufwugy]

Lol Farage is not going to be the ambassador. Wuf you are living in a bigly dream world.

I'm not saying he is. I'm saying that the UK government is in a situation where the best option for the UK is to make him ambassador. We'll see if they do it.

[wufwugy]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

Part of why he does this is because it discredits the media. Every day in the media is a "new twitter scandal" regarding Trump, which is exactly the way Trump wants it since it keeps the media from covering anything meaningful and in the rare event that the media do, they'll not have much credibility.

[wufwugy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rld_b-gdnworld

Not that surprised.

This needs to happen.

The theory that Russia hacked shit on one side; the theory that Clinton never called for a recount due to not wanting to expose her fraud on the other side.

Sessions and Kobach appear to be getting set up to tackling voting issues. That'll be nice.

[wufwugy]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

Wow. If you guys had presidential elections, a solid ambassadorship that resulted in better relations between UK and US would put him at the head of the pack.

[wufwugy]

If I'm Trump I would punish the UK ruling party if they didn't make Farage ambassador. It could be done with things like "accidentally" missing a meeting with the actual ambassador and instead having lunch with my best bud Nigel. This would be embarrassing for the ruling party in the UK and also somewhat for the citizens, but it would not be embarrassing at all for the US because we're pretty egocentric and Trump supporters love Nige.

I think May and fam should talk all about how Nige isn't gonna get it, until last minute on a Friday, they give it to him.

[wufwugy]

^^That exact scenario probably wouldn't work because it would possibly be embarrassing for Farage since he could be painted as complicit in undermining the UK government. But it's a type of thing that can be implicitly alluded to before the ambassador is chosen.

[Keith]

Best thing for UK would be if May had a quiet word with Farage and suggested that he leave UKIP and join the Tories . He could then conveniently be put in charge of negotiating the trade deal with USA.Down the line after the trade deal is done and the current US ambassador retires/leaves/dies he could then be considered for the post. UK can't start discussing trade deals whilst we are still part of Europe and I presume we can only start negotiating trade deals worldwide once article 50 is triggered in March.

Beneficial trade deal with USA could also help during the brexit negotiations if USA thinks it may get trade concessions with europe if europe can also piggy back off Farages popularity with trump to give europe better access to USA via the uk and usa better access to europe through the uk.

[OngBonga]

Wow. If you guys had presidential elections, a solid ambassadorship that resulted in better relations between UK and US would put him at the head of the pack.

What amuses me about this poll is that it implies the British public despise a spineless weasel (Clegg) more than both a lying war criminal (Blair), and a one eyed villain who sold all of our gold at rock bottom prices (Brown).

Clegg really was not very popular at all. Blair is more passionately hated by those who hate him (which is a lot of people), but Clegg has a wider dislike appeal because everyone hates a yes man. So it's probably accurate.

[Poopadoop]

^^That exact scenario probably wouldn't work because it would possibly be embarrassing for Farage since he could be painted as complicit in undermining the UK government. But it's a type of thing that can be implicitly alluded to before the ambassador is chosen.

The UK ambassador was appointed earlier this year for a term of four years. He's gonna be there till 2020 unless he kicks the bucket or Trump has him shot.

[OngBonga]

Or he gets fired. I'm sure it's pretty easy to fire an ambassador, given the sensetive nature of the job. I would hope it can be done purely on the whim of the Prime Minister.

[OngBonga]

Craig Murray got fired because he tried to blow the whistle on UK government knowledge of, and use of intelligence from, torture chambers in Uzbekistan. All an ambassador needs to do to lose his job is to not be in line with current foreign policy.

[OngBonga]

Either way you get my point. If you start letting other countries choose your ambassadors, you might as well let them set your foreign policy for you as well.

I actually gave this some thought before responding to this point, because I wasn't really sure if I agreed or not. I don't think I do.

I mean I get your point; it can be perceived as an act of obedience. But it can also be an act of friendship, of trust, of respect. An ambassador is basically a go-between. It makes sense, if you value your relationship, to have a go-between that the other party is agreeable with. It's a potentially mutually beneficial relationship. If you send someone who the President doesn't like, that can be seen as an act of hostility, which can negatively impact on relations.

If May wants to work positively with Trump, she could send Farage to USA, while requesting an individual that she respects gets sent to the UK. It can work both ways, and if I were determined to ensure that my act of agreement wasn't seen as obedience, then that's how I would play it. I'd make sure that USA is sending my recommendation to the UK in return.

I don't expect Farage will get sent to USA. However, I don't feel that to do so would imply obedience, and even if it did, it wouldn't take long before it became clear that wasn't the case.

[OngBonga]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

[wufwugy]

It would only be "compliance" and "obedience" if the UK governing party didn't negotiate well and didn't get good out of the deal. Yeah, if they appoint Farage because Trump asked, that's dumb. But if they as a piece of a larger strategy, it would be smart.

