Conservative or liberal (politics)

SaltAcidFatHeatAcid

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2022
656 Posts
884 Thanked
Back here mid 2026 to remind the group that the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, America is in fact no healthier under RFK (outside of GLP1 impact on obesity), defecit spending is at an all time high, and the US just committed one of its biggest foreign policy blunders ever, enabling Iran at their weakest. I guess people might want to celebrate an immigration crackdown with no real policy progress, but who knows.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Hensmon

Admin
Mod
Jun 27, 2020
4,305 Posts
4,279 Thanked
UK
Very disappointing the war in Ukraine has not ended, but at the time of the election it was a choice between the party who started it, who sabotaged the peace agreement, and who by far had the most war-like, neo-conservative rhetoric vs. the rhetoric from the Republicans, that the war must end and that they were willing to talk with Russia. They at least made (still making?) attempts on that, but it was always going to be a long-shot.

As for health... How do you know US is not healthier, what metrics are you using? Too early to tell anyway, is it not? For example the banning of the dyes has implications for cancer and neurological issues, which wouldn't present in the data for years. Most of the changes have been institutional or program based anyway e.g having doctors actually study nutrition, removing conflicts of interest from industry, huge funding for rural health and regenerative farming, and beginning the largest roll off of animal testing the NIH has ever partaken in.

Overal I'm just extremly grateful that RFK brought the convo about nutrition, ultra-poccessed foods and environmental toxins into the cultural zeitgeist, which he absolutely has. Sickest country in the world finally has some reason to be optimistic about a change of trajectory. 3 more years to go!
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag and dmgtz96

LostLegend

Elite Member
Dec 5, 2020
1,318 Posts
1,680 Thanked
Liverpool, UK
Website
www.beatport.com
Andy Burnham smashing Reform and Restore in the Makerfield by-election which now opens the way for him to directly challenge Starmer for the leadership.

and yet another quality image of UK Politics in a nutshell:

IMG-0446.webp


@Jetflag 😆
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

Jetflag

Legendary Member
Jul 17, 2020
5,044 Posts
4,505 Thanked
Andy Burnham smashing Reform and Restore in the Makerfield by-election which now opens the way for him to directly challenge Starmer for the leadership.
yeah i saw! he did very well, put in the work. I'd say him and Restore are the two big winners here all things considered, him with a whopping 54% despite Labours unpopularity and them for an 8% vote share for a 4 month old opposition party, smack in the middle of Labour Heartland

Hope he kicks Starmer out.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: LostLegend

LostLegend

Elite Member
Dec 5, 2020
1,318 Posts
1,680 Thanked
Liverpool, UK
Website
www.beatport.com
Hope he kicks Starmer out.
I hope so.

Politically speaking, he’s not too different from Starmer. Very much a centrist, pro-Israel type.
However, he doesn’t have any of Starmers baggage, has a lot of friends in the media and is a much better public speaker.
He has that charisma that seems to appeal to a wide demographic. That was a big issue with Starmer, not just his leadership, but the fact that he’s not very likeable at all.

In theory he should avoid the media pile-on that has plagued Starmer due to his good rapport with the UK media, at least at the start (should he take over)

Everton fan as well 😆
 

LostLegend

Elite Member
Dec 5, 2020
1,318 Posts
1,680 Thanked
Liverpool, UK
Website
www.beatport.com
Just to add, this by-election is more a victory for Burnham than it is for the Labour Party. They’ve won overwhelmingly there, but I think a lot of that will be tactical voting to get Starmer out.
Labour still in a lot of trouble. If he gets in, he has his work cut out to turn things around.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

Jetflag

Legendary Member
Jul 17, 2020
5,044 Posts
4,505 Thanked
Just to add, this by-election is more a victory for Burnham than it is for the Labour Party. They’ve won overwhelmingly there, but I think a lot of that will be tactical voting to get Starmer out.
Labour still in a lot of trouble. If he gets in, he has his work cut out to turn things around.
They are…I think Burnham is the last coffin nail for labour honestly.. you’re right in the sense that he is basically Starmer with jeans, and as such he will not bring it back from life support/make significant changes in the parties political direction.