[wufwugy]

Best thing for UK would be if May had a quiet word with Farage and suggested that he leave UKIP and join the Tories . He could then conveniently be put in charge of negotiating the trade deal with USA.Down the line after the trade deal is done and the current US ambassador retires/leaves/dies he could then be considered for the post. UK can't start discussing trade deals whilst we are still part of Europe and I presume we can only start negotiating trade deals worldwide once article 50 is triggered in March.

Beneficial trade deal with USA could also help during the brexit negotiations if USA thinks it may get trade concessions with europe if europe can also piggy back off Farages popularity with trump to give europe better access to USA via the uk and usa better access to europe through the uk.

Good points. This could actually be very good for the Tories since they could flat out tell Farage he gets the ambassadorship if he switches parties. Granted I don't know UK politics well enough to know if they or Farage would want that. If they did want it, though, it would be very good for them.

[wufwugy]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

I didn't pay attention to politics back then, so I can't say.

What I can say is that Americans like Britain. It's where we get most of our values and we have common history and ancestry. We definitely view deals with the UK more in terms of joint cooperation that benefit both countries. Contrast this to France, and the response from Americans would be mixed. If Hollande did something after Trump asked for it, a decent proportion of Americans might say Hollande did that because he's Trump's bitch. But we wouldn't do that with the PM of Britain.

[wufwugy]

Y'all want the Nige man reppin' UK 'round these parts. Trump supporters like Based Uncle Nigel so much that if he ran for US president in 2024, half of us would probably vote for him even though he's ineligible.

[Poopadoop]

Or he gets fired. I'm sure it's pretty easy to fire an ambassador, given the sensetive nature of the job. I would hope it can be done purely on the whim of the Prime Minister.

There's all kinds of fallout from sacking an ambassador 'on a whim'. That's why it doesn't happen. Unless they guy is clearly ineffective e.g. because he's acting independently of orders, or he totally hates the country he's in and resigns, or he's a drunk, or w/e, and/or the host country foreign minister (or w/e the US equivalent is) says 'i can't work with this guy, please send someone else', he ain't getting fired. And certainly not for Farage lol.

[Poopadoop]

I actually gave this some thought before responding to this point, because I wasn't really sure if I agreed or not. I don't think I do.

I mean I get your point; it can be perceived as an act of obedience.

Exactly why it isn't done. It's actually demeaning to the visiting country. If, for one of the good reasons I stated in the above post, the current guy was seen as inappropriate to the post, he could be replaced. But just saying 'we'd prefer you sacked this guy and sent someone on our wavelength, never mind that he's not on your wavelength' and thinking we will do it, is just delusional.

But it can also be an act of friendship, of trust, of respect.

That goes both ways. An act of friendship, trust, and respect would be not requesting a specific person but trusting the visiting country to send you someone professional and amenable (or in this case, that they already have). Trump already blew the opportunity to show those qualities to us, but you think we should show them to him?

An ambassador is basically a go-between. It makes sense, if you value your relationship, to have a go-between that the other party is agreeable with. It's a potentially mutually beneficial relationship. If you send someone who the President doesn't like, that can be seen as an act of hostility, which can negatively impact on relations.

Again, someone is already there. There's no reason to think he's incompetent or in any way impeded from talking to the US about foreign affairs.

If May wants to work positively with Trump, she could send Farage to USA, while requesting an individual that she respects gets sent to the UK. It can work both ways, and if I were determined to ensure that my act of agreement wasn't seen as obedience, then that's how I would play it. I'd make sure that USA is sending my recommendation to the UK in return.

Sure that's one solution. But the issue is that Trump didn't raise the possibility in private which would be showing us some respect. He made his view public and put our gov't in an embarrassing position.

I don't expect Farage will get sent to USA. However, I don't feel that to do so would imply obedience, and even if it did, it wouldn't take long before it became clear that wasn't the case.

He could be the greatest ambassador we ever had. It's irrelevant though since he's never going to be offered the job.

[Poopadoop]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

Bush probably viewed it as an act of friendship. The British public certainly viewed it as obedience (you might recall the phrase 'Bush's poodle'). I don't expect history to have Blair listed among the great British PMs.

In my view, respect is worth more than friendship. If you just follow your ally blindly into any foreign morass, you're kind of an idiot imo. A lot of America's allies didn't joint them in Iraq in 2003 and didn't suffer from it in the long run. Even Americans now believe it was a bullshit war.

[Poopadoop]

Y'all want the Nige man reppin' UK 'round these parts.

Actually I'm fairly sure most of us don't...

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Bush probably viewed it as an act of friendship. The British public certainly viewed it as obedience (you might recall the phrase 'Bush's poodle').

This is probably mostly due to Bush not being viewed well.

[Poopadoop]

This is probably mostly due to Bush not being viewed well.

You're putting the cart before the horse. A lot of that perception was due to Iraq 2003.

[OngBonga]

There's all kinds of fallout from sacking an ambassador 'on a whim'. That's why it doesn't happen.

It happens. Check out the guy I mentioned. The government need only cite "national interest" as the reason, and the ambassador can do jack about it. The best he can hope for is his contract to be paid up in full. That's if he's lucky and they don't try to throw some dirt at him.

Again, someone is already there. There's no reason to think he's incompetent or in any way impeded from talking to the US about foreign affairs.

There's been an unexpected change of leadership. I would consider replacing the ambassador if I felt it furthered our interests.

Sure that's one solution. But the issue is that Trump didn't raise the possibility in private which would be showing us some respect. He made his view public and put our gov't in an embarrassing position.

Fair point.

[OngBonga]

You're putting the cart before the horse. A lot of that perception was due to Iraq 2003.

Nah, 9/11 fucked the last of his credibility. Iraq just made sure he'd go down in history as a war criminal.

[Poopadoop]

Nah, 9/11 fucked the last of his credibility. Iraq just made sure he'd go down in history as a war criminal.

Not in 2003. 9/11 was largely still being taken at face value as a terrorist attack then.

[Poopadoop]

It happens. Check out the guy I mentioned. The government need only cite "national interest" as the reason, and the ambassador can do jack about it. The best he can hope for is his contract to be paid up in full. That's if he's lucky and they don't try to throw some dirt at him.

You mean the Kazakstan whistleblower guy? Ya, that's not sacking someone 'on a whim'. It's defensible (not saying it's right, just defensible) if the ambassador's views go against those of the people who hired him. See above on 'not following his gov'ts instructions'.

[Poopadoop]

There's been an unexpected change of leadership. I would consider replacing the ambassador if I felt it furthered our interests.

I'm sure they could find an excuse to do that if they really wanted to. I'm not saying it's unimaginable. In fact it's a lot more likely that they sack him and replace him with someone else they like better than that they sack him and put in Farage.

[OngBonga]

Not in 2003. 9/11 was largely still being taken at face value as a terrorist attack then.

I'm not referring to the conspiracy side of things. The footage of him at a school being told the attacks were under way demonstrated a very weak leader. His credibility was destroyed right there.

You mean the Kazakstan whistleblower guy? Ya, that's not sacking someone 'on a whim'. It's defensible (not saying it's right, just defensible) if the ambassador's views go against those of the people who hired him. See above on 'not following his gov'ts instructions'.

Uzbekistan, but yeah, him. By "on a whim", I mean at the sole discrection of the PM. It only needs to be in the national interests, as far as the PM is concerned. That could apply here, if indeed they wished to appoint Farage.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not referring to the conspiracy side of things. The footage of him at a school being told the attacks were under way demonstrated a very weak leader. His credibility was destroyed right there.

I lived in the US in 2001-2 and he did look pretty goofy in that moment. But he actually recovered pretty well iirc, he made a pretty good speech that night and gave the public what they wanted to hear. His approval ratings were still > 50% at least when the war in Iraq started.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/pr...orge-bush.aspx

[Poopadoop]

Uzbekistan, but yeah, him. By "on a whim", I mean at the sole discrection of the PM. It only needs to be in the national interests, as far as the PM is concerned. That could apply here, if indeed they wished to appoint Farage.

I understand it's at the PM's discretion, but I don't think replacing someone is as simple as it sounds. They still have to think of the voter's perceptions. Chances are, pretty much no-one gives a shit who the ambassador to Uzbekistan is. Ambassador to the US is a different story.

[wufwugy]

Trump won WI by 27k votes and it's being recounted. He lost NH by 3k votes and it's not being recounted.

This is what it looks like when propaganda rules the waves.

[wufwugy]

The irony is that Trump is by far the most left Republican nominee in history. You'd think they'd be happy. Nope, they want Bolshevism instead.

[wufwugy]

Mr. Savy was right

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/802326510547804160

[Poopadoop]

Fidel Castro is dead!

Apparently Trump doesn't trust the media to report the truth. Using twitter to let everyone know.

[Poopadoop]

in b4 "This is a brilliant ploy to deflect attention from his lawsuits, shitty appointments, and business conflicts of interest."

[wufwugy]

Lots of people don't pay attention to the hoaxing media, so we get news like Castro dying from people we follow on twitter and such.

[wufwugy]

As for the brilliant ploy aspect of it, GOP Cuban voters are very important in key state Florida. Hoaxing media non-stop attacks everything Trump says. This puts the hoaxing media in a situation where they have to either make Trump look good by being actual journalists, or they can make Trump look even better by defending Castro and such. The word is the latter has been happening.

[Savy]

Mr. Savy was right

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/802326510547804160

In all fairness she's far too old for the majority of them.

edit - I just noticed the chest grab of the little girl, pretty sick.

edit 2 - And I obviously missed the first gif of him touching up the small asian girl.

[Poopadoop]

As for the brilliant ploy aspect of it, GOP Cuban voters are very important in key state Florida. Hoaxing media non-stop attacks everything Trump says. This puts the hoaxing media in a situation where they have to either make Trump look good by being actual journalists, or they can make Trump look even better by defending Castro and such. The word is the latter has been happening.

Defending Castro from what? All he said was 'he's dead'.

The good thing about the hoaxing media and the hoaxing Trump is that they only hoax the gullible people, like with Trump U. Doesn't hoax the rest of us.