The big topics that make labour and for that matter it’s Dutch counterpart the PVDA, who died last election, lose and decrease in popularity are all legacy 60’s ideals which they just can’t let go off.

So unless burnham radically changes the party stance on nativism/immigration and things like self reliance v globalism I don’t see Labour surviving the next general election honestly…
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: LostLegend

Hensmon

Admin
Mod
Jun 27, 2020
4,305 Posts
4,279 Thanked
UK
These leadership challenges in the UK are a complete media led farce tbh. As much as Starmer is a disappointment (arguably very bad), so much of the focus of the press is this manufactured garbage. Spending 6 weeks in the UK recently and having to listen daily to the BBC on my parent radio was so painful. Just trivial nonsense, for a time it was Mandleson, but I'm sure the "antisemitism crisis" is coming soon. It's akin to premier league managers and how the media conjures up such outcomes. Complete distraction from anything meaningful, it's been like this for 7 years now. There's absolutely zero depth or meaning to any of this, it's soap opera nonsense.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: TJY001 and Jetflag
May 4, 2022
238 Posts
181 Thanked
UK
The worst things about Starmer was his ever growing implementation of out of touch and utterly stupid left-wing policy. I say that as someone proudly on the left. Economically Labour were actually better than the Conservatives, but still bad.

The best thing he did was stand-up to Trump and not drag Britain into a bombing campaign in Iran. He limited access to UK bases and was vocal about ceasefires and the two-state solution. Netanyahu branded him "on the wrong side of history" and "rewarding terrorism". Israeli right-wing media said he was "hostile" to their nation.

Now considering that Starmer's replacement, Andy Burnham, holds the exact same unpopular social and economic policy ideas, ask yourself why Labour, and especially the mainstream media, have propelled this man, who no one knew or cared about a few months ago, into the golden seat defacto.

Burnham in 2015 - "The first foreign visit I would do as leader of the Labour Party would be to Israel."

Where have we heard that before? Not surprising from a man who has been a member of the Labour Friends of Israel group (LFI) since then, which acts much like APAC in the U.S., lobbying and donating to politicians to influence British politics in favor of Israel.
 

dmgtz96

Legendary Member
Jul 13, 2020
3,047 Posts
1,892 Thanked
A bunch of democratic socialists in the US finally ousted conventional democrats. This will be good. The US was missing a political party that was actually left of center
 

Jetflag

Legendary Member
Jul 17, 2020
5,044 Posts
4,505 Thanked
@Jetflag what do you make of Owen Jones take on immigration and crime?

Owen Jones is a well known far left ideologue who has sullied himself with p-hacking statistics and selective “fact” picking, more then once in the past, so I’ll check it/ review his claims carefully and will get back on that once I have.

(Not with this heat though.. I can hardly muster the energy to work..lol)
 

Jetflag

Legendary Member
Jul 17, 2020
5,044 Posts
4,505 Thanked
@Jetflag what do you make of Owen Jones take on immigration and crime?

So its 21 degrees here now and, as I somewhat expected, He, as per usual, bends the picture through selective framing. strawmanning, in part rehashing part of toms earlier fallacious point and (deliberately) not understanding a Simpsons Paradox e.a. a “drag down” effect.


So the argument goes something like this:


Daily Express: Here’s a recent uptick in “Crime” (sex offenses/ armed robbery) based on x acquired figures from x demographics in this x area!

Owen jones: You lie wacist! Your own (national big aggregate) data (in 2026) clearly shows that “Crime” (everything from parking tickets to multiple homicide) has decreased steadily from the 90’s onward! So.. with overall crime go down, overall immigration go up -> Therefor, more immigration = Actually less crime! Checkmate conservatard!


Yeah… No.

1: Crime has been going down long before the Boris or Blair immigration waves. The trend has seen a constant declining since at around the 90’s. So it’s demonstrably not the (recent) mass influx of immigrants that is causing or aiding the decline. If anything its proof that the majority disgusting huaite native britton gammons like you :sneaky: have been “behaving” better and better for 40 years now (and it has a lot to do with other factors but that aside). And because they’re (still) the majority ->the trend goes down. Despite the disproportionate higher per capita crime rate of certain immigrant demographics and in certain high profile categories (like sexual assault).

Again: Jones is either too dumb to understand a Simpsons Paradox, or too manipulative to honestly address it.


2: the statistics he uses (again) include all crime going down. Everything across the board.. So less deadly manslaughter in traffic because cars got safer = the same as Rape or violent robbery with a stab weapon.

which of course, they’re not…the cases in the aggregate data he uses to make his point are dissimilar. And for the most part not what “the right” for that matter are concerned about...and Jones I think knows this perfectly well.

Nobody cares about a decrease in overall bike theft throughout the years because of better locks… what people/the daily express/the “evil right” care about crime wise (not getting in the other topics regarding the myriad reasons to be against mass uncontrolled immigration for this discussion) is an increase in the aforementioned high profiles like sexual violence & armed/knife robberies. Which have increased, with the growth of specific demographics, (e.a a wave), especially in specific areas, working against the overall trend but not enough to bring it down nationally, continuing the trend.


Now I don’t know if this was purely an attempt to “pwn” a former spectator commentator which he really hates by using “his” data sets against him and making him look stupid, and do some hoarty propaganda while he’s at it, (and why on earth he would dissect a 12 year old article of all things at that but that aside))

But I Verdict this a poor (excuse) argument non the less.
 

SaltAcidFatHeatAcid

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2022
656 Posts
884 Thanked
As for health... How do you know US is not healthier, what metrics are you using? Too early to tell anyway, is it not? For example the banning of the dyes has implications for cancer and neurological issues, which wouldn't present in the data for years. Most of the changes have been institutional or program based anyway e.g having doctors actually study nutrition, removing conflicts of interest from industry, huge funding for rural health and regenerative farming, and beginning the largest roll off of animal testing the NIH has ever partaken in.

Overal I'm just extremly grateful that RFK brought the convo about nutrition, ultra-poccessed foods and environmental toxins into the cultural zeitgeist, which he absolutely has. Sickest country in the world finally has some reason to be optimistic about a change of trajectory. 3 more years to go!

RFK can get some credit for dyes, but so should California for leading the charge there first. Same for Michelle O with her healthy school initiatives that the Republican base fought tooth and nail. RFK should also suck a giant egg for backing off of meaningfully addressing chemicals used in ag - he caved just like every other politician facing special interest $$. Oh and his work on Autism (discussed here in great detail) is not pushing the needle there really at all, unless you subscribe to all the debunked science he's pushing around that (vaccines, tylenol, etc).

I think there is a broader health story here that goes beyond nutrition - which in most cases is a personal decision Americans make (and in my opinion are not changing their behavior regardless of what MAHA does). Take healthcare - you want healthier Americans, they need better access to funded or subsidized healthcare like all other developed nations have. We are almost the only country in the World Cup without a single payer system!!! The much larger public-health question is whether people can actually get care, afford medications, manage diabetes and hypertension, access mental-health treatment, and see a primary-care doctor before disease becomes catastrophic. Dyes are great and an easy target but what fraction of a percent are we talking health-wise?

Aside from that, he has almost no focus on Tobacco which kills half a million people a year (another personal choice). What about his effect on vaccine science, public perception, and the cost of that? What has RFK or the admin done for overdose treatment and health outcomes with the continued rise of Fentanyl? What have they done to address the infant and mother mortality rates which we lead in most of the developed world? What does the empphasis on fringe and non-science backed ideas cost the US in health outcomes more broadly?

Edit: Also how did I forget the anti-science position re: climate change and the damage this admin has done to public perception of the risk, and the will to do anything about it? What health outcomes will that effect for US citizens, and the global population?

The cons far outweigh the pros with RFK and this admin. I'm happy to support the good parts of MAHA even if they are small and have little to no impact on the bigger picture. But I get frustrated when people use those small initiatives to say they are doing a good job. RFK and his brainworm should go retire and leave health policy to ya know, actual health experts who aren't heroin addicts.
 
Last edited: