Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 25, 2023, 01:41:18 PM
-
And Biden launches his re-election campaign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65379840
And I dread to think how much will be spent this time
-
And it's getting to be a lot like Trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65994767
-
Article on the possibility of Trump
https://archive.vn/fxqbe
-
Trump continues to dominate the Republican candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66350225
-
Randy Rainbow with perhaps his best yet:
https://youtu.be/596N4aPnjrs
-
The show without Punch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66588601
-
And the reviews.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66601291
-
I hope Ramaswamy or Scott wins the nomination, just to piss off the white supremacists, but I hope a Democrat wins the election.
-
What a fucked up world!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66632882
-
What a fucked up world!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66632882
If you ever feeling a bit stupid, remember there are some many times more stupid.
-
If you ever feeling a bit stupid, remember there are some many times more stupid.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
-
Regarding Trump, I thought this was good. Yes, it plays on certain British stereotypes (and then there is the question of BoJo) but still it's spot on.
https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1698783758072140040?s=19
-
We could be about to enter World War 2 with Obama as President
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/donald-trump-warns-of-threat-of-world-war-ii-mixes-up-names-of-joe-biden-and-barack-obama-in-washington-speech/ar-AA1gQ5x5
-
We could be about to enter World War 2 with Obama as President
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/donald-trump-warns-of-threat-of-world-war-ii-mixes-up-names-of-joe-biden-and-barack-obama-in-washington-speech/ar-AA1gQ5x5
I like the way they have to explain that WW2 ended in 1945 just in case some people don't understand.
-
Mike Pence pulls out of the Republican race. Another 'How can they tell?' moment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67252297
-
How Trump 2 might look
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67272569
-
That 'What if one of them dies?' isn't the most bizarre hypothetical discussed in this article underlines the weird and whacky world of the Presidential election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67304536
-
And the loons influencing the Republicans
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/opinion/sunday/conservative-intellectuals-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8Ew.bvUe.dcKLMm2l9dg9&smid=nytcore-android-share
-
And yet Trump leads
https://archive.vn/22XFa
-
Some other bloke drops out of the republican race
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67400670
-
Haley getting some interesting backing
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67558465
-
Article by Gordon Brown on a possible Trump second term:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/07/trump-20-ignorance-vengeance-us-chaos-for-world-order
(Side note: for all his faults, he is a real, adult politician. How I miss those)
-
Article by Gordon Brown on a possible Trump second term:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/07/trump-20-ignorance-vengeance-us-chaos-for-world-order
(Side note: for all his faults, he is a real, adult politician. How I miss those)
I can't help but pick out the quote below and wish that it didn't apply to what Labour has done under Starmer but it does.
'Recent elections in Europe, where the far right has made considerable gains, show that if moderates allow the election agenda to be captured by the far right’s anti-immigrant, anti-environmental and anti-internationalist rhetoric, the far right wins.'
-
First steps to impeach Biden. US elections are such fun.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67632723
-
'Nikki Haley says TikTok makes people ‘17% more antisemitic, more pro-Hamas’'
I fear this presidential election may be 84.3% more batshit crazy than the last one, the all time record breaker.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/nikki-haley-tiktok-antisemitism-hamas
-
Apparently, 23% of statistics are made up.
-
Apparently, 23% of statistics are made up.
The problem being that this one is not made up, it's either a deliberate or ignorant misinterpretation - which is worrying for the current second, if distant, favourite for the Republican nomination.
-
Colorado court says Trump cannot be on ballot for president in Colorado. Can't see this being upheld all the way through appeal process.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67768873
-
Supreme Court refuses to fast track Trump's claim to immunity
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67808655
-
'Trump's strategy to delay trial may be winning' or indeed it may not and make everything worse according to the article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67805820
-
Maine kicks Trump off ballot
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67837639
-
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/jan/01/green-day-new-years-eve-trump-american-idiot (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/jan/01/green-day-new-years-eve-trump-american-idiot)
Green Day changes lyric to hit out at Trump in New Year’s Eve performance ...
, replaced the line
“I’m not a part of a redneck agenda” with,
“I’m not a part of the Maga agenda”
-
Foreign payments to U.S. President Trump.....
http://tinyurl.com/32x2zvc3
-
Foreign payments to U.S. President Trump.....
http://tinyurl.com/32x2zvc3
All of this is effectively discounted by his supporters as either perfectly ok, or a put up job.
-
If you read the whole article you'll find out that UK Homeowners Are Eligible For A £1,500 Loft Insulation Voucher
-
US Supreme Court to decide on whether Trump should be stopped from standing because of the Jan 6th riots! Can't see them stopping him, but if they did I can't see it beimg peaceful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435
-
US Supreme Court to decide on whether Trump should be stopped from standing because of the Jan 6th riots! Can't see them stopping him, but if they did I can't see it beimg peaceful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435
Flynn, Mcgregor etc will see that it ain't peaceful. MAGAmoron Qanon brigade! Traitors in broad daylight!
-
Trump's case not starting well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67920129
-
Christie pulls out. Says of Trump 'I am going to make sure that in no way do I enable Donald Trump to ever be president of the United States again'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67942038
-
US Supreme Court to decide on whether Trump should be stopped from standing because of the Jan 6th riots! Can't see them stopping him, but if they did I can't see it beimg peaceful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435
Re the riots. I saw this (https://youtu.be/XIYESmzwqLc?si=j3fLC99nwnXdEeNj8) video back in November, which discusses the full cctv evidence that has recently been released. It shows police firing and throwing sting grenades into the crowd before the demonstrators started becoming violent. (See from about 15:30 in video).
-
Oh For fucks sake. No.
Why do you keep supporting strong armed thugs who would rather burn the world than be proven liars.
-
The Punchless debate. Iowa Republican caucus Monday, New Hampshire primary a week on Tuesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67942133
-
Iowa Christians for Trump. Perhaps they think they are using any tool available. Pity they don't realise how much this tool is screwing them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67918713
-
Some of the stories in Iowa
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67977977
-
Trump wins, Ramaswamy drops out and endorsechim. Haley and DeSantis battle for the right to lose last.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67989443
-
Iowa Christians for Trump. Perhaps they think they are using any tool available. Pity they don't realise how much this tool is screwing them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67918713
Yeah! MAGA definitely isn't a cult, is it! You should see some of the artwork they're coming out with depicting Trump!🤮
-
Trump wins, Ramaswamy drops out and endorsechim. Haley and DeSantis battle for the right to lose last.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67989443
Something that doesn't seem to have been picked up is turnout.
Yesterday turnout was over 40% lower than in 2016, the last time there was a Republican caucus not involving an incumbent president. Now there may be a bunch of reasons for this, such as:
1. The weather - no idea how yesterday compared to Jan 2016, but I guess it is always darned cold in Iowa in Jan.
2. That the result seemed certain so less likelihood for people to vote.
3. That while Trump is clearly preferred amongst the candidates there is less overall enthusiasm resulting in more people sitting on their hands.
If the reason is 1 or 2 then there is no concern for Trump. However if there is an element of 3, that may be worrying as it may suggest a softening of support amongst even the hard-core (registered Republican voters) if they are less willing to turn out to vote for him.
-
Something that doesn't seem to have been picked up is turnout.
Yesterday turnout was over 40% lower than in 2016, the last time there was a Republican caucus not involving an incumbent president. Now there may be a bunch of reasons for this, such as:
1. The weather - no idea how yesterday compared to Jan 2016, but I guess it is always darned cold in Iowa in Jan.
2. That the result seemed certain so less likelihood for people to vote.
3. That while Trump is clearly preferred amongst the candidates there is less overall enthusiasm resulting in more people sitting on their hands.
If the reason is 1 or 2 then there is no concern for Trump. However if there is an element of 3, that may be worrying as it may suggest a softening of support amongst even the hard-core (registered Republican voters) if they are less willing to turn out to vote for him.
To be fsir, 2016 was a record turnout, and it was much much colder this time. But I think the idea of 3 is borne out in that in polling Haley is more likely to beat Biden than Trump.
-
To be fsir, 2016 was a record turnout, and it was much much colder this time. But I think the idea of 3 is borne out in that in polling Haley is more likely to beat Biden than Trump.
It may be the equivalent of Tory members voting for Truss. A tiny group that are massively unrepresentative of the mainstream of political opinion considering that the most extreme candidate is what the country needs.
Problem is that Biden is hardly inspiring.
-
It may be the equivalent of Tory members voting for Truss. A tiny group that are massively unrepresentative of the mainstream of political opinion considering that the most extreme candidate is what the country needs.
Problem is that Biden is hardly inspiring.
Not sure the analogy works. Trump looks like taking a majority of Republican registered votes in the primaries which is a vastly bigger number than Truss's electorate for leadership. He's already won a presidential election.
I'm not sure that Biden's lack of inspirational qualities is that significant in the rhe divide in the US. Indeed an inspirational leader might increase that divide.
-
Not sure the analogy works. Trump looks like taking a majority of Republican registered votes in the primaries which is a vastly bigger number than Truss's electorate for leadership.
I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.
-
He's already won a presidential election.
Due to vagaries of the complex electoral college system. He failed to win the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, by approx. 3 million votes in the former and by over 7 million votes in the latter.
-
Due to vagaries of the complex electoral college system. He failed to win the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, by approx. 3 million votes in the former and by over 7 million votes in the latter.
And he got 63m votes when he won, and 74m when he list so no resemblance to Truss's electorate.
-
I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.
Sounds like straws well and truly being clutched at.
Trump is ahead in the polls and given the nature of the electoral college system is currently on track to win albeit by a very close margin in the college.
I don't think you can rely on the voting public to deny Trump a victory, the courts need to act quickly to find a way to frustrate him. Even then he is a wily fox with a judicial system that favours him.
My advice I pinch (and slightly alter) from the glorious Bette:
“Fasten your seatbelts; we’re in for a bumpy 4 years"
-
And he got 63m votes when he won, and 74m when he list so no resemblance to Truss's electorate.
Truss never got to the point when she actually stood in a general election, so we've no idea what proportion of the vote she might have got at that point. We are discussing the selection of an individual by, in effect, a party membership here.
-
I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.
It's not just 'more extreme', it's a nonsense. Truss become PM on the basis of her vote, Trump is at the start of a process during which there will be many more votes to become a candidate in an election which will then be decided by millions of votes.
-
Truss never got to the point when she actually stood in a general election, so we've no idea what proportion of the vote she might have got at that point. We are discussing the selection of an individual by, in effect, a party membership here.
Which then only selects a candidate for a the Presidential election, not the PM. How else would a party choose its candidate?
-
It's not just 'more extreme', it's a nonsense. Truss become PM on the basis of her vote, Trump is at the start of a process during which there will be many more votes to become a candidate in an election which will then be decided by millions of votes.
But I'm talking about the current process - that to be selected as the presidential candidate. That is decided by a much smaller 'selectorate' than the electorate as a whole. Same as the election of Truss as Tory party leader. And sure Truss actually became PM, but that isn't my point - you could make the same argument about Corbyn in 2015 - elected as party leader by a small (albeit larger than Truss) electorate that isn't representative of the country as a whole, nor representative of Labour voters in general (in the case of Corbyn) or Tory voters in general (in the case of Truss).
-
But I'm talking about the current process - that to be selected as the presidential candidate. That is decided by a much smaller 'selectorate' than the electorate as a whole. Same as the election of Truss as Tory party leader. And sure Truss actually became PM, but that isn't my point - you could make the same argument about Corbyn in 2015 - elected as party leader by a small (albeit larger than Truss) electorate that isn't representative of the country as a whole, nor representative of Labour voters in general (in the case of Corbyn) or Tory voters in general (in the case of Truss).
Why would a party not select its own candidate?
Any choice then does go directly to the whole electorate unlike the UK elections. And the total number of registered Republican voters is 38m. You are not comparing like with like.
-
I note that next week in New Hampshire that registered independents can vote.
-
Why would a party not select its own candidate?
That's up to them - my point is that hard core party members tend to be more extreme in their view than rank and file voters. Hence if you leave the choice to those members you are likely to select a more extreme leader/candidate etc. Whether a party cares about that is up to them, but elections tend to be won from the middle ground - the candidate/party that is perceived as less extreme tends to win.
And there is, of course, more than one way for a party to select its own candidate - you can leave it to party members or alternatively you can use another part of the party machinery - most obviously in the UK, MPs. While that might seem less democratic MPs will actually have worked with and genuinely know a candidate so are able to make a choice from actual knowledge. For party members typically they are putting their clothes of opinion on a clothes horse of a candidate that they, in reality, know nothing about. They certainly will have little idea whether that person is actually any good at the job.
-
That's up to them - my point is that hard core party members tend to be more extreme in their view than rank and file voters. Hence if you leave the choice to those members you are likely to select a more extreme leader/candidate etc. Whether a party cares about that is up to them, but elections tend to be won from the middle ground - the candidate/party that is perceived as less extreme tends to win.
And there is, of course, more than one way for a party to select its own candidate - you can leave it to party members or alternatively you can use another part of the party machinery - most obviously in the UK, MPs. While that might seem less democratic MPs will actually have worked with and genuinely know a candidate so are able to make a choice from actual knowledge. For party members typically they are putting their clothes of opinion on a clothes horse of a candidate that they, in reality, know nothing about. They certainly will have little idea whether that person is actually any good at the job.
Have you given up your ludicrous Trump/Truss comparison then? All of the above seems off topic to that and the thread.
-
Speculation on Trump's running mate
https://theweek.com/politics/trump-vp-2024-haley-lake-stefanik-greene
-
Extraordinary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68009461
-
Just imagine that, Trump and other Republican politicians courted the anti abortion movement in the US until it looked like being an electoral problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68027344
-
Just imagine that, Trump and other Republican politicians courted the anti abortion movement in the US until it looked like being an electoral problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68027344
And I always thought that Trump was such a fervent Christian, and a firm believer in the sanctity of the fertilized human egg, infused at the moment of conception with an immortal soul.
-
Oh look, Trump being racist.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68049922
-
And then there were two:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/21/ron-desantis-drops-out-presidential-race
-
And then there were two:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/21/ron-desantis-drops-out-presidential-race
Well, there's really three, Haley, Trump, and the judiciary, and Haley won't be the one to stop Trump.
-
That is one thing I find worrying about the US system: that their judges are political appointments, including those appointed by Trump who are members of their Supreme Court and who will imminently be faced with making decisions about whether Trump is a fit person to be on the ballot paper.
-
That is one thing I find worrying about the US system: that their judges are political appointments, including those appointed by Trump who are members of their Supreme Court and who will imminently be faced with making decisions about whether Trump is a fit person to be on the ballot paper.
They've become much more political in recent years. That said I'm not sure that the appountees to the Supreme Court are likely to favour Trump simply due to being appointed by him, rather their interpretations of the constitution are possibly more likely to favour him here.
To an extent, our judicial appts are political but with a small p.
-
Why would a party not select its own candidate?
Any choice then does go directly to the whole electorate unlike the UK elections. And the total number of registered Republican voters is 38m. You are not comparing like with like.
Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.
-
Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.
Always wondered about that - seems a strange arrangement.
-
Always wondered about that - seems a strange arrangement.
Yes. And in some states they have an "open primary" which means you do not have to even declare that you are a Republican (or Democrat) to vote in the party's primary.
-
Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.
Agree, but Prof D seemed to think it was comparable.
-
Yes. And in some states they have an "open primary" which means you do not have to even declare that you are a Republican (or Democrat) to vote in the party's primary.
As noted above, New Hampshire, this week, is one with registered independents having a vote.
-
That is one thing I find worrying about the US system: that their judges are political appointments, including those appointed by Trump who are members of their Supreme Court and who will imminently be faced with making decisions about whether Trump is a fit person to be on the ballot paper.
Trump thinks Nikki Haley is Nancy Pelosi:
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=3203cbb860768e10JmltdHM9MTcwNTg4MTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0yMWIyOTU3Yi1lNDFmLTY2ZDQtMjA5My04MTc1ZTUxMTY3YTAmaW5zaWQ9NTQ3MQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=21b2957b-e41f-66d4-2093-8175e51167a0&psq=Trump+confuses+Haley+with+Pelosi&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubXNuLmNvbS9lbi11cy9uZXdzL3BvbGl0aWNzL3RydW1wLWNvbmZ1c2VzLW5pa2tpLWhhbGV5LXdpdGgtbmFuY3ktcGVsb3NpLWluLXJhbWJsaW5nLXNwZWVjaC9hci1CQjFnWldhMQ&ntb=1
-
Trump thinks Desert Storm was in Vietnam.
https://twitter.com/skyowl_/status/1749271930077839707?s=19
-
Haley loses, isn't taking part in Nevada caucuses and will next appear at South Carolina where she was governor but likely to lose and bow out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68077998
-
And Biden wins New Hampshire despite not being on the ballot. Odd system.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68077090
-
I remember the 1984 Democrat fight to be candidate, and Walter Mondale's use of the Wendy's slogan against Gary Hary 'Where's the beef?'. I'm not sure there ever was much beef in the Presidential races I've seen, it's more an idea of something, not even a vision, that the candidates represent - freshness, anti Washington, anti corporate, change.
Now though it feels like both parties have become 'Not Them'. The division is simply othering, the long standing portrayals of them as Tweedledee and Tweedledum, have merged with the Cheshire Cat, and they have disappeared.
While this is not unique to the US, the political system with the President restricted in powers seems to have made this the prime example. I see interviews with supporters from both sides, Rep and Dem, and they would be lost and meaningless without each other. This is politics with the policy surgically removed.
-
They don't get that no matter how much they pay obeisance to him, Trump isn't going to forgive them for opposing him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68077091
-
They don't get that no matter how much they pay obeisance to him, Trump isn't going to forgive them for opposing him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68077091
I don't know, judging by his performance in the Desert Storm Vietnam clip, they'll be lucky if he remembers there even was a primary in six months.
-
I don't know, judging by his performance in the Desert Storm Vietnam clip, they'll be lucky if he remembers there even was a primary in six months.
Good point. The choice of candidates from last time seems only to have declined.
-
It seems the border isn't that important to the Republicans after all.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-border-deal-republicans-biden_n_65b18fa0e4b0166fc770ae46
-
It seems the border isn't that important to the Republicans after all.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-border-deal-republicans-biden_n_65b18fa0e4b0166fc770ae46
Thr Trump Party
-
As with so many stories on Trump, I have to remind myself quite how extraordinary it is, as it's too easy for it to become commonplace.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68109999
-
'Trump must pay $83.3m for defaming E Jean Carroll'.
The problem this presents for the democratic system in the US is that so many of his supporters will just see this as evidence of corruption in the US system.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68109999
-
Texas vs Biden
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/texas-warns-joe-biden-confronting-state-would-be-biggest-mistake/ar-BB1hiuVH
-
Some of Trump's latest
https://youtu.be/0JD69UxVfv0?si=KInPAeLqY0IiwX9b
-
'How a coastline 100 million years ago influences modern election results in Alabama'
Ancient psephology
https://starkeycomics.com/2021/06/11/how-a-coastline-100-million-years-ago-influences-modern-election-results-in-alabama/
-
Not just loopy, but loopier than you could possibly imagine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13020533/vivek-ramaswamy-taylor-swift-travis-kelce-fake-relationship-chiefs-super-bowl.html
-
Not just loopy, but loopier than you could possibly imagine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13020533/vivek-ramaswamy-taylor-swift-travis-kelce-fake-relationship-chiefs-super-bowl.html
LOl! You know she's doing something right when she triggers the hell out of those MAGA morons.😂
-
Michelle Obama for President? Biden's odds for being the Democratic candidate slipped to 3/1 on. For comparison Trump is 16/1 on for the Republican nomination.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michelle-obama-for-president-crypto-bettors-think-her-odds-have-just-quadrupled/ar-BB1hDrBL
-
No immunity for Trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68023315
-
What an incredibly odd system the US presidential election is!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68225999
-
In the light of the Special Investigator's report into Biden, while Michelle Obama is second favourite to get the Democrat nomination, it's not clear she's interested. The third favourite, whose odds are reducing, is Gavin Newsom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom
-
Big move on betting on Kamala Harris for Democrat nomination moved from 50 to 1 to 14 to 1 today
-
'Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills'
This will do him no harm in the polls.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
-
'Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills'
This will do him no harm in the polls.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
Probably not. MAGAtards arw openly rooting for Russia.
-
'Trump seeks Supreme Court pause in 2020 election case'.
Would surely set a dangerous precedent (as opposed to dangerous president)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68277167
-
Biden's odds on being the nominee hardening again. The idea that the US President is incapable of being the nominee is obviously a frightening one, and acting on it effectively says he's incapable of being president. So the worse the state of the world, ths more one might deny it. Catch 25.
-
And meanwhile amongst the Kennedys
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68275635
-
'Trump ordered to pay $354m to New York for lying to banks'
All of this is perfectly normal. No, really, it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68320290
-
And now Trump sells trainers
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/trump-kicks-up-his-heels-at-sneaker-con-in-philadelphia-and-touts-new-399-never-surrender-gold-high-tops-just-hours-after-being-slapped-with-355m-fraud-fine-in-new-york/ar-BB1irG4K
-
Why Haley stays in the race?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68387546
-
Too easy to miss some of the political madness going on - Trump proposes daughter-in-law as head of the Republican National Congress.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68255431
-
Republican Governor of Utah with a slightly different approach to Biden than Trump has.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/utah-gov-spencer-cox-praises-biden-we-pray-for-you-to-be-successful
-
The effect of the war in Gaza upon Biden's support. And yet, he will be seen as lukewarm in his support for Israel from many who he might seek to gain votes from in the general.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68420519
-
Illinois suspends Trump from primary ballot.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/illinois-has-disqualified-trump-from-the-2024-ballot-here-s-what-this-means/ar-BB1j834O
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/trump-confuses-obama-biden-virginia-rally
I do think the case for an age limit is undeniable.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/trump-confuses-obama-biden-virginia-rally
I do think the case for an age limit is undeniable.
It seems barely believable that we're talking about a President who will still be in power, in theory, in 2028.
-
'I'm just a storyteller' - and the money was just resting in my account.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68440150
-
Trump stays on ballot, Supreme Court Decision. Not really a surprise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68280062
-
BBC trying to keep the hype about Super Tuesday, even when it's foregone conclusion Tuesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68442842
-
BBC trying to keep the hype about Super Tuesday, even when it's foregone conclusion Tuesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68442842
I suppose if both of the main candidates can name the day of the week that makes it a Super Tuesday now
-
AS I understand it there is a MAGA belief that Obama is telling Biden what to do. When Trump refers to Obama rather than Biden is it a reference to that or failing mental capacity? Pandering to the QAnons?
-
AS I understand it there is a MAGA belief that Obama is telling Biden what to do. When Trump refers to Obama rather than Biden is it a reference to that or failing mental capacity? Pandering to the QAnons?
This is Trump who got Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley confused. His speeches are filled with such.
-
This is Trump who got Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley confused. His speeches are filled with such.
Indeed - was just a thought.
-
Indeed - was just a thought.
And sadly, an all too reasonable one in the carnival of the grotesque that passes for the US election.
-
Some interesting comments from US voters here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68484787
-
Carnival of the grotesque
Thank you, NS, for this excellent characterisationl of the events taking place currently in the USA.
-
Carnival of the grotesque
Thank you, NS, for this excellent characterisationl of the events taking place currently in the USA.
I watch it in sorry fascination with the circus theme playing in my head, and hearing a carnival barker promising the scariest of freak shows.
https://youtu.be/NNv2RHR62Rs?si=HQTwu2XFW0_7seH6
-
'At the very least, it will probably convince nervous Democrats that their presumptive nominee is ready to go toe-to-toe with his Republican opponent in November' - hmmm... that seems optimistic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68472309
-
The uvvers are a con....
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLMhg4k_BlO3oMSY5LBQx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1710293944/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.huffpost.com%2fentry%2fdonald-trump-nickname-for-himself_n_65f04821e4b0bd5228d57b1b/RK=2/RS=l45yqKDd.Ls_cO.CuZUz8DCnzzs-
-
This! 100%.
https://twitter.com/RepRaskin/status/1767629013860700562?s=19
-
"It's going to be a bloodbath"
This man is dangerous.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1769108713871139171?s=19
-
Trump's money worries may be about to end
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68609007
-
Trump's money worries may be about to end
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68609007
Trump is a BINO (Billionaire In Name Only), taken from RINO (Republican In Name Only) which Trumpers disparagingly call moderate Republicans.
-
Literally Anybody Else running
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/25/texas-name-change-election-candidate
-
Polling with other candidates included. Robert F Kennedy Jnr could have a big impact.
https://archive.fo/4yO7W
-
Completely normal and acceptable. ::)
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-accused-of-inciting-political-violence-after-posting-video-with-an-image-of-joe-biden-hog-tied-13104322
-
No matter what I think of Trump, I struggle with the entwinement of politics in the US legal system.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68709895
-
No matter what I think of Trump, I struggle with the entwinement of politics in the US legal system.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68709895
Yes. I find it strange too. The share price of his media company keeps going down (this was predicted). He still might struggle to find the rest of the money if he's made to pay.
-
Yes. I find it strange too. The share price of his media company keeps going down (this was predicted). He still might struggle to find the rest of the money if he's made to pay.
Some details on Truth Social. All a bit odd
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68716628
-
Could Trump lose Florida because abortion will be on the ballot?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68719492
-
And Trump may lose votes from other side on abortion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68761083
-
Hillary Clinton telling people to get over themselves is not going to appeal. I think it's perfectly rational to be worried about Biden's capacity to be President, and telling people off is not going to win them over.
https://www.msn.com/en-GB/news/politics/hillary-clinton-to-voters-upset-over-bidentrump-choice-get-over-yourself/ar-BB1kWJQM?ocid=sapphireappshare
-
Yeah! Definitely not a cult!😂
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1778015149686657231?s=19
-
Yeah! Definitely not a cult!😂
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1778015149686657231?s=19
For once I agree with a Trumpette; I hope she's going to die, too!
-
For once I agree with a Trumpette; I hope she's going to die, too!
Isn't that mirroring her 'cultism' for the sake of a line?
-
Trump says Arizona 'ban' on abortions goes too far. Not sure how this will play with his voters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68783408
-
Trump's hush money trial is due to start on Minday and his appeals to delay it keep getting turned down.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-legal-news-brief-3rd-appeals-court-judge-in-3-days-rejects-trump-motion-to-delay-hush-money-trial/ar-BB1lq0eb
-
Let's face it, there is not going to be an impartial jury in a Trump trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68671730
-
Let's face it, there is not going to be an impartial jury in a Trump trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68671730
It would be an impossible task I would have thought. In another context (Angela Rayner) I was reflecting on how everyone falls into one of two camps so easily. Dumbed-down thinking in a dumbed-down world.
-
I like the idea of the jury system but this is surely its biggest flaw.
-
I like the idea of the jury system but this is surely its biggest flaw.
And one that in the politicised US justice system becomes even more ridiculous.
-
Interesting article on Monday's case against Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
-
'Sixty of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they could not be impartial after proceedings began on Monday.' So 36 liars then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68671733
-
Man sets himself on fire outside courthouse.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-68841535?src_origin=BBCS_BBC
-
Man sets himself on fire outside courthouse.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-68841535?src_origin=BBCS_BBC
And now dead. Seems to have been sad case of
mental illness. And perhaps inevitably 'a man from Florida'
https://floridaman.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68863157
-
And now dead. Seems to have been sad case of
mental illness. And perhaps inevitably 'a man from Florida'
https://floridaman.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68863157
Yep. It doesn't seem to be related to Trump in anyway. Mental illness, conspiracy theories and something to do with crypto currency.
-
There was a rash of self-immolation 50+ years ago, in protest at the Vietnam war. It seems to be starting again.
-
RFK Jnr's supporters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68893186
-
Well it's one way of avoiding being Trump's VP nominee
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/did-kristi-noem-just-doom-her-career/ar-AA1nT5qQ
-
I though it was Biden was supposed to be doolally, now it seems Trump may be, as well. They're both far too old to be standing for the top job.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/more-concerns-raised-for-trump-as-he-struggles-to-say-four-syllable-word/ar-AA1o1wpN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8814cbae3f094e0e87d267010385a789&ei=27
-
Now Trump wants to give police immunity from prosecution. What could possibly go wrong?🤷♂️
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1785759631882510558?s=19
-
Now Trump wants to give police immunity from prosecution. What could possibly go wrong?🤷♂️
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1785759631882510558?s=19
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
What I want to know was the magazine the Woman's Weekly?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68974398
-
Well it's one way of avoiding being Trump's VP nominee
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/did-kristi-noem-just-doom-her-career/ar-AA1nT5qQ
And cancels book tour
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kristi-noem-cuts-short-book-tour-citing-bad-weather/ar-BB1m2SUm
-
That explains it then. LOL!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html
-
That explains it then. LOL!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html
Well, I suppose it's a requirement of sorts in the current race.
-
Agreement on 2 debates
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-69017002
-
Interesting article on 'Bidenomics' and its affects.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd131v26dneo
-
Trump telling us exactly what he intends to do?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/21/donald-trump-video-unified-reich
-
Trump telling us exactly what he intends to do?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/21/donald-trump-video-unified-reich
I'm willing to accept that it's not fully intentional but having listened to Michael Gove's speech on anti semitism this morning, it and the various other witless statements and actions are ignored by Gove in his cherry picking of what anti semitism is.
-
Haley endorses Trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck77rvmp8xno
-
Haley endorses Trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck77rvmp8xno
Maybe it's better she lost the nomination race then. Odd that she is now endorsing the orange turd given she ran on an anti-Trump campaign. Doesn't say much for her values.
-
The US not that interested in Trump's current trial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22mryvleko
-
Haley endorses Trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck77rvmp8xno
Haley's comment?
-
And over to the jury. I'd be surprised at anything other than a hung jury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033m2qdm0no
-
Oh my Word!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/trump-trial-hush-money-verdict
-
He will appeal, of course, but LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!🤣
-
Oh my Word!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/trump-trial-hush-money-verdict
Bloody hell!
-
Oh my Word!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/trump-trial-hush-money-verdict
;D ;D ;D
-
In the bizarre world of US politics this will perhaps just encourage his supporters on the basis that it is really a political attack - and that he has been found guilty by a jury is just part of the conspiracy against him.
He seems to be a sociopathic liar with infantile tendencies - but then we had one of those for a while too.
-
..
-
In the bizarre world of US politics this will perhaps just encourage his supporters on the basis that it is really a political attack - and that he has been found guilty by a jury is just part of the conspiracy against him.
He seems to be a sociopathic liar with infantile tendencies - but then we had one of those for a while too.
Given the politicisation of the judiciary in the US, it's an inbuilt problem. That said the effect on any less tribal voters is where this may make a difference.
-
Interesting analysis of why Trump lost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c288wpj1glyo
-
Hardly any movement in the betting odds on Trump's election, and he's still odds on.
-
Hardly any movement in the betting odds on Trump's election, and he's still odds on.
Polling still seems to have Biden edging it, so far as can I see, although it's not a comfortable margin by any stretch.
O.
-
Polling still seems to have Biden edging it, so far as can I see, although it's not a comfortable margin by any stretch.
O.
The odds are about 50/50 in the parties. The current edge Trump has in terms of a bet on him personally is that it's seen as if he has a lock on the Republican nomination and there's am ongoing worry about Biden's mental fitness built in to Biden's odds so he's therefore at evens it's extraordinary that this decision is so far not really moving Trump's odds.
-
.
-
Hardly any movement in the betting odds on Trump's election, and he's still odds on.
In any sensible country, a conviction like this would automatically debar him from standing.
-
In any sensible country, a conviction like this would automatically debar him from standing.
Not sure if this would disqualify him from standing as an MP in the UK. It might fall under the corrupt electoral practices stuff but can't be sure off top of head.
-
In any sensible country, a conviction like this would automatically debar him from standing.
In the topsy turvy world of the US constitution being convicted (even if jailed) would not bar him from standing, but does bar him from voting - so he cannot vote for himself, but is able to stand!
-
In the topsy turvy world of the US constitution being convicted (even if jailed) would not bar him from standing, but does bar him from voting - so he cannot vote for himself, but is able to stand!
I thought he could vote as Florida where he claims residency has rules that allows the convicted to vote. I may have got this wrong as I have read so many different predictions as to what the effect of conviction may be!
-
I thought he could vote as Florida where he claims residency has rules that allows the convicted to vote. I may have got this wrong as I have read so many different predictions as to what the effect of conviction may be!
I think the Florida entitlement to vote is after you've served your sentence and paid off any fines and compensation. That said, I don't know if a state-level conviction in New York would be relevant, or if it would need to be a Floridian or Federal conviction to disqualify him in the first instance.
O.
-
I think the Florida entitlement to vote is after you've served your sentence and paid off any fines and compensation. That said, I don't know if a state-level conviction in New York would be relevant, or if it would need to be a Floridian or Federal conviction to disqualify him in the first instance.
O.
Found this which clarifies the situation (or not):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/donald-trump-convicted-felon-vote
-
.
-
.
🤣
-
MAGA: Jail Clinton, Obama etc
Also MAGA: Trump is more persecuted than Jesus. Election interference. Politically motivated. Immunity!
-
Definitely not a cult!🤣
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1796290634124550425?s=19
-
Bets still going mainly on Trump
https://www.oddschecker.com/insight/politics/20240531-2024-presidential-election-odds-trump-backed-in-66pp-of-bets-since-conviction
-
Interesting set of interviews with voters on the effect of the decision in the case. While I think RF Kennedy Jnr is mad, he must surely benefit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce5511j7rylo
-
Polling still seems to have Biden edging it, so far as can I see, although it's not a comfortable margin by any stretch.
O.
Averaging of polls has Trump ahead
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
-
Averaging of polls has Trump ahead
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Unbefuckinglievable.
-
Unbefuckinglievable.
I suspect that if it wasn't for RFK Jr's candidacy it would be a clearer majority for Trump.
-
"Attack Trump verdict or be exiled - a new test for Republicans" - I fear, looking at this, what happens after any result in November.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck77xpkr0x8o
-
...
-
Biden acting to counter the open border charge. It feels entirely reactionary, in the reacting to sense, as if you thought it was right why take till the running down of your presidency to do it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7227y6nqzmo
-
And, of course, after the trial of the ex President, the show moves into the trial of the President's son.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmw8g217zo
-
Hunter Biden guilty on 3 gun charges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-69091802
-
A consideration of the effect on Biden's campaign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clwwz7rlgrgo
-
The comparison between Biden on his sings conviction, and Trump on his own, seems to be one of the clearest differences I've ever seen between two candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pp08q513do
-
The comparison between Biden on his sings conviction, and Trump on his own, seems to be one of the clearest differences I've ever seen between two candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pp08q513do
Could dampen down the clamour of Trump's cronies (and Republicans in general) - at least until they work out some way to spin the situation to their advantage. Quite difficult to suggest that Biden has interfered with the legal system after this.
As for Trump, I suppose he'll still lie and waffle on, demonstrating the most extraordinary example of double-think outside the pages of 1984.
-
Interesting that on the days of AI and deep fakes, that a cropped video can be seen as being so effective.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clee77n5n78o
-
Lovely burn
-
If the plethora of debates on the UK Election aren't enough for your insomnia, the first Biden Trump debate is next week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cekke335z9ko
-
Despite some insomnia, I couldn't be tempted but I fear that the report is disastrous for Biden
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgedpw4r5eo
-
Despite some insomnia, I couldn't be tempted but I fear that the report is disastrous for Biden
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgedpw4r5eo
Those clips look terrible. Still amazes me that those two are the best America can find.
-
Those clips look terrible. Still amazes me that those two are the best America can find.
it's moved the betting so that a Republican victory is now 13/8 on, was 11/10 on.
They aren't the best the US can find, they are what the system.now produces.
-
More on the problem of Biden.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wv8292g2yo
-
it's moved the betting so that a Republican victory is now 13/8 on, was 11/10 on.
They aren't the best the US can find, they are what the system.now produces.
Yes, I initially included the words 'within their system' at the end but edited that out for some reason! Surely the Democrats have to consider an alternative despite the problems listed in the article you linked to.
-
Yes, I initially included the words 'within their system' at the end but edited that out for some reason! Surely the Democrats have to consider an alternative despite the problems listed in the article you linked to.
I would have thought so but I think the only way is for Biden to be persuaded to stand down. And I doubt any new candidate will be able to deal with the charge that the Democrats were putting an incompetent candidate forward who is also the President.
-
I would have thought so but I think the only way is for Biden to be persuaded to stand down. And I doubt any new candidate will be able to deal with the charge that the Democrats were putting an incompetent candidate forward who is also the President.
I think the Dems wanted a debate this early in the electoral cycle (well before the conventions) to allow them to pivot to a new candidate if this happened in the early debate. Remember the Dem convention isn't until mid/late August so there is plenty of time to tee up a successor.
The spin would, of course, be that his health had deteriorated in a manner than they hadn't expected. The problem will be to argue that this means they can't really put him forward as a credible candidate for the next 4 years, but he's still OK as president now.
First - there is no certainty the Dems will actually do this - after last night it is more likely but I'd still say it remains more likely than not that Biden will remain their candidate, unless he, himself, recognises that he can't be.
Secondly - how would a change in candidate affect overall public opinion. Well that's very hard to say and it would depend on who that new candidate is. However one of the main narratives around the election so far is that the public really don't want Biden vs Trump again, so potentially ANOther vs Trump may be seen as a really positive move.
-
Oh dear, Biden certainly didn't do the Democrats any favours at all in the debate with Trump last night! :o He has never been that bad before, I wonder someone had put substance into into a drink or food, which Biden unknowingly ingested before he went on air, to make him look senile?
-
Oh dear, Biden certainly didn't do the Democrats any favours at all in the debate with Trump last night! :o He has never been that bad before, I wonder someone had put substance into into a drink or food, which Biden unknowingly ingested before he went on air, to make him look senile?
He's quite often looked completely lost. As Prof D, has pointed out one of the reasons the debate was held this early was the known worries.
Conspiracy theories like the above sound Trumpian.
-
He's quite often looked completely lost. As Prof D, has pointed out one of the reasons the debate was held this early was the known worries.
Conspiracy theories like the above sound Trumpian.
You could be right :o I hope a much younger Democratic candidate, who ticks all the right boxes, will be found to replace Biden, a.s.a.p.
-
Oh dear, Biden certainly didn't do the Democrats any favours at all in the debate with Trump last night! :o He has never been that bad before, I wonder someone had put substance into into a drink or food, which Biden unknowingly ingested before he went on air, to make him look senile?
Crazy conspiracy theory. Remember this guy is the president - I imagine his security team will be have measures in place to avoid the president getting poisoned or drugged - and that will happen all the time, not just in the run up to a debate.
-
Crazy conspiracy theory. Remember this guy is the president - I imagine his security team will be have measures in place to avoid the president getting poisoned or drugged - and that will happen all the time, not just in the run up to a debate.
I heard he was still getting over a cold, and that could certainly fog his brain somewhat. Nonetheless, I'm not too happy that he's the one who's supposed to be standing against Trump later in the year. The complications of a replacement have been well delineated above, not least by yourself.
-
I heard he was still getting over a cold, and that could certainly fog his brain somewhat. Nonetheless, I'm not too happy that he's the one who's supposed to be standing against Trump later in the year. The complications of a replacement have been well delineated above, not least by yourself.
I think the replacement issues are certainly tricky as there is no mechanism to boot him off the ticket. So this could only happen if he chose to step aside himself. Now I've no idea what the equivalent of the 'men in grey suits' are over there, but I guess there may be ways in which he might be strongly persuaded to take the decision himself, so to speak.
Somehow I think Obama may well be critical here as he's perhaps the only person with a close enough relationship and sufficient authority to put a hand on Biden's shoulder and say 'time to step back'. But even then there is the complication that a potential front runner were Biden to step down would be Obama's wife.
-
I happened to switch the TV on and watched a lot of it. Biden has quite a sense of humour: "I'm happy to play golf with you if you carry your own bag. Think you can do it?"
-
In polling 72% of US registered voters think Biden is mentally unfit to be President, and 49% think Trump is mentally unfit to be President.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgln3jx47go
-
Apparently Biden's family urging him to stay in the race. Hmmm that feels like cruelty to me.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqd9z227y7o
-
Mr Doggett is 77
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngx67qle6o
-
Mr Doggett is 77
So?
I'm not aware that Rep Doggett is standing to be President of the United States.
-
So?
I'm not aware that Rep Doggett is standing to be President of the United States.
That the US is in part a gerontocracy
-
That the US is in part a gerontocracy
Ah, I thought you were criticising Doggett because he is also old.
Yes, I agree. There are too many old people running the USA. I see no reason not to have an upper age limit for many of the elected positions in the Federal Government.
-
Ah, I thought you were criticising Doggett because he is also old.
Yes, I agree. There are too many old people running the USA. I see no reason not to have an upper age limit for many of the elected positions in the Federal Government.
And appointed in terms of judges.
-
Those officials who resigned from the Biden administration for it being too pro Isreali govt continue to criticise. It's difficult for the Biden administration to please anyone on this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c725wxky293o
-
Biden no longer odds on to be the candidate, if still a slight favourite.
-
If there is a Lord Almighty, it's having a lie down
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl5y8n5d09qo
-
Biden no longer favourite to be the candidate on Oddschecker
-
The other impact of the Biden stiff though is thar the odds on a Republican presidency, of which Trump is certain to be the nominee, keep moving in their favour. May have to resrrect the Former President Trump thread, and rename it.
-
The other impact of the Biden stiff though is thar the odds on a Republican presidency, of which Trump is certain to be the nominee, keep moving in their favour. May have to resrrect the Former President Trump thread, and rename it.
Just noticed the typo in the above which reads harsh but fair.
The problem now with the Democrats ongoing discussion of Biden is that it's not going to be able to be forgotten. It doesn't take anything like a consensus for him to be irreparably damaged by the questioning from his own party. They might already have reached the point of no return in terms of the election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c29de41zn2go
-
May have to resrrect the Former President Trump thread, and rename it.
The Once and Future Trump?
-
The Once and Future Trump?
He's Back?
https://youtu.be/K-XAjEyrqOs?si=PfPAyhcOsc4aveH8
-
Biden being back to being odds on in UK, just, to be Democratic candidate
-
Big test for Biden at this week's NATO summit, which could have wide ramifications for the various wars around the world.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0471nye4lko
-
I'd been wondering how the Democrats might shape any Kamala Harris presidential run since from across the Atlantic she hasn't seemed to have the best runs as Veep. Some interesting stuff here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgerg7z9vwro
-
Democratic Senator breaks ranks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr5v941vmeo
-
Not the most ringing endorsement from Pelosi
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/content/ar-BB1pKbeF
-
It requires a much younger person to stand against Trump in four months time. Someone in their 80s, even if they have a well functioning brain, is not the right person for the job, imo.
-
George Clooney adding his voice to urge Biden to step aside:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/10/george-clooney-biden-step-down
-
George Clooney adding his voice to urge Biden to step aside:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/10/george-clooney-biden-step-down
That's already moved the betting on Biden being the candidate - he was 15/8 on, he's now 5/4 on
And now slipped to 11/10, no longer odds on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g07ng2mn1o
-
The possibles for Trump's running mate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68064809
-
Feels like a misstep to me. Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting. Anything problems with Biden from now reflect on Starmer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9x8w9pxwllo
-
Feels like a misstep to me. Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting. Anything problems with Biden from now reflect on Starmer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9x8w9pxwllo
What else could he have said - there is no way he (or any sensible UK PM) would say anything different. It's called diplomacy. The notion that any ongoing Biden failures, mis-speaks etc will somehow reflect badly on Starmer is ludicrous.
-
What else could he have said - there is no way he (or any sensible UK PM) would say anything different. The notion that any ongoing Biden failures, mis-speaks etc will somehow reflect badly on Starmer is ludicrous.
That's because politics is ludicrous. The idea that I'm suggesting this is how it should be is your strawman. He's held himself out as an expert. My post covered how he might have caveated it
-
Harris now slight favourite in UK for Democratic candidate
-
In a normal time, the gaffes would be seen as the type of thing thar might happen but now? And the gaffes themselves stick out because of what the are about - Putin instead of Zelensky, Trump instead of Harris.
Trump could do the above and get away with it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl75kdm420o
-
Perhaps not surprising that a business driven by appearances is speaking out against Biden as.a candidate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84j12xxz8jo
-
That's because politics is ludicrous. The idea that I'm suggesting this is how it should be is your strawman.
Your suggestion that Starmer will somehow be harmed by his (frankly super careful and diplomatic) comments to Chris Mason is ludicrous. And as for the second sentence - is that supposed to mean something!!
He's held himself out as an expert.
When? He did no such thing - he focussed his response entirely on how he found Biden during his (behind closed doors) meeting and also on his record over the past couple of years.
My post covered how he might have caveated it
But your claimed caveat:
'Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting.'
Is basically exactly what he did.
NS - you seem to have a tendency on this MB not to read what other poster actually wrote, but what you think they did. You know seem to be basing your assessment of what Starmer said on made-up notion of what you think he said ... rather than what he actually said.
-
Your suggestion that Starmer will somehow be harmed by his (frankly super careful and diplomatic) comments to Chris Mason is ludicrous. And as for the second sentence - is that supposed to mean something!!
When? He did no such thing - he focussed his response entirely on how he found Biden during his (behind closed doors) meeting and also on his record over the past couple of years.
But your claimed caveat:
'Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting.'
Is basically exactly what he did.
NS - you seem to have a tendency on this MB not to read what other poster actually wrote, but what you think they did. You know seem to be basing your assessment of what Starmer said on made-up notion of what you think he said ... rather than what he actually said.
Where's the caveat? You seem incredibly naive about how statements of politicians will be played. There's no equivocation here about not really being for him to make that sort of judgement, so if Biden does continue to show problematic signs of mental acuity, Starmer's quotes will get dragged out to show that he 'got it wrong' and he will be portrayed as having 'interfered' in the election.
Do I think that is fair? No. Do I think politics should work like that? No. Does it work like that? Yes.
-
Where's the caveat? You seem incredibly naive about how statements of politicians will be played. There's no equivocation here about not really being for him to make that sort of judgement, so if Biden does continue to show problematic signs of mental acuity, Starmer's quotes will get dragged out to show that he 'got it wrong' and he will be portrayed as having 'interfered' in the election.
Starmer spoke only about how Biden appeared to him in a closed, behind doors meeting. Which is exactly what you said he should have done ... which is actually what he did. Even if Biden steps down that has no bearing on how he was in a single meeting, which none of us can comment on as we weren't there.
He also spoke of his record, which of course is a completely different matter.
Only in your weird wishful thinking mind would Starmer's comment rebound negatively on him.
Oh - and you claimed that he held himself out as an expert - he did no such thing, he just gave his opinion on how he found Biden in a single behind closed doors meeting.
-
Starmer spoke only about how Biden appeared to him in a closed, behind doors meeting. Which is exactly what you said he should have done ... which is actually what he did. Even if Biden steps down that has no bearing on how he was in a single meeting, which none of us can comment on as we weren't there.
He also spoke of his record, which of course is a completely different matter.
Only in your weird wishful thinking mind would Starmer's comment rebound negatively on him.
Oh - and you claimed that he held himself out as an expert - he did no such thing, he just gave his opinion on how he found Biden in a single behind closed doors meeting.
And already his comments are being called into question
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08kl145j3o
-
And already his comments are being called into question
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08kl145j3o
Chris Mason marking his own homework I see.
And actually even he recognises that Starmer effectively said the only thing he could have done in his interview - note:
'What else could he really say?'
-
Chris Mason marking his own homework I see.
And actually even he recognises that Starmer effectively said the only thing he could have done in his interview - note:
'What else could he really say?'
I already covered that in terms of caveats. I didn't expect to be shown to be correct quite so quickly, Professor Putin ;)
-
I already covered that in terms of caveats. I didn't expect to be shown to be correct quite so quickly, Professor Putin ;)
NS - I note you have sidestepped my challenge to your claim that he held himself out as an expert.
Where did Starmer hold himself out as an expert NS?
-
NS - I note you have sidestepped my challenge to your claim that he held himself out as an expert.
Where did Starmer hold himself out as an expert NS?
By making the statement uncaveated. It portrays him as being an expert in doing this, Professor Zelensky.
-
By making the statement uncaveated. It portrays him as being an expert in doing this, Professor Zelensky.
Complete non-sense. All he did was give his opinion on how he found Biden during his meeting. That suggests no expertise whatsoever, beyond being able to hold an opinion (note an opinion, not an expert opinion).
What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?
-
Complete non-sense. All he did was give his opinion on how he found Biden during his meeting. That suggests no expertise whatsoever, beyond being able to hold an opinion (note an opinion, not an expert opinion).
What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?
He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it. Politically that's the position he's ended up in hence he's already fallen foul of the Biden gaffes. Your political naivety is showing again.
-
He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it.
Non-sense on stilts. Sounding like he was an expert on what NS?
People do not assume someone is an expert when they voice an opinion, unless they caveat it. They just assume that they are expressing a non-expert opinion. Here are some examples:
Q - 'I think you met Jim yesterday - how was he?'
A - 'OK, but he's really struggling with his back at the moment'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on how they found Jim.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert orthopaedic practitioner, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert in orthopaedics.
Q - 'How was the film you saw yesterday?'
A - 'Bit shit really - didn't enjoy it at all'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion that they didn't like a film.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as a expert film critic, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert in films.
Q - 'What did you do last night?'
A - 'I went to that new restaurant on the High St - it was really good'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on a restaurant.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert restaurant critic, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert on restaurants.
Q - 'What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?'
A - 'He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it. Politically that's the position he's ended up in hence he's already fallen foul of the Biden gaffes. Your political naivety is showing again.'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on the Biden/Starmer situation.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert political commentator, unless they caveat that they aren't a political expert.
But trust me NS - no-one thinks you are an expert on politics even though you never caveat your opinions ;)
-
Trump keeping quiet to keep Biden?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd17yd3jq4ro
-
Shots fired at Trump rally. Extremely scary stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cljy6yz1j6gt
-
Shots fired at Trump rally. Extremely scary stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cljy6yz1j6gt
And with some Republicans blaming Biden, it's not getting less scary
-
Thomas Matthew Crooks has shot into the light as the suspect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1d31jeyzlo
-
I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo. :o
-
I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo. :o
And that's exactly the same sort of conspiracy nonsense touted by amongst Trump supporters.
-
I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo. :o
Not likely. The margin of error between the ear and the brain is not a risk even a shyster like Trump would take.
-
It has substantially shifted the odds in favour of Republican victory in UK betting
-
Not likely. The margin of error between the ear and the brain is not a risk even a shyster like Trump would take.
Maybe not, but whatever is the case sadly Trump is likely to attract many more voters.
I have saw this statement :o on the BBC News
"But some of Mr Trump’s closest allies and supporters are already blaming Mr Biden for the violence, with one Republican congressman accusing the president of “inciting an assassination” in a post on X." :o
-
Maybe not, but whatever is the case sadly Trump is likely to attract many more voters.
I have saw this statement :o on the BBC News
"But some of Mr Trump’s closest allies and supporters are already blaming Mr Biden for the violence, with one Republican congressman accusing the president of “inciting an assassination” in a post on X." :o
Oh yes. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of that sort of misinformation from the fringes (I count Trump's closest allies as being on the fringe) and it is an incredibly dangerous moment. You have to hope that sense will prevail. At the moment I don't know what the odds are for that happening, I suspect not terribly good.
-
I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo. :o
Nonsense. That's the sort of rubbish conspiracy theorists come out with.
-
BBC are reporting that the gunman was a registered republican voter.
-
BBC are reporting that the gunman was a registered republican voter.
Not necessarily relevant. I know an American woman on another forum who is, apparently, a registered Republican, but is quite left-wing (by American standards, which isn't saying much), and always votes Democrat.
-
BBC are reporting that the gunman was a registered republican voter.
Yep! And shot by an assault rifle the Republicans refused to ban. Oh, the irony!
-
I had no idea, until I looked it up, that so many US presidents had been assassinated or the subject of assassination attempts. I well remember when Kennedy was assassinated in1963 when I was 13. I was watching the TV at my Uncle's home, whilst keeping an eye on my younger cousins.
Reagan was fortunate to survive the assassination attempt on him in1981, apparently Trump's injury was a mere scratch in comparison.
-
I had no idea, until I looked it up, that so many US presidents had been assassinated or the subject of assassination attempts. I well remember when Kennedy was assassinated in1963 when I was 13. I was watching the TV at my Uncle's home, whilst keeping an eye on my younger cousins.
Reagan was fortunate to survive the assassination attempt on him in1981, apparently the Trump's injury was a mere scratch in comparison.
One of my favourite musicals is based on the subject https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_(musical) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_(musical))
-
I don't know if this is true, but the daily Ukraine update I watch said that the AFU's 79th brigade wrote on Telegram that their special forces should have hired a better sniper.
-
I don't know if this is true, but the daily Ukraine update I watch said that the AFU's 79th brigade wrote on Telegram that their special forces should have hired a better sniper.
There's a bloke works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis..
-
I don't know if this is true, but the daily Ukraine update I watch said that the AFU's 79th brigade wrote on Telegram that their special forces should have hired a better sniper.
Clown!🤡
-
Trump has apparently urged Americans to "stand united", which is a bit rich from the most deliberately divisive president of modern times.
-
Trump has apparently urged Americans to "stand united", which is a bit rich from the most deliberately divisive president of modern times.
I'll take a bit rich above him not doing that.
-
Yep! And shot by an assault rifle the Republicans refused to ban. Oh, the irony!
Trump has consistently shown he doesn't know which way his arse hangs on matters of gun control and background checks. In Feb 2019, he threatened to reverse any legislation on background checks - if passed (don't know the outcome; presume no restrictions whatever ensued).
As recently as February this year he was threatening (if he won again) to reverse any of the restricting legislation that Biden has tried to promote. How far has Biden got with this? Not very far, I suspect, because of the conditions of his presidency.
-
Trump has consistently shown he doesn't know which way his arse hangs on matters of gun control and background checks. In Feb 2019, he threatened to reverse any legislation on background checks - if passed (don't know the outcome; presume no restrictions whatever ensued).
As recently as February this year he was threatening (if he won again) to reverse any of the restricting legislation that Biden has tried to promote. How far has Biden got with this? Not very far, I suspect, because of the conditions of his presidency.
I doubt he cares much but rather makes the right noises to keep his core support happy
-
The speedy rise of the conspiracies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyr7pyd0687o
-
It would look like the assassination attempt has condemned Biden to running.
-
One of the classified documents cases against Trump dismissed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz5rpdrxevro
-
Apparently this is what we know currently about the would be assassin. It doesn't feel as if he will ever be much than a cypher in the story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o
-
Trump's running mate is JD Vance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o
-
I wonder cynically if the bandage is a bit bigger than necessary, and how long it will take for his followers to start wearing one in tribute.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1675lpd0go
-
Meanwhile, Biden apologises for his comment about pitting 'Trump on a bullseye'. Won't stop the attack ads.
This election feels done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1rzde0n4do
-
Musk says he will donate 45 million dollars a month to the Trump campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/15/elon-musk-plans-to-give-45-million-a-month-to-pro-trump-super-pac-wsj-reports.html
Fortunately, the internet never forgets.👇
-
This election feels done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1rzde0n4do
But it isn't done until the Electoral College has spoken. However, the Electoral College's purpose is to destroy democracy and the Democrats.
-
Yep! And shot by an assault rifle the Republicans refused to ban. Oh, the irony!
Will this make them rethink that issue? Someone said on BBC news this morning that the problem of US gun crime is not caused by gun ownership but by over-prescription of drugs whose side-effects can include depression and suicidal thoughts, and that a large proportion of gun crime is linked with these medications.
-
Interesting article on Vance's wife. Must be a good chance of President Vance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c897483zpyeo
-
And fascinating stuff on what Vance believes. Doubt Zelensky is a fan.
https://archive.vn/BbKC7
-
More on Vance.
https://archive.vn/YB1MO
-
Vance thinks that UK is an Islamist country since the election.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1813084295780790773
ETA - I doubt he does think that but he's willing to say it.
-
Nothing surprises me where Trump and his supporters are concerned. :o Trump might think that becoming a monarch would suit him better than being a president, and he will become King Donald 1! ::)
-
Vance thinks that UK is an Islamist country since the election.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1813084295780790773
ETA - I doubt he does think that but he's willing to say it.
Reasonable reaction from Rayner
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07e2ep20no
-
Biden going after the type of gun used to try to assassinated Trump. Not that that's going to persuade anyone to change their vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1x4xjvrgdo
-
Yeah! Definitely not a cult 🤣
-
Yeah! Definitely not a cult 🤣
Called it. See reply 292.
-
While Trump fights bullets, Biden is stopped by Covid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2gj8314nqo
-
Called it. See reply 292.
Good call.
-
Good call.
He's more than their hero, he's them, he's a replacement for personality. He's a crap speaker but a great communicator. If you feel lacking in a personality, then of course you would choose a narcissist as your avatar.
-
The worry is that this sort of thing and win feeds Trump's narcissism. I'm reminded both of The Man Who Would Be King, and Pilate in I, Claudius. Grifters who end up believing in themselves are incredibly dangerous.
-
MTG is the dumbest woman in America.
https://x.com/JustinAHorwitz/status/1813739656279978036?s=19
-
MTG is the dumbest woman in America.
https://x.com/JustinAHorwitz/status/1813739656279978036?s=19
She's another grifter. She knows nothing she says has to be true. There are plenty of people who will believe her. They might well be judged as 'dumber'
-
She's another grifter. She knows nothing she says has to be true. There are plenty of people who will believe her. They might well be judged as 'dumber'
True.
-
Apparently Trump's supporters are wearing ear bandages like his, which Trump describes as a sign of love. ::)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cldy39vpv4qo
-
Apparently Trump's supporters are wearing ear bandages like his, which Trump describes as a sign of love. ::)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cldy39vpv4qo
See reply 304 and next couple of replies.
-
The next part of the Trump dynasty. Roses post about King Donald may not be that far away, and to be fair the US likes a dynasty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgl9x70x41o
-
Biden now 5/1 in the betting to be the Democratic candidate!
-
'Trump gunman flagged by Secret Service 20 minutes before shooting' - this isn't going to halt many conspiracy theories
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51ydg792ggo
-
Since my insomnia is not combined with masochism, I haven't watched Trump's 90 minute speech so the summary here is useful. Interesting that he only mentioned Biden once, and nothing about his mental faculties, which ties in with the idea that he'd like Biden to remain the candidate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c729x2z4y4do
-
Looking at Trump for his speech, the bandage is bigger than it was at the start of the week. I fear it might get bigger throughout the campaign.
-
Looking at Trump for his speech, the bandage is bigger than it was at the start of the week. I fear it might get bigger throughout the campaign.
Trump on 5th November
-
I've been watching this conspiracy theory which is an analysis of two separate videos of the shooting in different locations, the first near the stage and the second somewhere further away. In the second video it's clear that the first three shots, or at least shots two and three, are not from the same weapon that fired the 4th-8th shots. But in video 1, shots 1-3 and 4-8 have a similar time delay between the sonic boom of the bullet as it hits the microphone and the sound from the bullet being fired. (Remember the bullet travels faster than sound, so the sonic boom is heard first near the target.)
His conclusion is that both weapons were fired at the stage, ruling out the second weapon being the counter-sniper's.
So two shooters. The sniper shot that killed Crooks was about 10 seconds after the first 8 shots.
https://youtu.be/LouUbMYb7Bc?si=mdEF0rZXkrz9WTz2
-
I've been watching this conspiracy theory which is an analysis of two separate videos of the shooting in different locations, the first near the stage and the second somewhere further away. In the second video it's clear that the first three shots, or at least shots two and three, are not from the same weapon that fired the 4th-8th shots. But in video 1, shots 1-3 and 4-8 have a similar time delay between the sonic boom of the bullet as it hits the microphone and the sound from the bullet being fired. (Remember the bullet travels faster than sound, so the sonic boom is heard first near the target.)
His conclusion is that both weapons were fired at the stage, ruling out the second weapon being the counter-sniper's.
So two shooters. The sniper shot that killed Crooks was about 10 seconds after the first 8 shots.
https://youtu.be/LouUbMYb7Bc?si=mdEF0rZXkrz9WTz2
Why?
-
I've been watching this conspiracy theory which is an analysis of two separate videos of the shooting in different locations, the first near the stage and the second somewhere further away. In the second video it's clear that the first three shots, or at least shots two and three, are not from the same weapon that fired the 4th-8th shots. But in video 1, shots 1-3 and 4-8 have a similar time delay between the sonic boom of the bullet as it hits the microphone and the sound from the bullet being fired. (Remember the bullet travels faster than sound, so the sonic boom is heard first near the target.)
His conclusion is that both weapons were fired at the stage, ruling out the second weapon being the counter-sniper's.
So two shooters. The sniper shot that killed Crooks was about 10 seconds after the first 8 shots.
https://youtu.be/LouUbMYb7Bc?si=mdEF0rZXkrz9WTz2
Why?
-
Why?
Curiosity I guess. But someone in the comments has pointed out that in the second video, after the first three shots the camera is turned at least 90°-ish, which would reorientate the microphone and could change the sound of the shots, giving the impression that they came from a different weapon.
-
Curiosity I guess. But someone in the comments has pointed out that in the second video, after the first three shots the camera is turned at least 90°-ish, which would reorientate the microphone and could change the sound of the shots, giving the impression that they came from a different weapon.
You are missing the point. Why would this be done?
-
Curiosity I guess. But someone in the comments has pointed out that in the second video, after the first three shots the camera is turned at least 90°-ish, which would reorientate the microphone and could change the sound of the shots, giving the impression that they came from a different weapon.
Just don't go down the rabbit hole of just believing them. There will be a huge industry of such stuff, just like around JFK, people making money out of it.
-
I've been watching this conspiracy theory which is an analysis of two separate videos of the shooting in different locations, the first near the stage and the second somewhere further away. In the second video it's clear that the first three shots, or at least shots two and three, are not from the same weapon that fired the 4th-8th shots. But in video 1, shots 1-3 and 4-8 have a similar time delay between the sonic boom of the bullet as it hits the microphone and the sound from the bullet being fired. (Remember the bullet travels faster than sound, so the sonic boom is heard first near the target.)
His conclusion is that both weapons were fired at the stage, ruling out the second weapon being the counter-sniper's.
So two shooters. The sniper shot that killed Crooks was about 10 seconds after the first 8 shots.
https://youtu.be/LouUbMYb7Bc?si=mdEF0rZXkrz9WTz2
What a load of half-arsed bollocks.
-
Yeah! Definitely not a cult 🤣
Made into a meme already...
(https://scontent-lhr8-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/449445652_913587890812901_3362260558980010962_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=k8toa5s_s_MQ7kNvgGVeB76&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-2.xx&oh=00_AYDrUQe_87Jn0vC0vsaA5mHXSFDtflNt6Msl3bf4ReV_Pw&oe=66A1C720)
-
You are missing the point. Why would this be done?
Because people have been doing everything they can to try and stop Trump becoming president, and failing.
Just don't go down the rabbit hole of just believing them. There will be a huge industry of such stuff, just like around JFK, people making money out of it.
Sure, but a lot of them are genuinely trying to work out why it happened.
What a load of half-arsed bollocks.
It does require a bit of thinking to understand what he's saying. I followed it mainly because that day was so hot, you couldn't do much else.
-
Sure, but a lot of them are genuinely trying to work out why it happened.
Some are for sure but many are not, and they are putting up their version of events - not trying to find out what happened - in order to make money from it.
-
Biden steps down - was on the cards I suppose.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5xpdzkd8o
-
Biden steps down - was on the cards I suppose.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5xpdzkd8o
About time. ::)
Just hope they sort out a reasonable replacement quickly. Somebody needs to stop Trump and his mindless cult.
-
He'll stay in post until his term is up, and no doubt that will be challenged, and apparently he endorses Kamala Harris.
Interesting times, and all that.
-
About time. ::)
Just hope they sort out a reasonable replacement quickly. Somebody needs to stop Trump and his mindless cult.
Has to be Harris doesn't it, due to the funding pledges or something similar?
-
I don't know that much about the target groups in the US electorate, but I'd imagine a female, who is pro-choice and relatively young would have some appeal - and Trump now becomes the 'elderly' candidate.
Get your popcorn in before the rush.
-
I hope they choose Harris. It would be a breath of fresh air. The only question is, is America ready for such a choice? I hope so. Hopefully America isn't that far gone yet, despite the best efforts of Trump and co.
-
Has to be Harris doesn't it, due to the funding pledges or something similar?
I did hear something like that, but there are still people talking about other options. I don't think anything thing like this has happened before, so who knows?
I'm literally on another US based forum at the moment and other names have been mentioned, but it now looks like Biden is endorsing Harris now, so it's probably what will happen.
-
I hope they choose Harris. It would be a breath of fresh air. The only question is, is America ready for such a choice? I hope so. Hopefully America isn't that far gone yet, despite the best efforts of Trump and co.
She's been useless as VP. Not that it's the easiest role to shine in but she hasn't at all.
-
She's been useless as VP. Not that it's the easiest role to shine in but she hasn't at all.
I agree. It is like she hasn't been there.
I saw a vox pop recently where they were asking registered democrats about Harris and the majority interviewed were not keen at all. However, recent polls say that 60% of Democrats would definitely support her. Still, 40% of democrats undecided (at best) is not encouraging.
-
I agree. It is like she hasn't been there.
I saw a vox pop recently where they were asking registered democrats about Harris and the majority interviewed were not keen at all. However, recent polls say that 60% of Democrats would definitely support her. Still, 40% of democrats undecided (at best) is not encouraging.
Would they prefer Trump?
-
Would they prefer Trump?
Not really the choice there.
-
Not really the choice there.
It is about whether the 40% who aren't keen is relevant when it comes to voting in the election.
-
Would they prefer Trump?
I'm not sure I understand the US voting public (I'm not sure I know the UK one for that matter), but I do know that a demotivated voting bloc just isn't going to cut it in a tight race.
Unless Harris can shine and outperform Trump immediately we'll get that dreaded second Trump term. Fuck that's depressing.
-
I'm not sure I understand the US voting public (I'm not sure I know the UK one for that matter), but I do know that a demotivated voting bloc just isn't going to cut it in a tight race.
Unless Harris can shine and outperform Trump immediately we'll get that dreaded second Trump term. Fuck that's depressing.
Surely they would be motivated to stop Trump getting in.
-
Surely they would be motivated to stop Trump getting in.
or the Democrats who don't care about them? You've just had a party that wanted an 'incompetent' to stand as President.
-
or the Democrats who don't care about them? You've just had a party that wanted an 'incompetent' to stand as President.
Who are 'them'?
-
Who are 'them'?
Voters
-
Voters
Okay, but how does that relate to the voters not wanting Trump?
-
Okay, but how does that relate to the voters not wanting Trump?
Because they would have to vote Harris, and why is that a better choice for many of them.
-
Because they would have to vote Harris, and why is that a better choice for many of them.
I would think most Democrat voters would prefer almost anyone to Trump - but then I don't know any Democrat voters personally.
-
I would think most Democrat voters would prefer almost anyone to Trump - but then I don't know any Democrat voters personally.
I think they all would but they are not more than 50% of the US electorate. It's the undecided you need to win and leaving aside independents, the offer is a president that the Dems have just decided is incompetent to be replaced by a VP that has been useless with a man that just got shot and said let's fight.
-
I think they all would but they are not more than 50% of the US electorate. It's the undecided you need to win and leaving aside independents, the offer is a president that the Dems have just decided is incompetent to be replaced by a VP that has been useless with a man that just got shot and said let's fight.
Yes, but the point being made was about the 40% of Democrats not being keen on Harris wasn't it?
Guess the point is that if she doesn't appeal to 40% of Democrats she won't appeal to the undecided % of the population. Fair enough if so.
-
Yes, but the point being made was about the 40% of Democrats not being keen on Harris wasn't it?
Guess the point is that if she doesn't appeal to 40% of Democrats she won't appeal to the undecided % of the population. Fair enough if so.
Polling is very tricky when you have a certaintly on one side - in this case Trump as republican candidate, but a serious of layered hypotheticals on the other - will Biden stand (obviously that has now been resolved), if he doesn't stand who from the Dem side might stand etc etc.
So you may get Dems who, in that hypothetical scenario, may seem luke warm about Harris because they'd prefer Biden or because if not Biden then they'd want someone other than Harris. But once those hypotheticals are resolved - in this case if Harris became the candidate, then they may comfortably prefer Harris to Trump. So it can be really quite difficult to get an accurate picture of opinion until there is the same level of certainty on both sides.
-
Pete Buttigieg seems to be the favourite to be VP nominee at moment.
-
Pete Buttigieg seems to be the favourite to be VP nominee at moment.
For those who don't know who Buttigieg is, this is him being interviewed on Bill Maher's show:
https://youtu.be/7XuIEg_Y4fM
Quite impressive - even if it is with a partisan interviewer.
-
I the key for the Dems will be rebounding the old and past-it narrative straight back on Trump. There are plenty of 'senior' mis-speak moments from him too. Having a ticket which looks very clearly a generaiton down will be important as will portrayal of vigour and energy.
Interesting factoid - Trump personally donated to one of Harris' election campaigns. A $5,000 donation in 2011.
-
I the key for the Dems will be rebounding the old and past-it narrative straight back on Trump. There are plenty of 'senior' mis-speak moments from him too. Having a ticket which looks very clearly a generaiton down will be important as will portrayal of vigour and energy.
Interesting factoid - Trump personally donated to one of Harris' election campaigns. A $5,000 donation in 2011.
The Trump campaign avoided making age the big issue for that reason. Trump has an advantage when it comes to senior moments in that he's never made that much sense to begin with.
I wonder what the motivation was behind the donation.
-
On the subject of donations, money returns to Democrats.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-have-biggest-fundraising-day-of-campaign-as-biden-quits-race-and-harris-vows-to-beat-trump-live/ar-BB1pckYd
-
The Trump campaign avoided making age the big issue for that reason. Trump has an advantage when it comes to senior moments in that he's never made that much sense to begin with.
I wonder what the motivation was behind the donation.
Some speculation on the reason for the donation here.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-previously-donated-thousands-to-kamala-harris/ar-BB1qpdmd
-
Republicans calling on Biden to step aside as President. Nor sure that's the best thing for them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnd0ek9el6ro
-
I wonder what the motivation was behind the donation.
Trump is only a Republican now because he thought (rightly as it turned out) he's have a better chance of getting the nomination in 2016 as a Republican.
-
Trump is only a Republican now because he thought (rightly as it turned out) he's have a better chance of getting the nomination in 2016 as a Republican.
Agreed, but all his donations would have been for something and this was after he had stopped donating to other Democrats. See here for speculation on the why
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-previously-donated-thousands-to-kamala-harris/ar-BB1qpdmd
-
Some are for sure but many are not, and they are putting up their version of events - not trying to find out what happened - in order to make money from it.
Yes, I'm trying to avoid those.
-
Oh, the delicious irony.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/election-trump-harris
-
Lots of movement in the betting market for the Democrat running mate
-
Has Harris got what it takes to beat Trump? I hope so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c035dp3glypo
-
Rundown on Harris's possible running mates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80ekdwk9zro
-
Has Harris got what it takes to beat Trump? I hope so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c035dp3glypo
She's vulnerable on immigration (where he will consider he is strong), he's vulnerable on abortion (where she will consider she is strong).
I think it will take a little time for the notion that it will definitely be Trump v Harris to settle into the public minds. Only then will we be able to be confident on polling.
-
She's vulnerable on immigration (where he will consider he is strong), he's vulerable on abortion (where she will consider she is strong).
I think it will take a little time for the notion that it will definitely be Trump v Harris to settle into the public minds. Only then will we be able to be confident on polling.
Agree, I think that it won't be till after the Democrat convention that things will be in any sense normal. The VP pick becomes significant as Trump's pick of Vance felt like he wasn't really that bothered in extending his appeal apart from relative youth. Harris was pretty well locked in as VP so the package was known.
-
Oh, the delicious irony.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/election-trump-harris
Well yes. I would have said that was a big issue with Tr*mp, but, of course, the Dems couldn't bring it up before because of Biden.
The reality is that they were both too old.
-
It's almost amusing how the MAGA cult have gone into total meltdown over Biden stepping down and Harris taking over...
Trumpworld is really mad that Biden's no longer running (https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-world-really-mad-trump-075602318.html)
MAGA World Resurfaces Kamala Harris ‘Side Chick’ Slurs (https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-world-pivots-to-debunked-kamala-harris-affair-story)
MAGA Melts Down Over Mike Pence’s Very Normal Announcement on Biden (https://newrepublic.com/post/184109/maga-meltdown-mike-pence-announcement-biden)
Trump stokes 'birther' conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53774289)
‘DEI,’ ‘Colored,’ ‘Jezebel’: MAGA Attacks on Kamala Harris Are Getting Ugly (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/maga-republicans-racist-sexist-attacks-kamala-harris-1235065295/)
-
"Almost"? It's fucking hilarious! Trump campaign HQ was frantically telling everyone to go easy on him over the age-and-doolallyness issues, for fear of him standing down.
-
"Almost"? It's fucking hilarious! Trump campaign HQ was frantically telling everyone to go easy on him over the age-and-doolallyness issues, for fear of him standing down.
Yes. I added the 'almost' because there are so many people in the cult that will just unquestioningly lap it all up and believe every word.
-
Now that Biden's gone, remember, Trump is too old (among other things)👇
-
Yes. I added the 'almost' because there are so many people in the cult that will just unquestioningly lap it all up and believe every word.
I wish I could find it almost hilarious. This sort of division is scary. I console myself with the idea that it's always been there in some form but that the internet makes it more visible but I think it's true that it is much more widespread. In an environment where there's been an assassination attempt on a candidate, my sense of humour is diminished.
-
I note some parts of the Democrats are pushing for the VP nomination to be Bernie Sanders who is a year older than Biden.
-
I note some parts of the Democrats are pushing for the VP nomination to be Bernie Sanders who is a year older than Biden.
10 or more years ago, I'd've cheered him on, but the dems need a younger veeo.
-
Now that Biden's gone, remember, Trump is too old (among other things)👇
Have you got the original link to that image, I could use it elsewhere?
Side note to moderators: I do wish people would stop using attachments, at least for images that are already online. I'm assuming you didn't make that yourself, so you must have had to download it and then upload it again to this server (taking up space here). Why? Wasn't the point of introducing images to make the place look more interesting? Attachments are totally invisible if you're not logged in, so instead of looking more interesting to non-members, a lot of it now looks incomprehensible, with lots of posts just being ".". Sorry, rant over....
Sorry ad, I thought I was replying to NS for a minute (brain fade).
-
Have you got the original link to that image, I could use it elsewhere?
Of course. I don't make memes. I just steal them. This one I got off Twitter.
https://x.com/DucuGavril/status/1815553210838392942?s=19
-
Of course. I don't make memes. I just steal them. This one I got off Twitter.
https://x.com/DucuGavril/status/1815553210838392942?s=19
Thanks, sorry about the rant, as I've just edited my post to say, I thought I was replying to NS.
Doubly ironic, as twitter links don't seem to work here as images here! (https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg).
-
Of course. I don't make memes. I just steal them. This one I got off Twitter.
https://x.com/DucuGavril/status/1815553210838392942?s=19
Of course the meme is wrong. There's nothing in the US Constitution to stop a geriatric impeached felon from running as US president, not even one who is in prison.
-
Harris on a roll. Looks as though she's got the nomination in the bag. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/kamala-harris-campaign
It's only just occurred to me that "Kamala" is an unusual spelling of "Camilla"!
-
It's only just occurred to me that "Kamala" is an unusual spelling of "Camilla"!
Pronounced differently - she put out a somewhat tongue in cheak video when she became VP candidate in 2020 on how it is pronounced.
-
Rundown on Harris's possible running mates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80ekdwk9zro
My thinking would be either Kelly or Shapiro.
-
My thinking would be either Kelly or Shapiro.
The money going on Kelly currently.
-
The money going on Kelly currently.
He's got a great backstory that might negate some of Trump's - 'I'd be dead but for god' schtick. And I'd love the 'but we've got a guy who's been in space' line to ... err ... trump Trump.
But Arizona has less EC votes than Pennsylvania and Shapiro is a rising star with a reputation of getting stuff done.
-
Agree, I think that it won't be till after the Democrat convention that things will be in any sense normal. The VP pick becomes significant as Trump's pick of Vance felt like he wasn't really that bothered in extending his appeal apart from relative youth. Harris was pretty well locked in as VP so the package was known.
Regarding Trump's VP pick of J.D. Vance, he seems to have got a duplicitous self-server, just like himself - ready to stab him in the back (I wouldn't shed any tears) when a suitable moment presented itself.
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, while publicizing his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.” “I never liked him.”
“As somebody who doesn’t like Trump, myself, I sort of — I understand where Trump’s voters come from*,” Vance later said in the Rose interview. “But I also don’t like Trump himself, and that made me realize that maybe I’m not quite part of either world totally.”
During Vance’s Senate Republican primary in 2021, the interview clip was used regularly in ads from Club for Growth Action and USA Freedom Fund, who were backing another Republican candidate and aimed to show discord between Vance and Trump.
“My god, what an idiot.”
Also included in the ads from Club for Growth Action and USA Freedom Fund were some of Vance’s since-deleted tweets criticizing the former president.
“My god what an idiot,” Vance wrote in one of the tweets. It was one of many tweets now deleted.
“America’s Hitler”
Vance once questioned whether Trump could be “America’s Hitler” in a private Facebook message in 2016 to one of his former roommates.
It was that or a “cynical asshole like Nixon,” Vance wrote in messages to former Yale Law School classmate Josh McLaurin, now a Democratic state senator in Georgia.
The Evangelical right will no doubt accept Vance's change of heart, considering it to be some kind of Damascus conversion experience. They probably think that Trump himself is a fervent believer, and has a word-perfect knowledge of the Bible.
*Italics D.U.
-
He's got a great backstory that might negate some of Trump's - 'I'd be dead but for god' schtick. And I'd love the 'but we've got a guy who's been in space' line to ... err ... trump Trump.
But Arizona has less EC votes than Pennsylvania and Shapiro is a rising star with a reputation of getting stuff done.
In addition to those in the article, the market seems to like Tim Walz
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
-
Regarding Trump's VP pick of J.D. Vance, he seems to have got a duplicitous self-server, just like himself - ready to stab him in the back (I wouldn't shed any tears) when a suitable moment presented itself.
The Evangelical right will no doubt accept Vance's change of heart, considering it to be some kind of Damascus conversion experience. They probably think that Trump himself is a fervent believer, and has a word-perfect knowledge of the Bible.
*Italics D.U.
Trump likes the conversion too. I'd be careful stabbing Trump in the back for the foreseeable. The Republican Party is becoming the Trump party.
-
It's only just occurred to me that "Kamala" is an unusual spelling of "Camilla"!
Pronounced differently - she put out a somewhat tongue in cheak video when she became VP candidate in 2020 on how it is pronounced.
Had a look, and apparently it's pronounced 'comma-la' (as in the punctuation mark).
-
Republicans still favourite to win but the odds have shifted considerably with Harris looking certain to be confirmed.
-
If a head of steam builds around Harris, and she actually managed to beat Trump, I wonder what how all the Trumpophiles will respond. No doubt there will complaints it was a 'fix' - but there is something scary about the amount of vitriol in US politics that could be a bigger issue than what happened in Washington when Trump lost last time.
-
Trump been suggesting that the second debate should either be cancelled or held on Fox News.
-
Trump been suggesting that the second debate should either be cancelled or held on Fox News.
The Republicans seem to be scared. There is actually a lot of them trying to claim that Biden stepping down and Harris taking over as candidate is undemocratic, "ignoring the will of the people", and even illegal under state laws (even if it was, have they forgotten that Presidential 'official acts' are now above the law?)
Irony off the scale.
-
The Republicans seem to be scared. There is actually a lot of them trying to claim that Biden stepping down and Harris taking over as candidate is undemocratic, "ignoring the will of the people", and even illegal under state laws (even if it was, have they forgotten that Presidential 'official acts' are now above the law?)
Irony off the scale.
I think they really wanted Biden to be the candidate. I think that they probably regret going after him after the State of the Union as hard as they did because it's ended up here. There is also that they will have planned a campaign against Biden, and that would have concentrated on whether he was capable, and will have to pivot the attacks.
A lot of this will be an attempt just to muddy the water till they can have time to change it, but yes, I think they are uneasy about this. That the change also means a new VP nominee may be even harder for them to deal with.
-
The money going on Kelly currently.
As coincidences have it - I started watching a 3 part documentary on the Columbia space shuttle disaster last night (highly recommended) and who should be one of the talking heads - Mark Kelly. Seemed a very sensible and articulate chap - probably well suited to be VP.
But, I still don't think he will get it (or rather shouldn't get it). If it is Harris/Kelly, then it is an entirely SW sunshine state ticket. Too easy a hit for opponents - 'look they're both from the SW - they don't get folks like you, they aren't interested in folks like you'.
I gather also that Shapiro is standing down after two terms as governor, so probably easier to persuade.
-
I think they really wanted Biden to be the candidate. I think that they probably regret going after him after the State of the Union as hard as they did because it's ended up here. There is also that they will have planned a campaign against Biden, and that would have concentrated on whether he was capable, and will have to pivot the attacks.
A lot of this will be an attempt just to muddy the water till they can have time to change it, but yes, I think they are uneasy about this. That the change also means a new VP nominee may be even harder for them to deal with.
They'll concentrate on race and gender. You can see it already on social media by Trump supporters.
-
As coincidences have it - I started watching a 3 part documentary on the Columbia space shuttle disaster last night (highly recommended) and who should be one of the talking heads - Mark Kelly. Seemed a very sensible and articulate chap - probably well suited to be VP.
But, I still don't think he will get it (or rather shouldn't get it). If it is Harris/Kelly, then it is an entirely SW sunshine state ticket. Too easy a hit for opponents - 'look they're both from the SW - they don't get folks like you, they aren't interested in folks like you'.
I gather also that Shapiro is standing down after two terms as governor, so probably easier to persuade.
Where is the documentary, would be interested in watching it.
I agree with the point about the states coverage but Shapiro is a lawyer, so that makes the attack, it's an all lawyers ticket and lawyers aren't like you.
I see he's also Jewish, and quite a conservative one, which may help shore up some support that they may be struggling with - obviously that may alienate some as well but I think they would look on that as lost anyway, and not to Trump.
-
They'll concentrate on race and gender. You can see it already on social media by Trump supporters.
The loons, and the tacit support given to them, yes, will do that. And Vance has already started with the attack that Harris as he puts it because she doesn't love the US, but means is black, is not suitable. The overall strategy will have been based on Biden being the candidate, and Harris the VP. They can use some of the stuff they would have used against Harris anyway, but they were due to go big on Biden's incapacity. That was a strong strategy with undecided, I'm not sure going after Harris for her race and sex works as well with that section of the electorate.
-
Biden doesn't really deal with why he withdrew - which is hardly surprising, since it would be difficult to do so without playing into the idea that he shouldn't remain as President.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crg5pq8ql1vo
-
The opening for a VP nomination has revealed a number of Democrat candidates that I wasn't previously aware of. I doubt Cortez Masto will be the nomination, as I don't think they will go with an all woman ticket yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Cortez_Masto
-
Last time Christians will need to vote
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-if-reelected-wont-have-to-vote-fixed-1235069397/
-
It was bad enough when Trump was President last time, if he does a second term it will be a million times worse, imo. >:(
-
It was bad enough when Trump was President last time, if he does a second term it will be a million times worse, imo. >:(
As I noted earlier, I'm going to miss Mike Pence who was a right wing, Christian zealot but in some ways a restraint on Trump, and I never thought I would say that. Had Pence been President, I think he would have been worse than Trump's first term as he would have been more effective in that team but this second term Trump's looking to make a name beyond just being President, and doesn't feel he owes the Republican right, left or middle.
-
I'm always a bit worried when there's talk of a star studded rally. My mind flicks back to the huge rally that Hilary Clinton had on the same night when Trump turned up to his and said 'It's just me, you only get me' and I thought that he was going to win.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y4zvgv28o
-
Shapiro moved to being odds on as VP pick
-
Trump just can't help embarrassing himself.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1818722947361542608?s=19
-
Trump just can't help embarrassing himself.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1818722947361542608?s=19
Though I doubt he is ever actually embarrassed.
-
Though I doubt he is ever actually embarrassed.
True. It also shows the state of American politics. There was a time when such comments, that keep on coming from Trump as if from a conveyor belt, would most likely mean pulling out of an election race.
-
True. It also shows the state of American politics. There was a time when such comments, that keep on coming from Trump as if from a conveyor belt, would most likely mean pulling out of an election race.
It may be playing too much to the converted is problematic with the undecided. I can't think that this is going to work with those swithering, but Trump's said so many daft things that it will wash over many. This is also his advantage when he gets charged with the problems of aging, if you've never made sense, it's harder to see a deterioration.
The odds on the winning party continue to narrow
-
A cat lady speaks
-
So it's Harris
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1my55vno
-
It'll be the first presidential election in which neither of the two main candidates are white.
-
The debate about the debate continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g22365yqo
-
Of course, RFK Jnr dumped a bear carcase in Central Park. Far from the worst car incident for the family.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2j3353vvdvo
-
Neck and neck polling
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-harris-trump-cbs-news/
-
Harris's running mate is Walz. Though not official yet, it seems certain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c9r3rdkr92pt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cleyjp5qldno
-
Harris's running mate is Walz. Though not official yet, it seems certain
A pit it wasn't Rumba.
-
A pit it wasn't Rumba.
Or Ch Ch Ch, darling
-
Bumped into someone today who had a pet theory (about which a lorry-load of salt should be taken) that sometime in the next month or so Biden will stand down as President, citing health issues, so that Harris goes into the November election as the sitting President.
Sounds a bit far-fetched to me - but then again we do live in 'interesting times'.
-
Of course
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-the-tim-walz-horse-story-isnt-true/ar-AA1osJmf
-
Bumped into someone today who had a pet theory (about which a lorry-load of salt should be taken) that sometime in the next month or so Biden will stand down as President, citing health issues, so that Harris goes into the November election as the sitting President.
Sounds a bit far-fetched to me - but then again we do live in 'interesting times'.
Makes some sense. It does have a downside that they would effectively be admitting that he was incompetent before he steps down.
-
Of course
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-the-tim-walz-horse-story-isnt-true/ar-AA1osJmf
Trump supporters are so unoriginal. They're just narked that someone managed to start a rumour that JD Vance has sex with couches (which we, NAFO, helped spread) first.
-
Harris moves to odds on in UK betting
-
I'm beginning to think Kamala may be on her way to the White House! ;D ;D ;D
All together now: "Walz 'n' Kamala, Walz 'n' Kamala, you're looking good for the Presidency!"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/10/democrats-harris-walz-optimism
-
Anyone listen to Musk's job interview
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k3mwy1ww3o
-
Anyone listen to Musk's job interview
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k3mwy1ww3o
Lots of people tried.
I haven't heard any of it, but most of the YouTube channels that pop up in my feed (they all lean to the left, so not unbiased) that covered it describe it as something of a road crash.
-
Lots of people tried.
I haven't heard any of it, but most of the YouTube channels that pop up in my feed (they all lean to the left, so not unbiased) that covered it describe it as something of a road crash.
I've listened to a bit but it's actually very boring.
-
Trump is dumb.
https://youtu.be/OUa0rzvN57c?si=odP4wUoUBX52Kfer
-
Bizarre, incoherent, and disrespectful
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/16/politics/trump-medal-of-honor/index.html
-
Bizarre, incoherent, and disrespectful
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/16/politics/trump-medal-of-honor/index.html
Way to get the military vote.👍
-
Democrat convention going to be interesting as regards Gaza
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24p94pv6myo
-
Lots of chat from Trump supporters on social media that Harris has a major alcohol problem. Will interesting to see if Trump, or more likely Vance, says anything.
-
Lots of chat from Trump supporters on social media that Harris has a major alcohol problem. Will interesting to see if Trump, or more likely Vance, says anything.
Desperate stuff.
-
More desperate stuff from Vance.attacking Walz because he eluded IVF and IUI .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd73yed3p7no
-
RFK Jnr to drop out and endorse Trump?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7370nxz9o
-
UK betting moves Republicans and Trump into odds on. Presumably on the RFK Jnr news.
-
My bout of insomnia this morning coincided with the run up to Harris's speech at the Democrat convention when the speculation of which speaker was going to top Oprah's appearance the previous night was getting frantic. The speculation had been inspired by Democrats creating the rumour.
Was it going to be Beyoncé, or Taylor Swift, Or Mitt Romney or George W Bush, or Jimmy Carter!!!
But no one like that appeared. It's a small thing but it will be easy to mock as a lie.
-
BBC's summary of Harris's speech. The line about only ever having one client is a risky one. It highlights public service but also that she's always been paid by 'the people' too.
I'm not sure if she will square the Palestine circle some fine day but it looks impossible. I do wonder if that problem was what meant that Shapiro wasn't chosen as a running mate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy49xlx54vo
-
RFK Jnr to drop out and endorse Trump?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7370nxz9o
Which he does
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5ekxlwzgo
-
Which he does
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5ekxlwzgo
While some half-wit in the background holds a placard upside-down.
-
The sitting VP candidate for change. Good article which covers the strengths and weaknesses of this position. I'm not sure whether you can fight for everybody as one quote has it without fighting against some people though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cged20l3nq8o
-
Which he does
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5ekxlwzgo
He remains on the ballot in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. In these in 'interesting times', I wonder if he will in the end influence the result because of that.
-
Given RFK's rant yesterday, there's a good chance he could do more damage than good to Trump's campaign. Here's hoping, anyway.
-
Given RFK's rant yesterday, there's a good chance he could do more damage than good to Trump's campaign. Here's hoping, anyway.
I can't see him losing Trump significant votes.
-
Trump has some charming supporters
https://x.com/thelillygaddis/status/1827034942645170484
-
Trump has some charming supporters
https://x.com/thelillygaddis/status/1827034942645170484
Trump it with this👇 It triggers them MAGA morons.
-
Good god! This can't be real. What kind of morons are going to buy these? Oh, wait...😂
https://x.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1828451144508600491?s=19
-
Good god! This can't be real. What kind of morons are going to buy these? Oh, wait...😂
https://x.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1828451144508600491?s=19
Donald, The Biggest Grifter in the World.
-
He remains on the ballot in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. In these in 'interesting times', I wonder if he will in the end influence the result because of that.
They are all "battleground" states, so it is possible.
-
Good god! This can't be real. What kind of morons are going to buy these? Oh, wait...😂
https://x.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1828451144508600491?s=19
Not going to watch it on Twitter, but is it the Trump trading card ad with the "knock out suit" cards?
-
Not going to watch it on Twitter, but is it the Trump trading card ad with the "knock out suit" cards?
Yes!
-
Latest polling looking better for Harris.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
-
This is not good.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/arlington-cemetery-altercation-trump-visit
Tr*mp visited Arlington National Cemetery at the request of family members of two soldiers interred there. He had the event filmed and created a TikTok campaign advert from it. not only that but it appears an employee was assaulted whilst trying to stop the campaign from breaking the law. Not only that but a Tr*mp official claimed the employee - who was doing her job - is mentally deranged.
Gotta hate these people.
-
This is not good.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/arlington-cemetery-altercation-trump-visit
Tr*mp visited Arlington National Cemetery at the request of family members of two soldiers interred there. He had the event filmed and created a TikTok campaign advert from it. not only that but it appears an employee was assaulted whilst trying to stop the campaign from breaking the law. Not only that but a Tr*mp official claimed the employee - who was doing her job - is mentally deranged.
Gotta hate these people.
It seems to be Trump's favourite expression to describe anyone who opposes him in any way. Quite a few psychiatrists, and other pundits, believe there is a strong indication that 'Honest Don' is the more deserving of such epithets.
-
It seems to be Trump's favourite expression to describe anyone who opposes him in any way.
It wasn't Tr*mp that said this. It was his political advisor Steven Cheung.
Quite a few psychiatrists, and other pundits, believe there is a strong indication that 'Honest Don' is the more deserving of such epithets.
I think this is completely clear.
-
It wasn't Tr*mp that said this. It was his political advisor Steven Cheung.
Sorry, misread your post. Nonetheless, Trump himself seems to like throwing words like 'nuts' 'insane' etc around at anyone who doesn't worship the Donald. Kamala Harris has of course received the compliment
-
Trump being too 'liberal' on abortion?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy547v72nd4o
-
This is not good.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/arlington-cemetery-altercation-trump-visit
Tr*mp visited Arlington National Cemetery at the request of family members of two soldiers interred there. He had the event filmed and created a TikTok campaign advert from it. not only that but it appears an employee was assaulted whilst trying to stop the campaign from breaking the law. Not only that but a Tr*mp official claimed the employee - who was doing her job - is mentally deranged.
Gotta hate these people.
It's not as if he only just behaves badly, or that it's not frequent, but nothing for so many people who seem to forgive him because they have already discounted it.
-
Trump being too 'liberal' on abortion?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy547v72nd4o
Yeah, he got into a lot of trouble with his own supporters on that one, but he is treading a fine line because a lot of women that formerly voted for him don't like the absolute ban on abortion that the Republican Party seems to be pushing.
That said, having watched the interview, I think he really didn't have a clue what the interviewer was asking and was just flanneling.
-
Yeah, he got into a lot of trouble with his own supporters on that one, but he is treading a fine line because a lot of women that formerly voted for him don't like the absolute ban on abortion that the Republican Party seems to be pushing.
That said, having watched the interview, I think he really didn't have a clue what the interviewer was asking and was just flanneling.
Jesus, just watched the interview, and you're right.
-
Trump does the weave
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1829629718225678729
-
Trump does the weave
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1829629718225678729
Firstly let me get this out of the way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFzMs2SN--s
Secondly, I thought he was referring to the synthetic fibrous thing on the top of his head.
-
This fake news item on Harris seemed obviously false when I first saw it but it's extraordinarily easy to do
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4ye15le8xo
-
Surprise, surprise!
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-disrupts-covert-russian-government-sponsored-foreign-malign-influence
-
More Hunter Biden confessing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5n926n6n0o
-
An example of the Trump weave, in response to a question on if he would commit to prioritizing legislation to make childcare affordable, and if so, what specific legislation he would advance:
Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it – in this country you have to have it.
But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to — but they'll get used to it very quickly – and it's not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Uh, those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we're talking about, including child care, that it's going to take care.
We're gonna have - I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about.
We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care, uh, is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we'll worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people, but we're going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we're a failing nation, so we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.
-
Farcical
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypr3vd7x9o
-
Trump continues to weave
-
Dick Cheney backs Harris. Trump's ability to refer to Cheney as the 'king of endless, nonsensical wars' comes from him, Trump, not really being a Republican.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz07zlr58vvo
-
Trump 'fine-tuning theatrics' before Harris debate
I'm hoping for the time on a box, a tribute to Raygun, and a stunning costume change when he is backed out in a stars and stripes bikini. Perhaps given the sad death of James Earl Jones, he might do another costume change into Vader, and tell Harris he's her father
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdey85yw4npo
-
Well the theatrics appeared to be all there was for Trump. Lots of complaining from supporters of his that the moderation was biased but he just rambled most of the time. Don't think Harris was brilliant but she was good enough. Won't make huge difference but 'victory' for her.
-
Biden for Trump
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/biden-donned-trump-hat-in-shanksville-as-show-of-9-11-unity-white-house-says/ar-AA1qpF3V
-
And Trump for Loomer
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo
-
Oh what a circus...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wp6q132p2o
-
He sounds more like Hitler every day.
-
I'm still bemused that this is her first solo interview since she effectively became the candidate.
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/kamala-harris-just-gave-her-first-solo-interview-as-the-presidential-nominee-here-s-what-we-learned/ar-AA1qAqSf
-
As John Laurie would have said “We’re doomed, doomed I tell you.
-
Trump's greatest loves are himself and money. >:(
-
Scientific American comes out in favour of Harris, as it did for Biden four years ago. The only times it has endorsed a candidate for President. I feel this is more about their change than anything else.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vote-for-kamala-harris-to-support-science-health-and-the-environment/
-
This is a real tweet from Trump. It's like he's doing a mad local car advert not standing for President.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1836100511960818044
-
I listened to two interviews with Kamala Harris this morning. I wish I believed in a God who could help us.
-
I listened to two interviews with Kamala Harris this morning. I wish I believed in a God who could help us.
Why?
-
Why?
Hi Maeght,
Because I think the ‘western’ liberal, democratic, secular world is in deep trouble. I value freedom of speech and association, the foundation on which liberal principles and all our other civilised freedoms rest, and which are always under threat. I value truth and want to keep a grip on reality, as far as it’s knowable. I value security and material comfort a little less, but highly.
I don’t think Harris has the intellectual or moral capacity to lead the Western world or defend the things I value. She failed to articulate any detailed policy or principle, or to answer a straight question straightforwardly, over the hour or so I endured. The way she nods patronisingly and earnestly at the interviewer, like a primary school teacher encouraging a child reciting the alphabet, pretending she’s saying something worth listening to, while she recites vacuous sound bites, and whinges. She complained about the state of the US economy and society as if she hadn’t been in office for the last 3 years and Democrats for 11 of the last 15. She complained about Roe v Wade. What exactly stopped Clinton or Obama from codifying abortion rights during their 16 years in power? Her comments on Israel / Gaza were… meaningless.
And the alternative is Trump.
The threats to my freedoms are currently coming from people who label themselves left wing and progressive. I’ve had my freedoms of speech and peaceful association impinged upon on several occasions over the last 3 years, and the "progressive" "inclusive" mob trying to silence me and run me off the public streets were enabled and facilitated by agents of the state. The police did not apply the law reasonably or fairly. They did not protect me. I saw it with my own eyes. They broke their social contract with me.
I don’t care what labels are adopted or assigned anymore. Someone looking me in the eye and telling me they believe the equivalent of 2+2=5 is not to be trusted whether they truly believe the lie or not. They’re either stupid or dishonest, unfit to make decisions on my behalf.
Empires come and go. It’s been my privilege to live in an affluent, relatively peaceful and relatively free society for most of my life, unlike the vast majority of people.
I read The Handmaid’s tale when I was 18 and knew then that every one of the horrors described by Atwood was being perpetrated on women somewhere in the world. I knew how lucky I was to have been born here and then. I’m seeing now, close up, exactly how fragile my security and freedom to tell the truth is.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams
The lessons in how to exploit and manipulate people seem to have been well learned by some.
John Stuart Mill had it right:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
The contemporary "left" are not left at all. If I join my sisters and brothers on the barricades, it's highly unlikely it'll be on the same side as Kamala Harris (or Keir Starmer, with his huge majority, delivered by a third of the less than two-thirds of the electorate that bothered to vote. That's not democracy.)
-
Can't say I'm hugely impressed by Harris myself, t when the alternative is Trump, who to support is a bit of a no-brainer.
-
Can't say I'm hugely impressed by Harris myself, t when the alternative is Trump, who to support is a bit of a no-brainer.
I've got a brain and if I was able to, I'd vote for Trump, poor alternative that he is. People who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid.
In my opinion rights and freedoms are currently more at risk from self-styled leftists than those labelled 'right wing' by them. Threatening to close down sources of information you don't like and prosecute publishers of opinions you disagree with sounds pretty right wing to me. I don't need Kamala or Keir to tell me what to believe. I can read and I can reason.
-
Hi Maeght,
Because I think the ‘western’ liberal, democratic, secular world is in deep trouble. I value freedom of speech and association, the foundation on which liberal principles and all our other civilised freedoms rest, and which are always under threat. I value truth and want to keep a grip on reality, as far as it’s knowable. I value security and material comfort a little less, but highly.
I don’t think Harris has the intellectual or moral capacity to lead the Western world or defend the things I value. She failed to articulate any detailed policy or principle, or to answer a straight question straightforwardly, over the hour or so I endured. The way she nods patronisingly and earnestly at the interviewer, like a primary school teacher encouraging a child reciting the alphabet, pretending she’s saying something worth listening to, while she recites vacuous sound bites, and whinges. She complained about the state of the US economy and society as if she hadn’t been in office for the last 3 years and Democrats for 11 of the last 15. She complained about Roe v Wade. What exactly stopped Clinton or Obama from codifying abortion rights during their 16 years in power? Her comments on Israel / Gaza were… meaningless.
And the alternative is Trump.
The threats to my freedoms are currently coming from people who label themselves left wing and progressive. I’ve had my freedoms of speech and peaceful association impinged upon on several occasions over the last 3 years, and the "progressive" "inclusive" mob trying to silence me and run me off the public streets were enabled and facilitated by agents of the state. The police did not apply the law reasonably or fairly. They did not protect me. I saw it with my own eyes. They broke their social contract with me.
I don’t care what labels are adopted or assigned anymore. Someone looking me in the eye and telling me they believe the equivalent of 2+2=5 is not to be trusted whether they truly believe the lie or not. They’re either stupid or dishonest, unfit to make decisions on my behalf.
Empires come and go. It’s been my privilege to live in an affluent, relatively peaceful and relatively free society for most of my life, unlike the vast majority of people.
I read The Handmaid’s tale when I was 18 and knew then that every one of the horrors described by Atwood was being perpetrated on women somewhere in the world. I knew how lucky I was to have been born here and then. I’m seeing now, close up, exactly how fragile my security and freedom to tell the truth is.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams
The lessons in how to exploit and manipulate people seem to have been well learned by some.
John Stuart Mill had it right:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
The contemporary "left" are not left at all. If I join my sisters and brothers on the barricades, it's highly unlikely it'll be on the same side as Kamala Harris (or Keir Starmer, with his huge majority, delivered by a third of the less than two-thirds of the electorate that bothered to vote. That's not democracy.)
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen her interview so didn't know what had prompted your comment. I can understand your position and am not convinced by Harris (or Starmer) either but see Trump as the greater concern at the moment - much like the Tories were the greater concern to me here so saw/see Starmer as the better option. We are in troubling times for sure but I hope we will come out of them with better governments and societies but am not certain this will be what happens. Maybe we have lived through a golden age and things will never be the same as before, so we will just have to do the best we can and choose the least bad option. Hope not but ......
-
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen her interview so didn't know what had prompted your comment. I can understand your position and am not convinced by Harris (or Starmer) either but see Trump as the greater concern at the moment - much like the Tories were the greater concern to me here so saw/see Starmer as the better option. We are in troubling times for sure but I hope we will come out of them with better governments and societies but am not certain this will be what happens. Maybe we have lived through a golden age and things will never be the same as before, so we will just have to do the best we can and choose the least bad option. Hope not but ......
Thank you. I feel very much the same way, but as I say, I think the greater threat comes from the so-called 'left'. Horrified by the choices we are being presented with. I don't think any major (or many minor, for that matter) political parties are selecting candidates for their intelligence or integrity.
-
I've got a brain and if I was able to, I'd vote for Trump, poor alternative that he is. People who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid.
In my opinion rights and freedoms are currently more at risk from self-styled leftists than those labelled 'right wing' by them. Threatening to close down sources of information you don't like and prosecute publishers of opinions you disagree with sounds pretty right wing to me. I don't need Kamala or Keir to tell me what to believe. I can read and I can reason.
I could never vote for Trump because I think he's dangerous, and much more so than in 2016.
The Democrats are a mess. I can't get any grip on Harris. The lack of interviews since she became the candidate scares me as it feels like something is being hidden. I suspect I might vote Harris as the least bad option but a spoilt paper which are increasingly more common for me at elections might be what happens but the essentially binary nature of the contest means that would be less likely.
-
Trump is an evil so and so who would have got on well with Hitler. How anyone could even consider voting for that piece of the proverbial is either not right in the head or a far right extremist.
-
Thank you. I feel very much the same way, but as I say, I think the greater threat comes from the so-called 'left'. Horrified by the choices we are being presented with. I don't think any major (or many minor, for that matter) political parties are selecting candidates for their intelligence or integrity.
I don't there are any candidates of the 'left' in the US election. Certainly not in the manner that we might consider to be 'left' in the UK.
Trump is of the populist right and the Democrats are pretty centre-right (at best centre) if we use the UK political spectrum.
-
Trump is an evil so and so who would have got on well with Hitler. How anyone could even consider voting for that piece of the proverbial is either not right in the head or a far right extremist.
He's got nearly 50% of the votes in the past 2 elections so you think they are all either mad or far right. I know several people who voted for him who are perfectly sane and would be seen on the left of the Tory Party.
-
I've got a brain and if I was able to, I'd vote for Trump, poor alternative that he is. People who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid.
In my opinion rights and freedoms are currently more at risk from self-styled leftists than those labelled 'right wing' by them. Threatening to close down sources of information you don't like and prosecute publishers of opinions you disagree with sounds pretty right wing to me. I don't need Kamala or Keir to tell me what to believe. I can read and I can reason.
Tr*mp is far more dangerous to you and to democracy than Harris. It really is laughable that anybody would seriously consider that she is the worst of the two of them.
-
I've got a brain and if I was able to, I'd vote for Trump, poor alternative that he is.
Why vote for either?
-
Question for anyone who knows: is it possible to vote for the presidential candidate from one party and the vp candidate from the other party, eg Harris and Vance, or indeed vote for one but abstain on the other?
-
Question for anyone who knows: is it possible to vote for the presidential candidate from one party and the vp candidate from the other party, eg Harris and Vance, or indeed vote for one but abstain on the other?
No, it's a single ticket vote. VOGOF
-
Tr*mp is far more dangerous to you and to democracy than Harris. It really is laughable that anybody would seriously consider that she is the worst of the two of them.
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.
We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.
I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.
Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.
I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.
-
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.
We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.
I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.
Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.
I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.
We've never had freedom of speech. Are you saying that it's OK for Abu Hamza to preach for murder?
-
We've never had freedom of speech. Are you saying that it's OK for Abu Hamza to preach for murder?
Hi Nearly,
No. I don't think freedom of speech includes incitement to violence or threats to individuals. That's already illegal, here and, as far as I know, in the US.
My allies in the fight for women's rights have a slogan: Let Them Speak. We don't want to silence our opponents, because unless you know what they think and can question it, you can't change minds. Bad arguments need to be exposed and countered (as has been happening for years on the 'Searching for God' thread). People don't stop thinking and believing things you don't agree with, or think are false, because you stop them from talking about it.
-
Hi Nearly,
No. I don't think freedom of speech includes incitement to violence or threats to individuals. That's already illegal, here and, as far as I know, in the US.
My allies in the fight for women's rights have a slogan: Let Them Speak. We don't want to silence our opponents, because unless you know what they think and can question it, you can't change minds. Bad arguments need to be exposed and countered (as has been happening for years on the 'Searching for God' thread). People don't stop thinking and believing things you don't agree with, or think are false, because you stop them from talking about it.
And yet Musk has been happy to support the dissemination of false information and threats on twitter which led to the riots in Southport.
Govts and societies draw lines on freedom of speech so it's not one side is for it, and one side against, rather it's that you think one side would draw the line closer to where you would than other people.
-
And yet Musk has been happy to support the dissemination of false information and threats on twitter which led to the riots in Southport.
Govts and societies draw lines on freedom of speech so it's not one side is for it, and one side against, rather it's that you think one side would draw the line closer to where you would than other people.
Musk provides the least censored social media platform available. If not for X I would be much less well informed. Inciting a riot is illegal, but telling lies is not, luckily for politicians and all the rest of us too. Individuals are responsible for what they say and do and we already have plenty of laws to hold people to account. It's a pity they aren't applied more fairly.
Of course you're right, I think there is a line to be drawn. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss what constitutes iincitement to violence, or a credible threat, rather than articulation of an idea, or fair comment, or a joke.
Was, for example, Joe Biden inciting murder when he said, shortly before the first assassination attempt, "it's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye"? Was Maxine Waters (D) encouraging riots when she said "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be"? Was Daniel Goldman (D) joking when he said Trump needed to be "eliminated"?
Left and right are meaningless labels now. I listen to what people say and look at what they do and decide whether I think they are a reasonable person with what I think is an adequate moral code. Since neither Harris nor Trump meet that standard, and there's no other option, I'd like the one who isn't threatening to curtail the 1st amendment (what happens in the US matters here) and who is now supported by people I don't think are inveterate liars.
-
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.
We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.
I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.
Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.
I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.
Gabbard, RFK and Musk (the latter particularly) love to think of themselves as freespeech heroes but in reality they're just useful idioits at best. We live in an era of disinformation, which they are doing their best to spread. Fighting it with conventional methods alone isn't enough.
-
Tr*mp is far more dangerous to you and to democracy than Harris. It really is laughable that anybody would seriously consider that she is the worst of the two of them.
Agreed.
-
Re the last two posts - do you expect me to say "Oh! Thanks. I never thought of it that way. I've completely revised my opinions now, thanks to your well argued and evidenced counter points."
Thanks to those of you who responded to a post it took me some time and consideration to compose with something more substantial and thought-provoking than "you're stupid".
:)
-
Musk provides the least censored social media platform available. If not for X I would be much less well informed. Inciting a riot is illegal, but telling lies is not, luckily for politicians and all the rest of us too. Individuals are responsible for what they say and do and we already have plenty of laws to hold people to account. It's a pity they aren't applied more fairly.
Of course you're right, I think there is a line to be drawn. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss what constitutes iincitement to violence, or a credible threat, rather than articulation of an idea, or fair comment, or a joke.
Was, for example, Joe Biden inciting murder when he said, shortly before the first assassination attempt, "it's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye"? Was Maxine Waters (D) encouraging riots when she said "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be"? Was Daniel Goldman (D) joking when he said Trump needed to be "eliminated"?
Left and right are meaningless labels now. I listen to what people say and look at what they do and decide whether I think they are a reasonable person with what I think is an adequate moral code. Since neither Harris nor Trump meet that standard, and there's no other option, I'd like the one who isn't threatening to curtail the 1st amendment (what happens in the US matters here) and who is now supported by people I don't think are inveterate liars.
I don't think the first amendment is an absolute, and as you've agreed neither do you. If Musk allowed AI generated child porn on Twitter, I doubt you would be happy with that, and yet a fairly libertarian approach to the first amendment would allow that.
I remember lots of those who are now calling for 'free speech' supporting the locking up of people during the 2011 riots for comments on FB. I'm cynical about people portraying this as an easy either/or argument, and I'm unconvinced that allowing death threats as twitter sometimes did, and does is a social good.
-
Hi Nearly,
No. I don't think freedom of speech includes incitement to violence or threats to individuals. That's already illegal, here and, as far as I know, in the US.
Well, we know that Trump has already - to all intents and purposes - incited people to violence, including the near murder of his own vice-president. You can cherry-pick his words on that infamous occasion to make him appear innocent, but at the very least, it was hours before he lifted a finger to do anything to stop it.
Kamala Harris has never spoken or acted in this way.
-
Well, we know that Trump has already - to all intents and purposes - incited people to violence, including the near murder of his own vice-president. You can cherry-pick his words on that infamous occasion to make him appear innocent, but at the very least, it was hours before he lifted a finger to do anything to stop it.
Kamala Harris has never spoken or acted in this way.
Hi Dicky,
"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?
I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.
-
Hi Dicky,
"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?
I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.
Err, he is.
-
Hi Dicky,
"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?
I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.
Hello Christine
When you stand up before a howling mob of anarchists quite obviously intent on violence, and use the word "fight", are we to expect they're going to take it as a metaphor? Trump has certainly used the word "fight" many times since, and I don't suppose he cares a damn whether his supporters take it metaphorically or not (always supposing the illiterate yob knows what a metaphor is).
I would have thought, however, that anyone with two brain cells would realise that Biden's "bullseye" comment was a metaphor. I don't think he referred to Trump's potential assassin as "very special", as Trump himself referred to his 'Proud Boys' and other 'enthusiasts'.
-
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.
We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.
I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.
Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.
I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.
MAGA don't want free speech for everyone though do they?
-
Hi Christine - I am saddened to read your posts. If you truly think that Trump is somehow better for the world than other options then I think that little I will say will convince you otherwise.
You rightly denounce the Democrats for failing to codify the outcome of Roe v. Wade but then offer support for the man, who by packing the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, enabled the overturning of Roe v. Wade and therefore making the lives of many American women much, much harder.
I'm sorry to tell you that Trump is not on the side of women unless he is grabbing them by the pussy. The fact that the right generally, and Trump in particular, chime with you on one issue does not make them the panacea for all our ills.
As for Musk, I suggest trying going onto Twitter now and supporting gay rights. Good luck. I'll provide screenshots later if necessary. It is a cesspit of Musk's creation, although to be fair, it was quite a way down that path before he took it over. It is nothing but a vast echo chamber for those who feel disenfranchised or those who are already morally bankrupt, Musk being the foremost example of the latter category.
-
Hello Christine
When you stand up before a howling mob of anarchists quite obviously intent on violence, and use the word "fight", are we to expect they're going to take it as a metaphor? Trump has certainly used the word "fight" many times since, and I don't suppose he cares a damn whether his supporters take it metaphorically or not (always supposing the illerate yob knows what a metaphor is).
I would have thought, however, that anyone with two brain cells would realise that Biden's "bullseye" comment was a metaphor. I don't think he referred to Trump's potential assassin as "very special", as Trump himself referred to his 'Proud Boys' and other 'enthusiasts'.
Kamala Harris on the 2020 BLM riots (19 dead): “nothing we have achieved in this country has come without a fight”.
Trump is not, in my opinion, a uniquely dangerous politician.
Just to clarify, if I had a vote, and if Harris hadn't replaced Biden, and if RFK Jr was on the ballot, I would have voted for him.
-
Just to clarify, if I had a vote, and if Harris hadn't replaced Biden, and if RFK Jr was on the ballot, I would have voted for him.
Sorry can you clarify - in your double hypothetical scenario, would you have voted for Biden, or voted for RFK?
But in the real world - the choice is Trump or Harris. I'm very clear - I'd vote Harris 100%. How about you?
-
Hi Christine - I am saddened to read your posts. If you truly think that Trump is somehow better for the world than other options then I think that little I will say will convince you otherwise.
You rightly denounce the Democrats for failing to codify the outcome of Roe v. Wade but then offer support for the man, who by packing the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, enabled the overturning of Roe v. Wade and therefore making the lives of many American women much, much harder.
I'm sorry to tell you that Trump is not on the side of women unless he is grabbing them by the pussy. The fact that the right generally, and Trump in particular, chime with you on one issue does not make them the panacea for all our ills.
As for Musk, I suggest trying going onto Twitter now and supporting gay rights. Good luck. I'll provide screenshots later if necessary. It is a cesspit of Musk's creation, although to be fair, it was quite a way down that path before he took it over. It is nothing but a vast echo chamber for those who feel disenfranchised or those who are already morally bankrupt, Musk being the foremost example of the latter category.
Hi Aruntraveller,
I follow a lot of gay people on X because they are involved in the same fight for reality that I am. I say again that stopping people from articulating ideas and beliefs that you find offensive, upsetting or think are mistaken doesn't make those ideas go away. I would prefer that nobody was homophobic, racist or misogynistic, but some people are, and I want to know who they are.
I never at any point suggested that anybody or any political ideology was a panacea. Liberal principles of free speech, association and equality before the law aren't an ideology, they are a framework. Compromises to those principles should be discussed explicitly and agreed democratically. I don't think John Stuart Mill was right wing.
At this point I think Trump as president of the US is less of a danger to western democracy than Harris. Both sides are bad for women.
Minnesota:
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-five-male-inmates-transferred-to-minnesota-womens-prison-including-two-convicted-pedophiles/
California:
https://reduxx.info/trans-identified-male-convicted-of-murdering-his-wife-after-she-attempted-to-divorce-him-now-housed-in-california-womens-prison/
Illinois:
https://reduxx.info/transgender-pedophile-who-sexually-assaulted-his-children-now-being-held-at-illinois-womens-prison/
-
Sorry can you clarify - in your double hypothetical scenario, would you have voted for Biden, or voted for RFK?
But in the real world - the choice is Trump or Harris. I'm very clear - I'd vote Harris 100%. How about you?
Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.
-
Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.
RFK jr is a conspiracy nut and vaccine denier, which makes him more dangerous than either of the other two!
-
Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.
Just to note RFK Jnr will still be on the ballot in certain states, and was never going to be on the ballot in all states.
-
I follow a lot of gay people on X because they are involved in the same fight for reality that I am. I say again that stopping people from articulating ideas and beliefs that you find offensive, upsetting or think are mistaken doesn't make those ideas go away. I would prefer that nobody was homophobic, racist or misogynistic, but some people are, and I want to know who they are.
And I would suggest providing a space that is an echo chamber is amplifying and increasing the hatred for groups. It might help you identify them, but just exactly can you then do about it?
-
At this point I think Trump as president of the US is less of a danger to western democracy than Harris.
On the contrary, I would argue. With his admiration and eagerness to appease authoritarian leaders around the world (and, perhaps, in some of their pockets), he poses a direct threat to western democracy.
-
Liberal principles of free speech, association and equality before the law aren't an ideology, they are a framework.
I completely agree. However, Twitter, FB and the like, that run complicated algorithms to push certain ideologies at you are the complete opposite of free speech.
My FB timeline has been completely taken over by RW groups from America who I have nothing in common with.
Why is this happening?
Because I've challenged the odd post in the past?
Because they've identified me as someone who is susceptible to blatant propoganda?
I really don't know.
The net effect is to make me withdraw from FB. I'm sure Zuckerberg can stand the loss but I won't be using FB for anything other than pics of fluffy kittens and the like. The same goes for Twitter.
Anyone who thinks these platforms in some way uphold free speech is sadly mistaken. They uphold the interests of the billionnaire owners. Nothing more.
-
I completely agree. However, Twitter, FB and the like, that run complicated algorithms to push certain ideologies at you are the complete opposite of free speech.
My FB timeline has been completely taken over by RW groups from America who I have nothing in common with.
Why is this happening?
Because I've challenged the odd post in the past?
Because they've identified me as someone who is susceptible to blatant propoganda?
I really don't know.
The net effect is to make me withdraw from FB. I'm sure Zuckerberg can stand the loss but I won't be using FB for anything other than pics of fluffy kittens and the like. The same goes for Twitter.
Anyone who thinks these platforms in some way uphold free speech is sadly mistaken. They uphold the interests of the billionnaire owners. Nothing more.
Musk backers for Twitter are Saudis and russians. That alone should ring alarm bells.
-
I closed both my FB and Twitter accounts a while ago. The FB account didn't seem as secure as I would wish it to be, when Musk took over Twitter it gave me the creeps! :o
-
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.
It's not unsupported.
Do you not remember 6th January 2021? Trump incited a load of supporters to try to overthrow due process.
Do you not remember his presidency where he stuffed the courts including the Supreme Court with Republican shills?
Do you not remember his speeches this time around where he told Christians that if he won, they'd never need to vote again.
Wake up!
We are on the brink of war.
No we aren't.
The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.
And overall they have done a good job.
I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.
I can't speak for Tulsi Gabbard and RFK but Elon Musk only lies when his lips are moving. Elon Musk is a con man. You can't trust him to look out for anybody except Elon Musk.
Censorship of opinions you don't like
You mean like the way Musk censors opinions he doesn't like.
You need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. The people you have listed are only out for themselves. They don't care about you or anybody else.
-
It's not unsupported.
Do you not remember 6th January 2021? Trump incited a load of supporters to try to overthrow due process.
Do you not remember his presidency where he stuffed the courts including the Supreme Court with Republican shills?
Do you not remember his speeches this time around where he told Christians that if he won, they'd never need to vote again.
Wake up!
No we aren't.
And overall they have done a good job.
I can't speak for Tulsi Gabbard and RFK but Elon Musk only lies when his lips are moving. Elon Musk is a con man. You can't trust him to look out for anybody except Elon Musk.
You mean like the way Musk censors opinions he doesn't like.
You need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. The people you have listed are only out for themselves. They don't care about you or anybody else.
I agree with a lot of this but the Supreme Court stuff is common to both parties in recent times.
And I'm not convinced that the telling Christians they only need to vote once is really about getting rid of voting. I think he was trying to say that he would sort everything.
-
We shouldn't doubt that if elected again, Trump will surround himself with equally dodgy people with everything but the interests of their nation and western democratic values at heart.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/19/intelligencer-pro-russia-website-trump
-
"Harris says anyone breaking into her home is 'getting shot'" - this definitely doesn't feel like a slip but a planned statement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4yxe2xxzdo
-
I completely agree. However, Twitter, FB and the like, that run complicated algorithms to push certain ideologies at you are the complete opposite of free speech.
My FB timeline has been completely taken over by RW groups from America who I have nothing in common with.
Why is this happening?
Because I've challenged the odd post in the past?
Because they've identified me as someone who is susceptible to blatant propoganda?
I really don't know.
The net effect is to make me withdraw from FB. I'm sure Zuckerberg can stand the loss but I won't be using FB for anything other than pics of fluffy kittens and the like. The same goes for Twitter.
Anyone who thinks these platforms in some way uphold free speech is sadly mistaken. They uphold the interests of the billionnaire owners. Nothing more.
Seeing and hearing lots of things you don't agree with sounds like the opposite of an echo chamber? I'm not on FaceBook. I cross check every story I find interesting or informative between media outlets and sources I've found reliable in the past. I certainly don't trust the BBC or the Guardian to tell me the truth.
I was where most of you are now 3 or 4 years ago and if my eyes hadn't been opened by personal experiences, I would probably be agreeing with you.
I hope whoever wins the election isn't as bad as one or the other of us thinks they will be. Time will tell.
-
I was where most of you are now 3 or 4 years ago and if my eyes hadn't been opened by personal experiences, I would probably be agreeing with you.
It goes both ways, of course. I have the opposite experience. A few years back I had slipped some way down the alt-right route. Then covid and the fullscale invasion of Ukraine happened and my eyes opened to my folly. No one says mainstream media is perfect but
it's mainstream for a reason: it sometimes makes mistakes but mostly has a fairly decent record of impartiality and reliability.
-
Seeing and hearing lots of things you don't agree with sounds like the opposite of an echo chamber?
Missing my point.
It has become an echo chamber for the most racist, misogynistic and homophobic elements within our societies.
Moderate voices don't get a look in. Some left-wing views do, but in nothing like the quantity of the said shit above.
They feed off one another, and amplify their hatred and just because one/some of their views chime with personal experiences does not mean they have other people's welfare at heart. They don't.
Stopped clock syndrome.
-
Missing my point.
It has become an echo chamber for the most racist, misogynistic and homophobic elements within our societies.
Moderate voices don't get a look in. Some left-wing views do, but in nothing like the quantity of the said shit above.
They feed off one another, and amplify their hatred and just because one/some of their views chime with personal experiences does not mean they have other people's welfare at heart. They don't.
Stopped clock syndrome.
At the time of the Stockport riots Prof D claimed I wouldn't have seen anything instigating them, and yet I did. The algorithm can create echo chambers but I'm not sure as a whole it's easy to say X itself is one, or that certain voices predominate more - other than Musk's who seems to be pimping up his own tweets.
-
Missing my point.
It has become an echo chamber for the most racist, misogynistic and homophobic elements within our societies.
Moderate voices don't get a look in. Some left-wing views do, but in nothing like the quantity of the said shit above.
They feed off one another, and amplify their hatred and just because one/some of their views chime with personal experiences does not mean they have other people's welfare at heart. They don't.
Stopped clock syndrome.
Sorry, yes, I misunderstood. My experience of X is different. I see posts from people I follow and related content, not all of it from my current point of view, but obviously focused on my main area of interest. I see some stuff I don’t like - I block if necessary - and I have to block a few bots from following me, but I’m not blue-ticked, so I don’t get so many of those. I follow several knowledgable, honest and informative people reinstated by Musk after being banned for years for using words or phrases somebody found offensive.
I don’t know why you think other people are so susceptible to influence, but you aren’t. I want to be able to judge for myself what’s credible and what’s not. I can make my own judgments about the reliability of commentators.
-
You need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. The people you have listed are only out for themselves. They don't care about you or anybody else.
Right back at you Jeremy.
What has Musk done that's so bad? I know he called a good man a bad name (boo!) and has suggested setting confused children on a pathway to a lifetime of self-deception and drugs is wrong, which some people seem to think is bad (I don't) but apart from that?
-
I don’t know why you think other people are so susceptible to influence, but you aren’t
I didn't know I had said that.
From my experience of the said platforms, I feel that they want to force me to read content that I would not normally read, not from any aspiration to enlighten me, but more to enrage/upset/shock me.
I don't have anything in common with, for instance, Darren Grimes, and yet there he is every day at the top of my twitter feed spouting his bile. Yes, I could block him but I'd only get Carole Malone pop up in his place. It would go on forever. No point. Therefore I don't engage.
Sadly, I don't think we are likely to agree on this.
I'll just end by saying that free speech does not come with freedom of responsibility for that speech.
Unfortunately, few people seem willing to hold Musk et al responsible for the consequences of their lack of responsibility.
-
I didn't know I had said that.
From my experience of the said platforms, I feel that they want to force me to read content that I would not normally read, not from any aspiration to enlighten me, but more to enrage/upset/shock me.
I don't have anything in common with, for instance, Darren Grimes, and yet there he is every day at the top of my twitter feed spouting his bile. Yes, I could block him but I'd only get Carole Malone pop up in his place. It would go on forever. No point. Therefore I don't engage.
Sadly, I don't think we are likely to agree on this.
I'll just end by saying that free speech does not come with freedom of responsibility for that speech.
Unfortunately, few people seem willing to hold Musk et al responsible for the consequences of their lack of responsibility.
This: "They feed off one another, and amplify their hatred and just because one/some of their views chime with personal experiences does not mean they have other people's welfare at heart. They don't" seemed to mean that you can see truth and meaning that other people can't. Apologies if I'm wrong again, but how do you know what other people have "at heart"? If you don't want to read what they write, don't, but don't tell me I can't read it either.
Individuals are responsible for what they say and do.
We probably aren't going to agree about this, and that's alright isn't it?
-
Individuals are responsible for what they say and do.
Indeed.
Example for you. Is this free speech or is this incitement? Does Musk have any responsibility here? If so, what? If not, why not? (PS this Tweeter has been reported multiple times - not by me, and if you care to look at the content it is all still there) I would suggest that the word responsible is not being honoured in any way in this instance. If you disagree then we do not have anything further to say to each other. And you ask if it is alright to disagree - on most things yes. On this no.
-
Indeed.
Example for you. Is this free speech or is this incitement? Does Musk have any responsibility here? If so, what? If not, why not? (PS this Tweeter has been reported multiple times - not by me, and if you care to look at the content it is all still there) I would suggest that the word responsible is not being honoured in any way in this instance. If you disagree then we do not have anything further to say to each other. And you ask if it is alright to disagree - on most things yes. On this no.
Worth pointing out that's not a unique example, nor is it confined to inciting violence against says. That said there were a lot of posts inciting violence against certain groups on twitter prior to Musk that were allowed because they were acceptable to that censorship regime.
ETA - One of the things here is thatbsocial media needs to be treated more like it's publishing the content rather than just an karaoke bar.
-
Worth pointing out that's not a unique example, nor is it confined to inciting violence against says. That said there were a lot of posts inciting violence against certain groups on twitter prior to Musk that were allowed because they were acceptable to that censorship regime..
Indeed. Migrants, MP's, JK Rowling spring immediately to mind.
-
Indeed. Migrants, MP's, JK Rowling spring immediately to mind.
I think it's worse under Musk but it's arguably less partial.
-
Been listening to the Americast podcast, thought this was a really interesting episode on the assassinations attempts, and protecting candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00230b6
-
I think it's worse under Musk but it's arguably less partial.
It's definitely much worse. Especially since Musk drastically cut down the Twitter workforce and the report function is automated and next to usesless.
-
It's definitely much worse. Especially since Musk drastically cut down the Twitter workforce and the report function is automated and next to usesless.
Agree but I'd still raise the point that such threats were allowed under the previous ownership on a partial basis against people they didn't think merited protection so it wasn't a land of milk and honey
-
I agree with a lot of this but the Supreme Court stuff is common to both parties in recent times.
No it isn't.
The Democrats tend to go for qualified people, if they can get them confirmed by Congress at all. Republicans put shills in.
And I'm not convinced that the telling Christians they only need to vote once is really about getting rid of voting. I think he was trying to say that he would sort everything.
Well that's what it sounded like.
-
I cross check every story I find interesting or informative between media outlets and sources I've found reliable in the past.
Well how come you've missed the fact that Musk is a lying sleezeball?
I certainly don't trust the BBC or the Guardian to tell me the truth.
Those two sources are probably amongst the most reliable.
I was where most of you are now 3 or 4 years ago and if my eyes hadn't been opened by personal experiences, I would probably be agreeing with you.
The trouble with personal experience is that it always seems more real than the balanced picture. A lot of people had personal experiences on January 6th 2021. Many of them are now in prison. Many are traumatised. Some had life changing injuries and some are dead.
And yet you still cling to Tr*mp. He's far worse than Harris.
-
No it isn't.
The Democrats tend to go for qualified people, if they can get them confirmed by Congress at all. Republicans put shills in.
Well that's what it sounded like.
I think you're seeing things from a partial point of view. The candidates that both parties have put forward have become more partial over the years from both sides. And, of course, there's been a lot of rhetoric from the Dems about increasing the number of justices in order to put their views in their ascendancy. In the end it's a lousy system.
And the same for the Christian comment. In order to make it have the meaning you think, you have to take it in isolation and ignore that there's no clear statements about getting rid of elections in the rest of the speech or speeches, or political positions
-
What has Musk done that's so bad?
He cheated the founders of Tesla out of their company.
He lies about the on sale dates of his products
He lies about the capabilities of his products.
He goes round trying to impregnate as many women as possible
He comes up with crazy transport schemes designed to do nothing more than sabotage sensible ones so he can sell more Teslas.
He has almost destroyed a perfectly good social media company, including sacking many of its staff and failing to pay them their legally entitled severance packages.
He doesn't pay his suppliers and landlords at Twitter.
He swindled Tesla shareholders out of money by selling his failing solar energy company to Tesla.
He propositioned a flight attendant on a SpaceX jet offering a pony for sexual favours.
These are a few of the bad things about Elon Musk I can think of just off the top of my head.
I know he called a good man a bad name (boo!)
To be clear, he called Vernon Unsworth a pedophile. That's slightly worse than "a bad name" especially considering he has millions of sycophant followers who will just accept his word.
and has suggested setting confused children on a pathway to a lifetime of self-deception and drugs is wrong, which some people seem to think is bad (I don't) but apart from that?
Even bad people can be right occasionally. Famously, Hitler was a vegetarian, but you don't hear any vegetarians saying "he can't be all bad: he doesn't eat meat."
-
I think you're seeing things from a partial point of view.
No I'm not. Just look at the quality of the people in the Supreme Court in recent years.
-
Agree but I'd still raise the point that such threats were allowed under the previous ownership on a partial basis against people they didn't think merited protection so it wasn't a land of milk and honey
Yeah, true.
-
Yeah, true.
I think Musk is more dangerous because he seems to actively encourage stuff as proof of how ftrre speech he is in order to make the argument that Twitter should not be regulated because that would be a cost to him.
Add to that and his positioning of it as primarily a news source seems to me to be making it primarily a hud of disinformation and hate with no regulation.
-
Aruntraveller - I think that post is disgusting. I would block the poster. If you don't want to talk to me anymore, fair enough.
Jeremy - I think I get that you don't like Trump or Musk. Thanks for your list. I'll let you know if I find anything in your claims to change my mind when I've researched them, since you helpfully didn't provide any links. You think I'm clinging to Trump and the BBC and The Guardian are reliable? Okay. I disagree.
I'm finding this discussion quite stressful, but I think it's good for me. I've not changed my view that, on balance, I would prefer Trump to win the US election this year.
I think I'll watch Kamala Harris on Oprah now. You never know, she might change my mind about her.
-
I think Musk is more dangerous because he seems to actively encourage stuff as proof of how ftrre speech he is in order to make the argument that Twitter should not be regulated because that would be a cost to him.
Add to that and his positioning of it as primarily a news source seems to me to be making it primarily a hud of disinformation and hate with no regulation.
Again, agreed. Social platforms, especially one as big as Twitter, are hard to manage but it seems Musk has taken off the reigns and lighting a fire up its arse.
-
I'm finding this discussion quite stressful
You are not alone in that!
-
Aruntraveller - I think that post is disgusting. I would block the poster. If you don't want to talk to me anymore, fair enough.
Jeremy - I think I get that you don't like Trump or Musk. Thanks for your list. I'll let you know if I find anything in your claims to change my mind when I've researched them, since you helpfully didn't provide any links. You think I'm clinging to Trump and the BBC and The Guardian are reliable? Okay. I disagree.
I'm finding this discussion quite stressful, but I think it's good for me. I've not changed my view that, on balance, I would prefer Trump to win the US election this year.
I think I'll watch Kamala Harris on Oprah now. You never know, she might change my mind about her.
I think it's worse than needing blocking. It's an incitement to violence which Musk is happy to publish.
I doubt Harris on Oprah will affect your decision. It was a car crash to my mind, and that's not even a real interview.
-
No one in their right mind would find anything good about that evil criminal Trump. Musk is a very nasty piece of work he treats his employees with contempt. Twitter under Musk's control is complete mess. His idea of free speech allows racists and homophobes state their sick thoughts on those topics. >:(
-
You are not alone in that!
I think these are hard discussions about a world where things seem to have to black and white in terms of sides, when things are in more shades of grey than ever. I'm struggling with the clothes for access row has soured my view of the Labour govt way more than any policy so far. I feel politics is broken but we're dragged by social media to agree with views that once we would have regarded as extreme. The attraction of conspiracy theories is that they attempt to make sense of what we find nonsensical. Musk knows that and is playing on it.
-
No one in their right mind would find anything good about that evil criminal Trump. Musk is a very nasty piece of work he treats his employees with contempt. Twitter under Musk's control is complete mess. His idea of free speech allows racists and homophobes state their sick thoughts on those topics. >:(
And the previous owners of twitter alollowed death threats to people they didn't think worth protection but you seemed happy to be on it till then.
Again Trump will get close to 50% of the vote in November, and you're happy to call them all mad. You're indulging in much the same 'othering' that you attack.
-
And the previous owners of twitter alollowed death threats to people they didn't think worth protection but you seemed happy to be on it till then.
Again Trump will get close to 50% of the vote in November, and you're happy to call them all mad. You're indulging in much the same 'othering' that you attack.
I don't remember any death threats on Twitter, but I didn't post on it that often.
-
I don't remember any death threats on Twitter, but I didn't post on it that often.
Which means you are perhaps not best placed to comment on what it was like prior to Musk?
-
It's worth remembering Musk's treatment of workers, given the semi serious proposal in his mutual masturbation session with Trump, that Musk be appointed to run a Department of Goverment Efficiency, DOGE, in a Trump administration.
-
Trump and North Carolina
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/21/politics/donald-trump-north-carolina-mark-robinson/index.html
-
Trump and North Carolina
Sweet Carolina TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
-
Trump shouting at women again and repeating the lie that in some places in America babies can be terminated after birth. The man is insane!
-
If Trump likes he won't run for reelection. Presumably because he'll be 137.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czj9ekdvxx2o
-
First time he's admitted the possibility that he might lose. Expectation management? Have his advisors told him to tone down the triumphalism? Is their private polling suggesting he is likely to lose?
-
First time he's admitted the possibility that he might lose. Expectation management? Have his advisors told him to tone down the triumphalism? Is their private polling suggesting he is likely to lose?
I think it's more likely that he's trying to use less rhetoric that amps him up as a possible threat to future elections.
-
Interesting article on the ricketyness of the US constitution
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/opinion/electoral-college-presidential-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NU4.139c.MemM41koIit0
-
Interesting article on the ricketyness of the US constitution
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/opinion/electoral-college-presidential-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NU4.139c.MemM41koIit0
It's been clear to me for many years that the US Constitution is not fit for purpose. Just the issue of how the Supreme Court is selected makes that obvious.
-
It's been clear to me for many years that the US Constitution is not fit for purpose. Just the issue of how the Supreme Court is selected makes that obvious.
Sometimes a certain amount of 'unfitness for purpose' allows for a flexibility to deal with differing situations as a compromise but in times when compromise becomes a four letter word it becomes a problem.
-
Trump to meet Zelensky. It will be interesting to see what is said after this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7810y11dyjo
-
Looks as if the US has very little influence. And until the election surely only going to reduce.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgn5xkp3rko
-
What an odd election this is!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23kg193d8zo
-
Sometimes a certain amount of 'unfitness for purpose' allows for a flexibility to deal with differing situations as a compromise but in times when compromise becomes a four letter word it becomes a problem.
The flaw in that is the assumption that everybody with an interest is going to be reasonable about it.
There was probably a time when the president in office selected the best person for the job of Supreme Court Justice and Congress accepted that. No more though and we have been left with a right wing partizan committee that has the power to overrule virtually anything a Democratic president or Congress puts into law.
-
Discovered from today's NYT weekly history quiz that America nearly scrapped its ridiculous electoral college system of electing Presidents in the late 60s, but the bill was defeated by a filibuster by Strom Thurmond, notorious opponent of all things self-evidently sensible and fair. They should try again, and replace it with a straight head-count of the entire country.
-
If you feel like following Vance vs Walz
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clyvjlqweldt
-
If you feel like following Vance vs Walz
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clyvjlqweldt
Seems like pretty much a non event but as the article notes even when such debates are events, they don't really affect the race.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o
-
I'm not sure whether this will help or hinder Trump but it is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights
-
I'm not sure whether this will help or hinder Trump but it is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights
It seems from what the article says to be a genuine position. Trump tries, again as the article covers, to be seen as having many positions on this. I think the anti abortion voters will go almost solidly for Trump with perhaps a few abstentions. Pro abortion voters are I suspect a bit less monolithic as it is possible to be pro abortion and think it's a matter for the states. I doubt this will impact either group but it is as you say interesting
-
Trump lying again. This time about disaster relief money. Politics seems to degrade by the day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3qgqxpwno
-
Would be hardly surprising if Netanyahu is aiming to get Trump elected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje3zl0dq2ko
I originally placed this on the Israel Hamas thread but it fits better here. So many of the pinned topics on Politocs are merging as the election approaches.
-
In other words "Events, dear boy, events"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz04n1kg1d4o
-
Apparently not AI but real
-
Apparently not AI but real
We saw that on the lunchtime news, Musk and Trump are completely off their heads, imo. >:(
-
We saw that on the lunchtime news, Musk and Trump are completely off their heads, imo. >:(
They are both clever grifters.
-
Very odd case, not sure why they released the bloke so quickly. Chad Bianco is a great name though, Matt's brother?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gqyezwj7lo
-
Not the most convincing interview from Harris. Still at least she did an interview, which she seems loathe to do generally.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj4qyxlxn1o
-
Well how come you've missed the fact that Musk is a lying sleezeball?
Those two sources are probably amongst the most reliable.
The trouble with personal experience is that it always seems more real than the balanced picture. A lot of people had personal experiences on January 6th 2021. Many of them are now in prison. Many are traumatised. Some had life changing injuries and some are dead.
And yet you still cling to Tr*mp. He's far worse than Harris.
Hello Jeremy
I’ve had a look for negative stories about Musk, by the BBC, CNN, The Guardian and Business Insider, not his biggest fans. I can’t find any substantive criticism of him that identifies him as uniquely evil or of evil intent. He engages with the public. His views are public.
His Tesla shareholders (70% individuals) seem to like him. Keep voting for him anyway, even after they’ve been told he’s not worth it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-says-both-tesla-shareholder-resolutions-passing-by-wide-margins-2024-06-13/
Perhaps they’re all stupid?
I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring. Amazing. Gives me hope that humans aren’t irredeemably selfish and shortsighted. He’s stood up to repressive state interference. He’s provided free comms to war zones and flood devastated regions of the US. You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing. Can he be silly and offensive? Can’t we all?
I found some interesting articles about other billionaires though:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/07/how-bill-gates-makes-the-world-worse-off
https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/j-b-pritzker-governor-illinois
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers
I can’t be bothered any more trying to find evidence to support your assertions for you. I’ll remain, on balance, pro reality, pro Musk and definitely anti Harris, who is demonstrating what an empty vessel she is ever more clearly, by the day.
I really hope she goes on Joe Rogan. That I wouldn’t miss for the world. Listening to him school Matt Walsh in critical thinking was a lot of fun.
-
Joe "I'm only asking questions" Rogan and critical thinking don't go together, I'm afraid.
-
Joe "I'm only asking questions" Rogan and critical thinking don't go together, I'm afraid.
He aks questions, yes. Then he listens to the answers, engages with the argument and presents evidence for his own position.
I choose what I listen to of his and pick guests that interest me. I find him interesting, honest, entertaining and well-informed. I would absolutely love to listen to Harris talk to him for 3 hours. I'm fairly sure she won't, sadly.
-
You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing
Even though the evidence of how badly moderated (not at all moderated) X is, you still maintain this position. I am saddened.
-
Musk actively spreads disinformation. He also doesn't stand up to state interference when it suits him not to in such as China. He's a grifter, if a very successful one. There are active threats allowed on Twitter, Aruntraveller has provided example previously as regards homosexuality.
-
Even though the evidence of how badly moderated (not at all moderated) X is, you still maintain this position. I am saddened.
Given the evidence of political manipulation on behalf of governments and powerful lobby groups by other social media platforms, I think it's just as well there is a counterbalance.
I stand by what I said before. Preventing people from expressing opinions you find offensive, dangerous, ill-informed etc is counter-productive. The antidote to speech you disagree with is more speech, facts and good arguments. We have laws against incitement to crime and making threats already, which are being enforced (though not without prejudice).
I see Starmer has had Bill Gates and the CEO of Blackrock round for tea at No 10. I feel the same way about that as I did about Blair inviting Rupert Murdoch in. I certainly don't trust any of them to decide what "misinformation" is. Often it boils down to information they don't like.
I don't think it's sad that we disagree. I disagree with people, some of them friends, about many things. It'd be boring otherwise, and a recipe for being wrong. In my opinion.
-
Musk actively spreads disinformation. He also doesn't stand up to state interference when it suits him not to in such as China. He's a grifter, if a very successful one. There are active threats allowed on Twitter, Aruntraveller has provided example previously as regards homosexuality.
Twitter is definitely on a downwards trend and I could see this hitting a tipping point quite soon.
People use twitter, not because it is the best and certainly not because they love Musk. Nope they use it because everyone else does - it is a matter of utility. But the point about that is that if people start drifting away it doesn't take long before it becomes a rush - as the reason for using it (cos everyone else does) not longer applies.
In my opinion, one mistake Musk has made since acquiring twitter is to use it as his own personal mouthpiece. The point about twitter is that it is a technology that allows everyone to share their views and once it seems to be a mouthpiece for its owner (a kind of privileged rich boy plaything) it has lost a lot of its appeal as people begin to feel that by using twitter they are seen to be endorsing Musk and his views. This is why plenty of large organisations are now moving off twitter as they do not want to be seen to be guilty by association.
He would have been better advised to have completely avoid using twitter as the mouthpiece for his personal views.
-
I think the demise of Twitter has been predicted many times. I'm not convinced we're there yet simply because there is no competitor at the moment emerging. There are lots of niche alternatives which do well in their areas but that's because they are niche whether in terms of interest, or politics, or questions about security.
I don't think Musk really cares other than not losing too much money what happens to Twitter. I think he bought it primarily as a political move to allow him to have his own personal mouthpiece and to influence politics for his other businesses, and to prepare for him to take a more active political role. I think at the time he was brand agnostic in terms of the political strand he would go for but with a leaning to Trump. When his sounding bore fruit he tacked that way.
There's a part, a very small dark part, which would like to see Trump winning appointing Musk to the trailed Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, to see the inevitable fall put between them for the entertainment value.
-
Hello Jeremy
I’ve had a look for negative stories about Musk, by the BBC, CNN, The Guardian and Business Insider, not his biggest fans. I can’t find any substantive criticism of him that identifies him as uniquely evil or of evil intent. He engages with the public. His views are public.
I didn't say he is evil, I said he is a lying sleazeball.
His Tesla shareholders (70% individuals) seem to like him. Keep voting for him anyway, even after they’ve been told he’s not worth it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-says-both-tesla-shareholder-resolutions-passing-by-wide-margins-2024-06-13/
Perhaps they’re all stupid?
Well the problem is that the share price of Tesla is way over a reasonable price for a company with similar financials. This is the Musk bullshit factor at work. If he runs away, the price will correct itself leaving the existing shareholders mostly with big losses.
They have a big problem because if he goes, they will lose some money but if he stays, Tesla cannot be run like a proper car company and he will eventually destroy it.
I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring. Amazing. Gives me hope that humans aren’t irredeemably selfish and shortsighted. He’s stood up to repressive state interference.
No he hasn't. He's whined about having to comply with federal regulations but he has complied - mostly. Of course, when it comes to real repressive regimes like India and China, he rolls over because they are worth too much money to him.
He’s provided free comms to war zones
No. The US government and Ukraine are paying for Starlink.
and flood devastated regions of the US.
I'll grant that although Internet connectivity isn't worth much when you have no electricity.
You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing. Can he be silly and offensive? Can’t we all?
Many people think it was a good thing because he is destroying it. Can you imagine the head of any other advertising company telling his customers to fuck off and then sue them for doing so? Musk is a man-child. He needs to grow up.
I can’t be bothered any more trying to find evidence to support your assertions for you. I’ll remain, on balance, pro reality, pro Musk and definitely anti Harris, who is demonstrating what an empty vessel she is ever more clearly, by the day.
The trouble with being anti-Harris is that it makes you pro-Tr*mp and I know you are enthusiastic about women's rights. Well Tr*mp has admitted to sexually assaulting women and he's the leader of the party that took away their abortion rights.
He's also very anti-democracy because, in a real democracy, he would lose every time.
I really hope she goes on Joe Rogan. That I wouldn’t miss for the world. Listening to him school Matt Walsh in critical thinking was a lot of fun.
Matt Walsh is an idiot. That's a low bar.
-
I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring.
Do you? I don't.
In fact I think it is remarkable how little progress has been made in my lifetime (I was born in 1966). I think that when I was 3 and the first men were landing on the moon and you asked how more much progress would have been made 55 years later people would be astonished at how little.
And the 'achievements' of SpaceX seem entirely to be caveated by 'privately-funded' or 'commercial'. So none of them are about actual technological developments, but about where the money came from. So should we really be impressed by the first 'commercial' spacewalk in 2024 when the first spacewalk took place a year before I was born.
And the SpaceX hype often mentions pioneering reusable boosters - but surely the Space Shuttle had recoverable and reusable boosters as far back as 1980.
So what exactly does SpaceX technology do (that is fundamentally valuable, rather than just a first for a funding mode) that hasn't been done decades ago.
-
Do you? I don't.
In fact I think it is remarkable how little progress has been made in my lifetime (I was born in 1966). I think that when I was 3 and the first men were landing on the moon and you asked how more much progress would have been made 55 years later people would be astonished at how little.
And the 'achievements' of SpaceX seem entirely to be caveated by 'privately-funded' or 'commercial'. So none of them are about actual technological developments, but about where the money came from. So should we really be impressed by the first 'commercial' spacewalk in 2024 when the first spacewalk took place a year before I was born.
And the SpaceX hype often mentions pioneering reusable boosters - but surely the Space Shuttle had recoverable and reusable boosters as far back as 1980.
So what exactly does SpaceX technology do (that is fundamentally valuable, rather than just a first for a funding mode) that hasn't been done decades ago.
The Space Shuttle also had a reusable orbital vehicle which SpaceX doesn't yet.
-
Just in general...
I don't think the Tesla shareholders are too stupid to understand their own long-term interests.
On balance, I think women's rights are more fundamentally at risk from people who think the word "woman" is meaningless than from Trump.
There are lying sleazeball abusers in all parties, everywhere. Which is why it's a good idea not to tie your politics to personalities. When I say "I like" Musk or RFKJ, I mean (which I thought would be obvious given I haven't claimed to know any of these people personally) that, on balance, I find what they say and do more in line with my values than their opponents. I don't have to "like" everything they say and do, and I don't.
If you object to the stalling of space exploration in recent decades, I think you might want to point the finger at NASA rather than Elon Musk.
I won't apologise for what I find inspiring.
If Joe Rogan is hopeless, then Harris will be able to run rings around him. 3 hours to talk about herself and her politics. Surely she won't turn the opportunity down? I believe Trump is going on. Good for him. I expect it will be an excruciating listen, but I will listen, just like I'd listen to Harris. I have listened to Harris.
-
The Space Shuttle also had a reusable orbital vehicle which SpaceX doesn't yet.
Yup.
Seems that there is pretty well nothing that the current crop of super-rich bloke companies have developed that has previously been developed and used many decades ago.
The recent vehicle landing and grabbing of the booster was impressive, but left me thinking why? Surely you could much more easily use parachute technology plus some guide boosters to bring the booster back to the place you want it.
-
Yup.
Seems that there is pretty well nothing that the current crop of super-rich bloke companies have developed that has previously been developed and used many decades ago.
The recent vehicle landing and grabbing of the booster was impressive, but left me thinking why? Surely you could much more easily use parachute technology plus some guide boosters to bring the booster back to the place you want it.
The idea is that recovery is quicker. You don't have to send a ship out into the open ocean to pick it up and put it back on the launch pad.
I'm not totally convinced myself: the current technology means relighting a number of rocket engines that have already been used quite hard, as well as launching with extra fuel in order to come down, which reduces your payload.
I'm even less convinced about the recovery plan for the orbital vehicle. Again you have to rely on relighting engines that have been used hard - and in the vacuum of space and have survived reentry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decide they need to put wings on the upper stage and land it like a glider.
-
The idea is that recovery is quicker. You don't have to send a ship out into the open ocean to pick it up and put it back on the launch pad.
I understand that, but there is a clear middle ground between the 'catch' system and the unguided pitch into the sea. Surely it would be much easier and cheaper to use the basic guidance system to move the boosters to a defined landing site as they drift down using good old fashioned parachutes.
I'm not totally convinced myself: the current technology means relighting a number of rocket engines that have already been used quite hard, as well as launching with extra fuel in order to come down, which reduces your payload.
I agree too on that. And I can't see that a booster would be simply reused without considerable checking, replacement of some parts, refuelling etc. All of this seems more significant than dropping it back on the launch pad as you'd probably simply need to take it off the launch pad again to prepare it for reuse.
The lessons from the space shuttle programme tells us that the work and care before reuse is kind of critical.
I'm even less convinced about the recovery plan for the orbital vehicle. Again you have to rely on relighting engines that have been used hard - and in the vacuum of space and have survived reentry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decide they need to put wings on the upper stage and land it like a glider.
Hey but it is 'privately' funded and 'commercial' so it must be a massive advance on ... err ... 1970s technology.
-
Given the evidence of political manipulation on behalf of governments and powerful lobby groups by other social media platforms, I think it's just as well there is a counterbalance.
I stand by what I said before. Preventing people from expressing opinions you find offensive, dangerous, ill-informed etc is counter-productive. The antidote to speech you disagree with is more speech, facts and good arguments. We have laws against incitement to crime and making threats already, which are being enforced (though not without prejudice).
I see Starmer has had Bill Gates and the CEO of Blackrock round for tea at No 10. I feel the same way about that as I did about Blair inviting Rupert Murdoch in. I certainly don't trust any of them to decide what "misinformation" is. Often it boils down to information they don't like.
I don't think it's sad that we disagree. I disagree with people, some of them friends, about many things. It'd be boring otherwise, and a recipe for being wrong. In my opinion.
You have heard about shouting fire in a full theatre I presume.
Free speech is not an absolute. There have to be consequences for some free speech.
You say: The antidote to speech you disagree with is more speech, facts and good arguments.
That's not how X works. It amplifies the lies. Furthermore, it amplifies the rightwing lies to a much greater extent. Otherwise, why is my feed full of RW content, when I now purposely choose to follow only left-of-centre posters etc. Yet they seldom show up. Who do I get? Katie fucking Hopkins for goodness sake.
Anyway, I return to the post I put up when we first discussed this, and I'd be interested to know how you think it is acceptable that X and by extension, Musk leave content like that on the platform. I am genuinely perplexed by your attitude. I repost as a reminder.
-
You have heard about shouting fire in a full theatre I presume.
Free speech is not an absolute. There have to be consequences for some free speech.
You say:
That's not how X works. It amplifies the lies. Furthermore, it amplifies the rightwing lies to a much greater extent. Otherwise, why is my feed full of RW content, when I now purposely choose to follow only left-of-centre posters etc. Yet they seldom show up. Who do I get? Katie fucking Hopkins for goodness sake.
Anyway, I return to the post I put up when we first discussed this, and I'd be interested to know how you think it is acceptable that X and by extension, Musk leave content like that on the platform. I am genuinely perplexed by your attitude. I repost as a reminder.
I'd add these posts 2 here, and another post to follow. Is this the free speech on twitter that you are standing up for, Christine?
Screenshot removed, point having been made.
-
And next two.
Screenshots removed, point having been made
-
Hi. I saw those posts, Nearly Sane. They were posted to a woman defending women's rights and demonstrate the depravity of the person who posted them. I think they were reported, hopefully to the police (though they don't seem to take threats against women nearly as seriously as the horrific hate crime of calling a man "he"). I expect they peaked quite a few casual scrollers. Operation Let Them Speak.
I have acknowledged the limits to free speech - threats, incitement, libel/slander - there are remedies available in law already for these things. I'm not in favour of censorship. For most of my life it has been socially unacceptable to use certain words and/or believe certain things (at least in my circles). It doesn't seem to have stopped people thinking hateful thoughts. The apparent surprise of the western political establishment at the current popularity of the so-called "right-wing" is a testament to the inefficacy of trying to silence views you disagree with.
Why republish such vile content? Do you think I'm unaware? Do you think it constitutes an argument? I already share your views about equality before the law, personal freedom etc - I'm a liberal. Of course I wish people didn't think like that. But they do.
I have been surrounded by a baying mob, enabled by the police, calling me a fascist, threatening me, telling me to get off their streets. According to them, saying that men aren't women is a "hate crime". They find it offensive. Should I be silenced?
-
Because Musk allows such content to be published without stopping it. He facilitates it. The post that Aruntraveller put up remains up despite many complaints. Musk is not passive in this and saying he's just standing up for free speech ignores thar he helps such threats be made.
That you think that there should be consequences for free speech means you do believe in censorship. Should child poronography that is AI produced be allowed on Twitter? If your answer to that is no, then you believe in censorship.
ETA and having made the point, I've removed the screenshots
-
Hey but it is 'privately' funded and 'commercial'
Well that's what they say, but a significant portion of SpaceX's funding has always come from NASA and I think NASA is probably bankrolling the entire Starship programme.
-
Hi. I saw those posts, Nearly Sane. They were posted to a woman defending women's rights and demonstrate the depravity of the person who posted them. I think they were reported, hopefully to the police (though they don't seem to take threats against women nearly as seriously as the horrific hate crime of calling a man "he"). I expect they peaked quite a few casual scrollers. Operation Let Them Speak.
I have acknowledged the limits to free speech - threats, incitement, libel/slander - there are remedies available in law already for these things. I'm not in favour of censorship. For most of my life it has been socially unacceptable to use certain words and/or believe certain things (at least in my circles). It doesn't seem to have stopped people thinking hateful thoughts. The apparent surprise of the western political establishment at the current popularity of the so-called "right-wing" is a testament to the inefficacy of trying to silence views you disagree with.
Why republish such vile content? Do you think I'm unaware? Do you think it constitutes an argument? I already share your views about equality before the law, personal freedom etc - I'm a liberal. Of course I wish people didn't think like that. But they do.
I have been surrounded by a baying mob, enabled by the police, calling me a fascist, threatening me, telling me to get off their streets. According to them, saying that men aren't women is a "hate crime". They find it offensive. Should I be silenced?
Is that the only reason you support Trump? All the other things don't worry you, like sucking up to dictators, being a con artist, being a rapist etc
-
Because Musk allows such content to be published without stopping it. He facilitates it. The post that Aruntraveller put up remains up despite many complaints. Musk is not passive in this and saying he's just standing up for free speech ignores thar he helps such threats be made.
That you think that there should be consequences for free speech means you do believe in censorship. Should child poronography that is AI produced be allowed on Twitter? If your answer to that is no, then you believe in censorship.
ETA and having made the point, I've removed the screenshots
I’ve had a good think about what you’ve said. Yes, I don’t think free speech is absolute. I do think that all attempts to limit it should be resisted, scrutinised, mulled over extensively, the motives of the proposal makers researched, and the unintended potential deleterious consequences of any restrictions carefully considered. Hard cases = bad law.
In liberal democracies we have a legal code, passed by whatever legislative body we’ve given the job, preferably after thorough examination of the evidence and robust discussion of the need for any new legislation at all. (Shame our politicians are startlingly poor quality and our institutions don’t even pretend to be politically neutral anymore.)
If I think a law is wrong, and I break it, then I face the consequences. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Nobody has a “right” to not be offended.
Empowering politicians - or any group with power over our lives - to decide what the “truth” is about ANYTHING is very dangerous. In my opinion. What I or anyone else finds offensive should not be the standard for censorship.
I agree with these philosophical positions:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (probably Voltaire)
“...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.” (JS Mill)
I think Peter Tatchell’s views on the age of consent and related activism are disgusting, dangerous and morally bankrupt, but I’m glad he wrote that review of that book, and that The Guardian published his disgusting letter, and that the BBC think he’s the go-to guy for comments on “inclusivity”, because it exposes him and the BBC and all his apologists for what they are.
https://lilymaynard.com/what-did-peter-tatchell-really-say/
You can’t control people’s thoughts and reality won’t be denied indefinitely.
Here’s a screenshot from X. I love mslisterssis. She makes pithy, intelligent, accurate short videos that I generally agree with every word of.
-
I’ve had a good think about what you’ve said. Yes, I don’t think free speech is absolute. I do think that all attempts to limit it should be resisted, scrutinised, mulled over extensively, the motives of the proposal makers researched, and the unintended potential deleterious consequences of any restrictions carefully considered. Hard cases = bad law.
In liberal democracies we have a legal code, passed by whatever legislative body we’ve given the job, preferably after thorough examination of the evidence and robust discussion of the need for any new legislation at all. (Shame our politicians are startlingly poor quality and our institutions don’t even pretend to be politically neutral anymore.)
If I think a law is wrong, and I break it, then I face the consequences. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Nobody has a “right” to not be offended.
Empowering politicians - or any group with power over our lives - to decide what the “truth” is about ANYTHING is very dangerous. In my opinion. What I or anyone else finds offensive should not be the standard for censorship.
I agree with these philosophical positions:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (probably Voltaire)
“...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.” (JS Mill)
I think Peter Tatchell’s views on the age of consent and related activism are disgusting, dangerous and morally bankrupt, but I’m glad he wrote that review of that book, and that The Guardian published his disgusting letter, and that the BBC think he’s the go-to guy for comments on “inclusivity”, because it exposes him and the BBC and all his apologists for what they are.
https://lilymaynard.com/what-did-peter-tatchell-really-say/
You can’t control people’s thoughts and reality won’t be denied indefinitely.
Here’s a screenshot from X. I love mslisterssis. She makes pithy, intelligent, accurate short videos that I generally agree with every word of.
The thing is that if you don't believe in free speech is absolute, you don't agree with those philosophical positions because they are presented as absolutes.
My issue with Musk and Trump, is that they aren't guardians of free speech that I would trust any more than anyone else. Musk's attempts to sue companies that stopped advertising on Twitter, as well as his acceptance of restrictions from Indoa and China to make more money, show that he's merely a self interested grifter.
-
The thing is that if you don't believe in free speech is absolute, you don't agree with those philosophical positions because they are presented as absolutes.
My issue with Musk and Trump, is that they aren't guardians of free speech that I would trust any more than anyone else. Musk's attempts to sue companies that stopped advertising on Twitter, as well as his acceptance of restrictions from Indoa and China to make more money, show that he's merely a self interested grifter.
I disagree. Expressing an opinion is not the same as making a threat or inciting violence or distributing material depicting child abuse. Even if the opinions expressed are about those subjects.
I also disagree about Musk. I don't know what his personal motivations are, but the people who want me to accept the equivalent of 2+2=5 and would prosecute me for saying otherwise are the bigger threat to my freedom and safety, in my opinion.
-
Expressing an opinion is not the same as making a threat or inciting violence
It isn't.
But Musk continues to allow threats and incitement. You've seen the posts allowed on Twitter and you still think he's worthy of your respect?
-
I disagree. Expressing an opinion is not the same as making a threat or inciting violence or distributing material depicting child abuse. Even if the opinions expressed are about those subjects.
I also disagree about Musk. I don't know what his personal motivations are, but the people who want me to accept the equivalent of 2+2=5 and would prosecute me for saying otherwise are the bigger threat to my freedom and safety, in my opinion.
If I say I think all homosexuals should be burnt, it is an opinion. It's just one that you've decided isn't acceptable to be expressed.
I've given you a couple of examples where Musk challenges free speech, and where he accepts restrictions on speech for money. Which are obvious reasons why you shouldn't trust him. Saying that you trust him more than others when that shows he's lying means you are giving him a free pass to be a liar.
He publishes the threats such as the ones I put up, and the one Aruntraveller. He is not passive in that. If you think that incitement to violence is wrong, then facilitating that by publishing it is surely wrong?
-
If I say I think all homosexuals should be burnt, it is an opinion. It's just one that you've decided isn't acceptable to be expressed.
I've given you a couple of examples where Musk challenges free speech, and where he accepts restrictions on speech for money. Which are obvious reasons why you shouldn't trust him. Saying that you trust him more than others when that shows he's lying means you are giving him a free pass to be a liar.
He publishes the threats such as the ones I put up, and the one Aruntraveller. He is not passive in that. If you think that incitement to violence is wrong, then facilitating that by publishing it is surely wrong?
I could list things that people on the 'other side' have done and said that I'm sure you would find objectionable and plenty of things they've said which are objectively untrue. Other social and traditional media platforms publish content that I find both threatening and offensive, and much that I believe to be untrue. I wouldn't stop them even if I could.
If our preferred candidate doesn't win the election, I hope we are both wrong about the consequences. If you see what I mean.
-
I could list things that people on the 'other side' have done and said that I'm sure you would find objectionable and plenty of things they've said which are objectively untrue. Other social and traditional media platforms publish content that I find both threatening and offensive, and much that I believe to be untrue. I wouldn't stop them even if I could.
If our preferred candidate doesn't win the election, I hope we are both wrong about the consequences. If you see what I mean.
Which would be whataboutery - the point is that I have no trust in someone, Musk and Trumo, who obviously lie, about such things as free speech. And are happy to incite violence, and to publish incitement to violence.
I wouldn't vote Democrat either had I a vote.
-
Musk 'bribing' voters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7o
-
Utterly bizarre from Trump
https://www.soapcentral.com/human-interest/news-what-donald-trump-say-arnold-palmer-pennsylvania-rally-comments-explored
-
Newsthump is always a hoot - if ever there was someone who was congenitally unsuited for high political office it is this fuckwit of a felon.
https://newsthump.com/2024/10/21/mcdonalds-praised-for-giving-work-experience-to-convicted-felon/?mc_cid=9935237333&mc_eid=ee8be6ec71
-
Labour volunteers helping Harris 'in spare time'.
I doubt Farage paid for his accomodation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62m2pde4p6o
-
Interesting essay by Nate Silver, whose gut is in the same place as mine on this.
https://archive.vn/9P1iB
-
Mine too. A very uncomfortable feeling.
-
Harris calls Trump a fascist. I sadly agree with Trump here that it's a sign of desperation. In a close race, it's not appealing to wavering voters to say that one of the choices that they might be considering is a fascist because it translates into 'you are a fascist'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dp7xnyr51o
-
Harris calls Trump a fascist. I sadly agree with Trump here that it's a sign of desperation. In a close race, it's not appealing to wavering voters to say that one of the choices that they might be considering is a fascist because it translates into 'you are a fascist'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dp7xnyr51o
If it were hyperbole I'd agree with you, and unfortunately given that the American elections in recent years have been so prone to it this seems like just more of the same, but to take Merriam-Webster's definition (as an example):
a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)
Of that, the only bit you can argue strongly about, perhaps, is the economic regimentation. Trump, and his Project 2025 loonbags want to fire everyone from the Federal government that isn't loyal to Trump, to deny rights to women, gay people, the trans community and, by implication if not as explicitly, minorities and non-whites.
If you have to make the point that technically because of their economic commitment to subsidising oligarchs they're not an exact match for the Nazis, they're fascist enough for it to be a fair commentary.
O.
-
Of course, the fact that it is a sign of desperation doesn't make it untrue.
-
If it were hyperbole I'd agree with you, and unfortunately given that the American elections in recent years have been so prone to it this seems like just more of the same, but to take Merriam-Webster's definition (as an example):
a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)
Of that, the only bit you can argue strongly about, perhaps, is the economic regimentation. Trump, and his Project 2025 loonbags want to fire everyone from the Federal government that isn't loyal to Trump, to deny rights to women, gay people, the trans community and, by implication if not as explicitly, minorities and non-whites.
If you have to make the point that technically because of their economic commitment to subsidising oligarchs they're not an exact match for the Nazis, they're fascist enough for it to be a fair commentary.
O.
The argument from many people who might vote Republican is that the Democrats are the party of greater centralisation, and less about the freedom of the individual. So by the definition there they would see the Democrats as fitting it more than the Republicans.
-
Of course, the fact that it is a sign of desperation doesn't make it untrue.
is it true that those thinking of maybe voting Republican are fascist? Because as covered that's what those swithering votes will hear. Trump's a demagogue but I Don's see thar it's about a centralised govt and greater rehimentation. After all the party talking about the restriction of the first amendment are the Democrats.
-
The argument from many people who might vote Republican is that the Democrats are the party of greater centralisation, and less about the freedom of the individual.
Centralisation isn't authoritarianism, though, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding the term. That many Republican supporters might complete morons doesn't mean that Harris shouldn't be calling the great orange twatwaffle exactly what he is - and, let's not forget, this isn't coming out of nowhere, this is coming on the back of yet another of his military chiefs of staff making the case that he's a fascist, and her being asked about it.
O.
-
Centralisation isn't authoritarianism, though, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding the term. That many Republican supporters might complete morons doesn't mean that Harris shouldn't be calling the great orange twatwaffle exactly what he is - and, let's not forget, this isn't coming out of nowhere, this is coming on the back of yet another of his military chiefs of staff making the case that he's a fascist, and her being asked about it.
O.
Your definition included centralisation though so you would seem be cherry picking. And again, if you are talking about individual freedom, there is a clear argument that Trump could be seem as more supportive of that than Harris.
Trump is dangerous not because he is an ideologue but because he isn't.
-
Trump appearing.on the Joe Rogan podcast. Interesting analysis of strategies used in the campaigns.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4dnv91p7o
-
Newsthump is always a hoot - if ever there was someone who was congenitally unsuited for high political office it is this fuckwit of a felon.
https://newsthump.com/2024/10/21/mcdonalds-praised-for-giving-work-experience-to-convicted-felon/?mc_cid=9935237333&mc_eid=ee8be6ec71
Could this be the role he was born to make his own? :
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=95cc13df2b5b08db0816e77108325588971325b3ce33d465c0e8ba9e986a078aJmltdHM9MTcyOTgxNDQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=19e5401e-df68-68a9-025f-553dde5669a8&psq=Private+Eye+latest+&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJpdmF0ZS1leWUuY28udWsvY3VycmVudC1pc3N1ZQ&ntb=1
-
Fascist enough I think:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/25/donald-trump-next-president-fascist
-
Fascist enough I think:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/25/donald-trump-next-president-fascist
And I see nothing more than than everyone I don't like is fascist. That first paragraph where he puts up irrelevant accusations to poison the well.
It's the same lazy rhetoric as calling the Democrats communists, and yet again plays into making the swithering voters who just hear themselves being called fascists, and that's why it appears to me that the Democrats will lose.
The Democrats are the ones talking about restricting the first amendment.
Both parties seem to me taking positions I would never vote for. And the lazy attempts at slurs from both just underline that.
ETA I feel the Democrats lost by having Biden as the candidate when he.obviously wasn't fit.
-
The Democrats are the ones talking about restricting the first amendment.
I don't think the First Amendment hoo-ha is restricted to the Democrats:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4935068-politicians-undermine-free-expression/
Frankly, I find your approach to this bewildering. Still feels fascist enough to me.
Given a choice between Trump and Harris, I can't see why you wouldn't vote for Harris. She's not ideal, I get that, but given the choice?
I don't like the idea of a lying, criminal, woman-abusing, racist, claims to be Christian (lie), degenerate, foul-mouthed, enfeebled man leading the USA.
That's just me though. You do you.
-
I don't think the First Amendment hoo-ha is restricted to the Democrats:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4935068-politicians-undermine-free-expression/
Frankly, I find your approach to this bewildering. Still feels fascist enough to me.
Given a choice between Trump and Harris, I can't see why you wouldn't vote for Harris. She's not ideal, I get that, but given the choice?
I don't like the idea of a lying, criminal, woman-abusing, racist, claims to be Christian (lie), degenerate, foul-mouthed, enfeebled man leading the USA.
That's just me though. You do you.
I don't like the idea of Trump leading either. I think he's dangerous not because he is a fascist but because he's a demagogue with no principles.
I don't like the idea of Harris leading because she was content till others spoke up to have Biden, who was obviously incapable, as the candidate, and is content to have him continue as President, when he's obviously incapable. She's not a demagogue but she appears to have no policy and has flip flopped continuously.
It's an utterly disastrous choice for the US.and us.
Trump's attack on the first amendment is because he doesn',t think anything about democracy os important and is an off the cuff remark - which illustrates why he is dangerous but not fascist.
The Democrats concerted attack on the first amendment by various elite functionaries within it seem much more likely to be be implemented.
-
Been re-watching the original British 'The Office', and realised that Trump reminds me of David Brent [ both narcissistic and completely lacking in self-knowledge with a vastly inflated opinion of their abilities; both crudely sexist; both have irritating mannerisms; and one's got a stupid hairstyle while the others got a stupid beard.
-
Jonathan Freedland on whether Trump s a fascist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/25/donald-trump-next-president-fascist
-
Jonathan Freedland on whether Trump s a fascist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/25/donald-trump-next-president-fascist
Aruntraveller linked to this in #629, and I replied to it. Trump is not an ideologue, and I don't think that makes him less dangerous but more so. But using the term fascist here is dangerous as well, as it will be heard on the minds of swithering voters as calling them fascist. The polarisation is politics is in part driven by the lazy use of such rhetoric.
-
Aruntraveller linked to this in #629, and I replied to it. Trump is not an ideologue, and I don't think that makes him less dangerous but more so. But using the term fascist here is dangerous as well, as it will be heard on the minds of swithering voters as calling them fascist. The polarisation is politics is in part driven by the lazy use of such rhetoric.
In "How Fascism Works" Jason Stanley wrote the following:
[A] cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation ... The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors.
Now that would seem to be a fair description of many of Trump's characteristics and rhetorical style. But I would agree with you that it would be very difficult to call Trump an idealogue, since his his sole raison d'etre is about his own precious self, and is just using a Republican platform as a convenient means to this end. Any lie, any inflammatory statement to fire up his 'enthusiasts', any pretended religious sympathies (in which he doesn't believe) are grist to his mill - the glorification of his egregious narcissism and unlimited lust for power. Nietzsche is still our best teacher here. The astonishing thing for me as that so many Republicans - who can't all be so thick or insane as Marjorie Taylor Greene* - are prepared to swallow all this. Perhaps it's because one remarkable thing about Trump is his capacity to lie and lie with such ineluctable energy, when most people would have simply backed down. And therefore his supporters think he must be telling the truth. (Putin of course has a similar capacity).
*Marjorie Taylor Greene, by contrast, is an idealogue. But so batshit crazy, she's always good for a laugh.
-
In "How Fascism Works" Jason Stanley wrote the following:
Now that would seem to be a fair description of many of Trump's characteristics and rhetorical style. But I would agree with you that it would be very difficult to call Trump an idealogue, since his his sole raison d'etre is about his own precious self, and is just using a Republican platform as a convenient means to this end. Any lie, any inflammatory statement to fire up his 'enthusiasts', any pretended religious sympathies (in which he doesn't believe) are grist to his mill - the glorification of his egregious narcissism and unlimited lust for power. Nietzsche is still our best teacher here. The astonishing thing for me as that so many Republicans - who can't all be so thick or insane as Marjorie Taylor Greene* - are prepared to swallow all this. Perhaps it's because one remarkable thing about Trump is his capacity to lie and lie with such ineluctable energy, when most people would have simply backed down. And therefore his supporters think he must be telling the truth. (Putin of course has a similar capacity).
*Marjorie Taylor Greene, by contrast, is an idealogue. But so batshit crazy, she's always good for a laugh.
If fascism is merely about demagoguery and lying then it's not an ideology. I think part of the problem is that many of those voting Republican see the Democrats as having failed, and ruined the economy, and lied - see Biden first being capable of being candidate for President, and then not, but still capable of being President. That combined with what feels like a world beset by war in which the President, and indeed the Vice President seem like bystanders, and there is much to think that things might be better with someone else in charge.
-
If fascism is merely about demagoguery and lying then it's not an ideology.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
Then no one can be a 'fascist'.
-
Then no one can be a 'fascist'.
I was looking through a list of possible definitions earlier, and it does seem particularly elusive. 'National Socialism' is easier, since it seems to blend into the kind of 'communism' evident in the former Soviet Union, something which glorifies the state above the individual, with a bigoted demagogue controlling the show.
That's not Trump, who would change his tune more often than I change my underpants (which is quite frequently :) ) if it suited his self-aggrandisement.
-
I was looking through a list of possible definitions earlier, and it does seem particularly elusive. 'National Socialism' is easier, since it seems to blend into the kind of 'communism' evident in the former Soviet Union, something which glorifies the state above the individual, with a bigoted demagogue controlling the show.
That's not Trump, who would change his tune more often than I change my underpants (which is quite frequently :) ) if it suited his self-aggrandisement.
Agree. It's one of the reasons why he is dangerous, and also why I think the fascist attacks are counterproductive.
-
Last night my husband and I watched a Panorama programme about Trump called 'Trump: A second chance?' It was very scary, Trump and his supporters are as far right as you can get, I fear there could be a civil war, which ever way the vote goes next week! :o
-
Last night my husband and I watched a Panorama programme about Trump called 'Trump: A second chance?' It was very scary, Trump and his supporters are as far right as you can get, I fear there could be a civil war, which ever way the vote goes next week! :o
Which policies of Trump, and the more than 75 million voters that he will get whether he wins or loses, do you regard ad 'as far right as you can get'?
-
A startling collection of photos from the US, to do with this election:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2024/oct/29/the-end-is-near-here-michael-dressel-photographs-from-the-fringes-of-us-society
-
A startling collection of photos from the US, to do with this election:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2024/oct/29/the-end-is-near-here-michael-dressel-photographs-from-the-fringes-of-us-society
Surely the problem is that the dystopian aspect means voting for more of the same - and the Democrats have had the President for 12 of the last 16 years - would be madness?
ETA - and I would see Trump as part of that more of the same.
-
the Democrats have had the President for 12 of the last 16 years
Slightly misleading - they've also had it for 12 of the last 24 years.
-
Slightly misleading - they've also had it for 12 of the last 24 years.
Not at all misleading. Factually correct.
-
Factually correct.
But misleading. Snapshot statistics often are.
-
But misleading. Snapshot statistics often are.
No, it's not misleading. It's a fact. If you think the Presidency is part of the way of making things better than past performance in recent times is relevant. Labour have been in govt for 13 of the last 27 years, was it misleading of Rachel Reeves to point out during the budget that the problems in investment in public services was due to 14 years of Tory govt?
-
Iowa poll has given a bit of a shake to the betting which had been swinging towards Trump to moving back to almost neck and neck
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shock-poll-puts-harris-ahead-in-iowa-as-vice-president-urges-americans-to-keep-calm-ala-in-saturday-night-live-appearance/ar-AA1tpnQX
-
Iowa poll has given a bit of a shake to the betting which had been swinging towards Trump to moving back to almost neck and neck
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shock-poll-puts-harris-ahead-in-iowa-as-vice-president-urges-americans-to-keep-calm-ala-in-saturday-night-live-appearance/ar-AA1tpnQX
Here's one more reason to hope Harris wins this.👇
-
One of the innumerable things that pisses me off about Trump is his habit of giving a clenched-fist salute. That gesture is associated with defiance by oppressed and marginalised groups, especially black people. For an elderly, white, obscenely rich, powerful and privileged man to use it is a studied insult to them.
https://eu.milforddailynews.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/01/09/fist-salute-rightly-belongs-social-progressives/6595052002/
-
Here's one more reason to hope Harris wins this.👇
I'm still waiting for Katie Hopkins to run naked down Regent Street with a sausage up her arse.
https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/07/everyone-wants-to-know-when-katie-hopkins-will-run-through-london-with-a-sausage-up-her-bum-5867479/
-
Elon Musk is allowed to continue giving away $1 million to voters who sign his petition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o
It seems his defence revolved around the fact that the lottery was not an illegal lottery because the prizes were not given out at random. i.e. they were fixing the results.
Anybody want to defend Elon Musk now?
-
One of the innumerable things that pisses me off about Trump is his habit of giving a clenched-fist salute. That gesture is associated with defiance by oppressed and marginalised groups, especially black people. For an elderly, white, obscenely rich, powerful and privileged man to use it is a studied insult to them.
https://eu.milforddailynews.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/01/09/fist-salute-rightly-belongs-social-progressives/6595052002/
Is it bollocks! Of all the cultural appropriation nonsense I've seen this may be the most idiotic.
-
Is it bollocks! Of all the cultural appropriation nonsense I've seen this may be the most idiotic.
What next? Extending the arm to 45% with the fingers outstretched as a sign of multicultural solidarity?
I wouldn't be surprised to see the orange bladder on a stick to start using that sometime though.
-
What next? Extending the arm to 45% with the fingers outstretched as a sign of multicultural solidarity?
I wouldn't be surprised to see the orange bladder on a stick to start using that sometime though.
So if he puts his fist up it's a deliberate insult to the workers and blacks but he's really wanting to give a Nazi salute. I think he's dangerous bit this sort of nonsense is a gift to him.
-
Is it bollocks! Of all the cultural appropriation nonsense I've seen this may be the most idiotic.
I too am usually pretty scornful of talk of "Cultural appropriation", but his raised fist struck me as simple cloth-eared bad taste, coming from him. I've even seen a photo of him giving it while wearing a black leather glove, like those two 70s black Olympic athletes, which is really taking the piss.
-
That's Ukraine fucked then.
-
America: Fucking dumbest nation on the planet. Plenty of turkeys voted for Christmas. Women voted to have their reproduction rights taken away from them, minorities voted to be discriminated against more, Hispanics voted to be rounded up and deported, and the less well off voted to have even less chance of getting decent medical care. They also voted to sell off parts of the government to tech bros and the Orange Turd will be straight on the blower to arrange a meeting to give some head to the paedo midget in the Kremlin. Basket case of a country.
-
America: Fucking dumbest nation on the planet. Plenty of turkeys voted for Christmas. Women voted to have their reproduction rights taken away from them, minorities voted to be discriminated against more, Hispanics voted to be rounded up and deported, and the less well off voted to have even less chance of getting decent medical care. They also voted to sell off parts of the government to tech bros and the Orange Turd will be straight on the blower to arrange a meeting to give some head to the paedo midget in the Kremlin. Basket case of a country.
That's one of the best things I've read here.
-
America: Fucking dumbest nation on the planet. Plenty of turkeys voted for Christmas. Women voted to have their reproduction rights taken away from them, minorities voted to be discriminated against more, Hispanics voted to be rounded up and deported, and the less well off voted to have even less chance of getting decent medical care. They also voted to sell off parts of the government to tech bros and the Orange Turd will be straight on the blower to arrange a meeting to give some head to the paedo midget in the Kremlin. Basket case of a country.
It is hard to understand.
But then as a country, we voted for Boris even with the full knowledge of his economical approach to the truth.
Some people want to be told that issues are straightforward and easy to solve and they believe it when it comes out of the mouths of people who allegedly have some sort of charisma (a charisma that bypasses me totally btw) and who tap into issues that are controversial, although a caveat here, "its the economy stupid". Biden/Harris didn't convince the electorate about their economic successes because people did not feel it in their pockets so Trump had a huge advantage with that issue, no matter that he will in all likelihood put the economy into the dumpster truck.
This morning, an interesting fact was discussed on TV about why the polls were so wrong. It seems 1 in 4 men would lie to their wives about how they voted. If they are prepared to lie to their loved ones then pollsters don't stand much of a chance.
-
..
-
It is hard to understand.
But then as a country, we voted for Boris even with the full knowledge of his economical approach to the truth.
Some people want to be told that issues are straightforward and easy to solve and they believe it when it comes out of the mouths of people who allegedly have some sort of charisma (a charisma that bypasses me totally btw) and who tap into issues that are controversial, although a caveat here, "its the economy stupid". Biden/Harris didn't convince the electorate about their economic successes because people did not feel it in their pockets so Trump had a huge advantage with that issue, no matter that he will in all likelihood put the economy into the dumpster truck.
This morning, an interesting fact was discussed on TV about why the polls were so wrong. It seems 1 in 4 men would lie to their wives about how they voted. If they are prepared to lie to their loved ones then pollsters don't stand much of a chance.
True, no doubt.
-
It is very depressing that they could be crazy enough to vote that evil idiot in again, the USA will soon be a dictatorship imo. >:(
-
.
-
This could have applied in 2016 as well as now.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H L Mencken
-
From Humanists UK on Facebook:
Across the globe this morning, people are waking up to news from the United States that may shock, sadden, and scare us.
Donald Trump's victory represents more than just a change in American leadership – it signals a real shift backwards for human rights and secular values that will reverberate far beyond US borders.
Already, evangelical groups across America are celebrating what they see as a mandate to roll back decades of progress on crucial human rights issues.
We've seen this playbook before, and we know what it means: renewed attacks on women's reproductive rights, LGBT equality, access to assisted dying, and the very foundations of secular democracy. But unlike 2016, Trump has all of the powers of the judiciary, Senate, and House of Representatives on his side. His word is law.
But unlike 2016, Trump has all of the powers of the judiciary, Senate, and House of Representatives on his side. His word is law.
Democracy and humanist values are under constant threat everywhere. But we at home can protect, promote, and preserve these values.
The influence of the American religious right extends far beyond their shores. Their organisations are well-funded, politically connected, and expert at exporting their agenda globally.
They provide financial support, legal expertise, and political cover to anti-human rights movements worldwide, including the UK. With the full backing of the US government, their ability to undermine human rights and secular values internationally will be dramatically amplified.
During Trump's previous term, we witnessed the devastating real-world impacts: gutting reproductive healthcare access, undermining of legal equality for LGBT people, appointing religious ideologues to crucial judicial positions, and the elevation of religious privilege over individual rights.
Now we face the prospect of this happening again, but potentially with even greater intensity.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. Across the globe, we're seeing a coordinated pushback against Enlightenment values, scientific reasoning, and human rights. The forces of unreason are indeed on the march, armed with misinformation and emboldened by each victory.
-
The (peaceful) resistance starts now. I certainly don't agree with every word of this, but the general tone is spot-on.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/06/election-trump-president-resistance-america
-
The (peaceful) resistance starts now. I certainly don't agree with every word of this, but the general tone is spot-on.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/06/election-trump-president-resistance-america
Very nice, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.
-
Very nice, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.
And is way to specific in terms of policy to work.
-
Hopefully, trying to find some sort of positive, this will force European nations to be more united and and assertive in its own values.
-
Very nice, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.
And is way to specific in terms of policy to work.
Well, I did say I didn't agree with all of it...
-
Be interesting so see what happens to the various legal cases involving him between now and when he is inaugurated. iirc he is due to be sentenced this month for the stuff he was found of.
-
Well, I did say I didn't agree with all of it...
It wasn't a criticism of you but that as an approach from Reich, it's the opposite of bipartisan which is what it would need to be.
-
Hopefully, trying to find some sort of positive, this will force European nations to be more united and and assertive in its own values.
But are those values substantially different from the US? Arguably there are clearer moves to the right in Europe than in the US, with perhaps the influence of Christian groups in the US being a difference
-
Rory McIlroy's take - it's good for golf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/articles/cwyxq53jx5no
-
But are those values substantially different from the US? Arguably there are clearer moves to the right in Europe than in the US, with perhaps the influence of Christian groups in the US being a difference
For sure, but the chance is there.
-
Women voted to have their reproduction rights taken away from them
I read somewhere that a woman can only get pregnant at a certain time during her cycle. So if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she can abstain for a bit. Much better than killing unborn children.
-
I read somewhere that a woman can only get pregnant at a certain time during her cycle. So if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she can abstain for a bit. Much better than killing unborn children.
Can you guess how many expletives I'm thinking of right now?
-
I don't want to depress anyone more than they already are, but this time the Senate is also Republican (the House remains to be seen), and the orange ogre can do what he likes more, since he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
-
I read somewhere that a woman can only get pregnant at a certain time during her cycle. So if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she can abstain for a bit. Much better than killing unborn children.
There's no such thing as an unborn child. If it's unborn, it's a foetus or an embryo. This is typical of the deceitful manipulation of language by the anti-abortion people, like "pro-life": I doubt if many of them are also vegan pacifist opponents of the death penalty.
-
Can you guess how many expletives I'm thinking of right now?
<img src="https://img.ifunny.co/images/a7b1bd7e108b709f5250985ab200dac1a617c23477f05360a8a98ebff8b43dc0_1.webp" alt="FUCK OFF. THEN KEEP FUCKING OFF. KEEP FUCKING OFF UNTIL YOU GET TO A GATE WITH A SIGN SAYING "YOU CANT FUCK OFF PAST HERE" CLIMB OVER THE GATE, DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM, AND KEEP FUCKING OFF FOREVER."/>
Was this the sort of thing you were looking for, it's what came immediately to mind for me.
O.
-
Can you guess how many expletives I'm thinking of right now?
I suspect I can because I'm probably in the same place.
-
There's no such thing as an unborn child. If it's unborn, it's a foetus or an embryo. This is typical of the deceitful manipulation of language by the anti-abortion people, like "pro-life": I doubt if many of them are also vegan pacifist opponents of the death penalty.
So when a pregnant women talks about the baby she is expecting, she's manipulating language? The problem with such debates is that obviously sides present the language in such a way to make their arguments sound more appealing so for either side to argue it's wrong is hypocritical.
-
The (peaceful) resistance starts now. I certainly don't agree with every word of this, but the general tone is spot-on.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/06/election-trump-president-resistance-america
Hmmm....
They couldn't stop him from gaining power. How are they going to stop him now he has all the power?
-
Rory McIlroy's take - it's good for golf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/articles/cwyxq53jx5no
Dear Mr McIlroy,
please keep your effing mouth shut. It's the end of democracy in the USA, but, hey, it's good for golf.
You twat.
-
I read somewhere that a woman can only get pregnant at a certain time during her cycle. So if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she can abstain for a bit. Much better than killing unborn children.
Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is?
-
Dear Mr McIlroy,
please keep your effing mouth shut. It's the end of democracy in the USA, but, hey, it's good for golf.
You twat.
I am reminded many many years ago at a hustings for a by election, the Tory candidate was asked about the potential of nuclear war, and he told a story about how he had been playing a round of golf in the previous week, and as he played a nine iron into the 16th green, he thought if there was nuclear war, it might be the last time he did that. The hustings almost breathed as one 'Wanker' - I think the same applies to McIlroy.
-
Dear Mr McIlroy,
please keep your effing mouth shut. It's the end of democracy in the USA, but, hey, it's good for golf.
You twat.
As Simon Schama said last night "50% [actually more than 50%] don't care about democracy". Insofar as they actually voted for the orange blob, they appear to have used democracy, but only to put in place someone who will soon start dismantling major aspects of the American constitution and screwing the legal system which accompanies it. Regarding Schama's lengthy diatribe against Trump last night, I suspect he may now need to watch his back (I think he lives in America now). What's the American equivalent of Novichok?
I suddenly feel biblical. I heard one of Mr. T's more enthusiastic supporters saying "I see Trump as the modern Moses leading us into the Promised Land". I suspect that many of the evangelical right are now only too convinced of such sentiments now. It must have been a very small number who reflected upon the scripture which they must have known only too well:
"Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Matthew 24, 15-16.
-
As Simon Schama said last night "50% [actually more than 50%] don't care about democracy". Insofar as they actually voted for the orange blob, they appear to have used democracy, but only to put in place someone who will soon start dismantling major aspects of the American constitution and screwing the legal system which accompanies it. Regarding Schama's lengthy diatribe against Trump last night, I suspect he may now need to watch his back (I think he lives in America now). What's the American equivalent of Novichok?
I suddenly feel biblical. I heard one of Mr. T's more enthusiastic supporters saying "I see Trump as the modern Moses leading us into the Promised Land". I suspect that many of the evangelical right are now only too convinced of such sentiments now. It must have been a very small number who reflected upon the scripture which they must have known only too well:
"Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Matthew 24, 15-16.
I saw Schama, and the idea that voting for Trump.is about not caring about democracy is simply wrong. You can think that many are mistaken, that they've been misleading but this blanket approach to those voters is damaging to the process.
-
I saw Schama, and the idea that voting for Trump.is about not caring about democracy is simply wrong. You can think that many are mistaken, that they've been misleading but this blanket approach to those voters is damaging to the process.
Why not call a moron a moron? Or is it a never tell a crazy person they're crazy thing?
-
It would appear that the American people have used their God given gift of free will to choose the lesser of two evils.
-
It would appear that the American people have used their God given gift of free will to choose the lesser of two evils.
What? By electing a fraudster, rapist, dictator admirer and a narcissist?
-
I saw Schama, and the idea that voting for Trump.is about not caring about democracy is simply wrong. You can think that many are mistaken, that they've been misleading but this blanket approach to those voters is damaging to the process.
Maybe Schama's blanket dismissal of Republicans was over the top. But I wonder just how many would follow Trump's own self-confessed dictum "If I win, I'll accept the result" (and if not, I'll try other means") Not quite democracy.
We've been there before, and the situation might have been worse. Charitably, one could say the Republicans turned out in such unprecedented numbers so as to make the result unequivocal without having to resort to violence and fake lawsuits. But I don't think so.
-
It would appear that the American people have used their God given gift of free will to choose the lesser of two evils.
What a damn stupid comment. You no doubt have in mind his cynical, politically-motivated opposition to abortion, but there are many issues in the world far more important and threatening that he's on the wrong side of.
-
Maybe Schama's blanket dismissal of Republicans was over the top. But I wonder just how many would follow Trump's own self-confessed dictum "If I win, I'll accept the result" (and if not, I'll try other means") Not quite democracy.
We've been there before, and the situation might have been worse. Charitably, one could say the Republicans turned out in such unprecedented numbers so as to make the result unequivocal without having to resort to violence and fake lawsuits. But I don't think so.
And those who resorted to other means we're a tiny minority of those who voted for Trump. It's not even correct to call them Republicans, they voted for the Republican candidate.
-
What? By electing a fraudster, rapist, dictator admirer and a narcissist?
Perhaps Alan has forgotten that Biden was the Catholic, and Harris appears to be some sort of believer - at least someone with rather more "Christian" credentials than Trump. The latter knows fuck all about Christianity, has never read the Bible (when asked, he couldn't cite one single text), but is happy to play up to his 'holy' image in the eyes of Evangelicals as long as it's useful to him.
-
There's no such thing as an unborn child. If it's unborn, it's a foetus or an embryo. This is typical of the deceitful manipulation of language by the anti-abortion people, like "pro-life": I doubt if many of them are also vegan pacifist opponents of the death penalty.
foetus, embryo, baby, child, teenager, adult ......
They are all man made labels used to describe different stages of human LIFE
-
Why not call a moron a moron? Or is it a never tell a crazy person they're crazy thing?
There will be 80 million or more people who will have voted for Trump. If you're approach is to call them morons or fascists, then all that says is telling them they are unimportant.
-
It would appear that the American people have used their God given gift of free will to choose the lesser of two evils.
So the President elect is evil.
-
There will be 80 million or more people who will have voted for Trump. If you're approach is to call them morons or fascists, then all that says is telling them they are unimportant.
But they are morons and/or fascists.
-
foetus, embryo, baby, child, teenager, adult ......
They are all man made labels used to describe different stages of human LIFE
Yes - I use twat for that as well.
-
But they are morons and/or fascists.
I knew a number who are neither.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev90d7wkk0o
I doubt some of his supporters will be happy with no 5 on the list.
-
I saw Schama, and the idea that voting for Trump.is about not caring about democracy is simply wrong. You can think that many are mistaken, that they've been misleading but this blanket approach to those voters is damaging to the process.
Everybody saw what happened on Jan 6th 2021. Voting for Tr*mp is not caring about democracy. It's over in the USA.
-
What? By electing a fraudster, rapist, dictator admirer and a narcissist?
You forgot "convicted felon" and "Putin puppet".
-
The voters decided that Trump fucked up Bigly by 2020 so we can’t be looking at an intellectual thing here.
May I suggest moral exhaustion.
A lot of people must imagine that he’ll be gone in 2028 or they’ll have the luxury to dismiss him.
-
It would appear that the American people have used their God given gift of free will to choose the lesser of two evils.
Although you can bet on an abortion service being available for ranking politicians, placements and bishops.
-
Spoke to a friend in the US last night - he said that the support for Trump, in spite of his known faults, is largely based on the feeling that he will handle the economy better than would the Democrats. It's all about $$$$$$ for some Americans.
-
Spoke to a friend in the US last night - he said that the support for Trump, in spite of his known faults, is largely based on the feeling that he will handle the economy better than would the Democrats. It's all about $$$$$$ for some Americans.
Put a minus in front of the dollar signs and that is what they are likely to end up with.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev90d7wkk0o
I doubt some of his supporters will be happy with no 5 on the list.
it's no. 3 that most worries me; climate change affects all of us, and needs global co-operation to combat it.
-
Spoke to a friend in the US last night - he said that the support for Trump, in spite of his known faults, is largely based on the feeling that he will handle the economy better than would the Democrats. It's all about $$$$$$ for some Americans.
And it's blatantly false. Republicans tend to crash the economy leaving it for Democrats to sort it out.
-
And it's blatantly false. Republicans tend to crash the economy leaving it for Democrats to sort it out.
It may be false in the sense that he won't protect the economy, but that wasn't Gordon's point. He said that support for Trump was based on the feeling that he would handle the economy better than the democrats. It is about perception rather than reality - and the reality is often based on situations way beyond the control of one administration in one country.
Across the world many incumbent governments (regardless of their economic political positions) are being hit because of the economy, inflation etc etc - but the fact that every country (well pretty well every country) has been hit by inflation post-COVID and post Ukraine etc suggests that these aren't factors influenced by individual government decisions. But the electorates tend not to notice or care - 'our cost of living is through the roof so we need to kick out the government'.
It is likely (let's hope) that global events will stabilise over the next few years (regardless of the actions on individual governments). If so both Trump and Starmer will be able to push the narrative that the country/economy was broken when we came to power and look at it now in 2028/9 - we fixed it.
-
It may be false in the sense that he won't protect the economy, but that wasn't Gordon's point. He said that support for Trump was based on the feeling that he would handle the economy better than the democrats. It is about perception rather than reality - and the reality is often based on situations way beyond the control of one administration in one country.
Yes. Your point?
-
Yes. Your point?
That people tend to vote on perception rather than reality. And that 'reality', if that means responsibility, is sometimes quite hard to pin down in political terms.
Was Brown responsible for the 2007/8 global financial crash - nope. Did he make efforts to protect the economy from it - yes. Did the electorate punish him because the economy was in poor shape in 2010 - yup.
Were Johnson/Truss/Sunak responsible for COVID/Ukraine - nope. Did he make efforts to protect the economy from them - yes. Did the electorate punish him because the economy was in poor shape in 2024 - yup.
Events, dear boy.
-
That people tend to vote on perception rather than reality. And that 'reality', if that means responsibility, is sometimes quite hard to pin down in political terms.
Was Brown responsible for the 2007/8 global financial crash - nope. Did he make efforts to protect the economy from it - yes. Did the electorate punish him because the economy was in poor shape in 2010 - yup.
Were Johnson/Truss/Sunak responsible for COVID/Ukraine - nope. Did he make efforts to protect the economy from them - yes. Did the electorate punish him because the economy was in poor shape in 2024 - yup.
Events, dear boy.
And yet some people were doing fantastically well throughout the Tory years as was the aim of austerity and brexit with the prospect of that being reinforced under successive Tory Governments and the Tory expectation of working harder for less in general and working less for more for the few.
-
And yet some people were doing fantastically well throughout the Tory years as was the aim of austerity and brexit with the prospect of that being reinforced under successive Tory Governments and the Tory expectation of working harder for less in general and working less for more for the few.
A few did, most didn't. I think the 2010-2024 period was just about the first on record when people's real-terms income fell (i.e. adjusted for inflation) from the beginning to the end of the government. And that was before taking account of tax burden.
And a few are unlikely to be able to tip the balance of an election, the many can.
-
it's no. 3 that most worries me; climate change affects all of us, and needs global co-operation to combat it.
That worries me too. :o
-
foetus, embryo, baby, child, teenager, adult ......
They are all man made labels used to describe different stages of human LIFE
Those who think as you do in the US and voted for Trump, will not be happy with his decision to allow women to have abortions, having previously said he would ban them!
-
And it's blatantly false. Republicans tend to crash the economy leaving it for Democrats to sort it out.
Since all of it is opinion, even if you think your opinion is better informed, calling it blatantly false, and using the word ten makes your point entirely specious, since your first sentence is a claim of fact. There are many people in the US who are worse off than they were in 2020, and you might try and argue that overall the economy is better but if you are struggling to pay basics that isn't very powerful.
-
Those who think as you do in the US and voted for Trump, will not be happy with his decision to allow women to have abortions, having previously said he would ban them!
His decision is not that he's saying that women can have abortions but that it is a decision for states rather than the federal govt.
-
"Of the lesser of two evils, he was the worst" - young British woman talking nonsense when interviewed by the BBC about Trump's win.
-
Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?
-
Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?
I did give a reason further up the thread. Research on men in the US showed that up to 1 in 4 of them would lie to their partners about how they would vote. If they can lie to their partners, I imagine they would have no qualms about lying to a polling organisation. That is more than enough to throw the polls off.
-
I did give a reason further up the thread. Research on men in the US showed that up to 1 in 4 of them would lie to their partners about how they would vote. If they can lie to their partners, I imagine they would have no qualms about lying to a polling organisation. That is more than enough to throw the polls off.
So a slightly specialised version of shy Republicans.
-
Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?
I suspect more 'suspicious than shy. That certain parts of the Republican support are less responsive because they see pools as part of the 'deep state'.
-
Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?
I'm not sure the polls did get it so wrong.
Most polls had the swing states tied within the margin of error of the polling (which is usually +/-3%), so typically all showed the results in these states as about Harris +2% through to Trump +2%. So in reality the polls failed to pick up a small (about 2%) bias in favour of Trump in the actual results. In most cases this would be seen as within their margin of error and wouldn't largely impact the result. But when those swing states were so marginal this made the difference between Harris winning and Trump taking all 7 swing states.
-
Statement from Bernie Sanders
-
Project 2025 - not at all unhinged:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/project-2025-kevin-roberts-book-burning-fbi-new-york-times
-
Since all of it is opinion, even if you think your opinion is better informed, calling it blatantly false, and using the word ten makes your point entirely specious, since your first sentence is a claim of fact. There are many people in the US who are worse off than they were in 2020, and you might try and argue that overall the economy is better but if you are struggling to pay basics that isn't very powerful.
It's fact
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans
-
It's fact
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans
I've read that our economy does better under Labour than under the Tores, and not just since 2010, but I haven't got a link to the article, I'm afraid.
-
It's fact
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans
You seem confused. You said that 'it was blatantly false' for someone having a feeling that the economy might do better under the Republicans in thus four year period, which means you were claiming it as a fact that it wouldn't. You can't then cite a 'tendency' as a fact about what will happen, and it doesn't deal with people feeling worse off than they were four years ago.
-
I've read that our economy does better under Labour than under the Tores, and not just since 2010, but I haven't got a link to the article, I'm afraid.
There's a number of different analyses but this one is interesting
https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368
-
It was all Biden's fault, says Pelosi
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo
-
It was all Biden's fault, says Pelosi
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo
No. It was partly his fault, sure, but I would argue that a failure to counter Trump on the economy and immigration played a bigger role.
-
No. It was partly his fault, sure, but I would argue that a failure to counter Trump on the economy and immigration played a bigger role.
The Biden line works for someone trying to make this a one off but it's also pretty rich coming from Pelosi
The responsibility for putting up a candidate incapable of running due to mental decline, and then keeping them in.role as President lies with the Democrat party not just Biden. And Pelisi is a significant voice in that. Her J'accuse should be done in front of a mirror.
I agree with your reasons why yhey failed but would add that foreign policy was also important. In both Ukraine and Gaza, the US had become a bystander bit somehow deeply involved. It did not look like a powerful nation.
-
foetus, embryo, baby, child, teenager, adult ......
They are all man made labels used to describe different stages of human LIFE
As one of the few people on this board who has been pregnant, I feel I should speak up rather than skip this. The mother is also a human LIFE and pregnancy puts her LIFE at risk in a way that it does not put a man's life at risk.
Speaking of men - more and more evidence is emerging that a large proportion of young teenagers and women are pressured, groomed, coerced, dominated, assaulted, abused and raped by men, which could result in unwanted pregnancies, so presumably you agree it makes moral sense for you to prioritise your energies to stopping men from persuading, pressuring, coercing or grooming women into having sex with them in the first place that then results in these unwanted pregnancies? Once you have managed to change the behaviour of men, this will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the need for women to have abortions due to men's behaviour. Currently this behaviour seems to have been rewarded in the USA by Trump being elected President.
If the sex was consensual and not due to pressure, coercion, rape etc and neither the man nor the woman exercised restraint so as not to risk an unwanted pregnancy, abortion seems to be permitted because it would be unfair to force a mother to go through the risks of pregnancy and childbirth while the other party to the conception, the father, does not suffer the same risks.
Apart from the obvious risks such as death during childbirth, there are also other routine health and social issues that cannot currently be predicted or prevented e.g. tears between the vagina and anus that can lead to incontinence, pregnancy diabetes, hormone fluctuations that can cause post-natal depression and sometimes psychosis, domestic abuse, lack of financial contribution or child care from the father or society so that the mother can work/ financially and emotionally support herself and the child without resorting to handouts, begging, prostitution or crime etc.
No one arguing for banning abortion seems to have demonstrated why the life of a foetus is more important than the health and ongoing issues faced by the mother, given the father faces no such risks nor is required by society to change his behaviour.
-
The Democrats and their assumption of getting younger voters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mzl7zygpmo
-
I've been communicating with some of my US friends. None of you know this person, but I know from how this is written she is mightily angry. I have no idea of the veracity of her words but having known her for 51 years I have very little reason to doubt them:
We knew that the vote was going to be close, but I had no idea that he would win with that significant margin. I don’t trust the election process right now for all the things that they did to make sure that the black vote was underrepresented. They redrew district lines and shut down polls in rural areas making it difficult for people to vote.
We don’t agree with anything that person has said since 2015 and I can’t believe how prejudiced our nation is that they wouldn’t vote for a Black woman.
-
I've been communicating with some of my US friends. None of you know this person, but I know from how this is written she is mightily angry. I have no idea of the veracity of her words but having known her for 51 years I have very little reason to doubt them:
So another stolen election but this time by the other side? Surely this just reflects the division in the US and a general lack of belief in authority?
ETA - There are those in the Trump side arguing that the reduction in overall vote numbers is evidence that the 2020 election was a fix.
-
So another stolen election but this time by the other side? Surely this just reflects the division in the US and a general lack of belief in authority?
It's difficult to explain how disturbing this is. The woman who wrote this is a very level-headed person, not a registered Democrat, and has in the past voted for candidates other than from the main two parties. She now has a black son-in-law who has, I think, opened her eyes to some of the racism that she has missed through her life. Not that she was racist, but rather like a lot of us didn't realise the extent of racism bubbling along under the surface. As I say, I have no reason to doubt her words.
-
It's difficult to explain how disturbing this is. The woman who wrote this is a very level-headed person, not a registered Democrat, and has in the past voted for candidates other than from the main two parties. She now has a black son-in-law who has, I think, opened her eyes to some of the racism that she has missed through her life. Not that she was racist, but rather like a lot of us didn't realise the extent of racism bubbling along under the surface. As I say, I have no reason to doubt her words.
That she thinks that is obviously not doubted but thar doesn't amount to evidence that the election was stolen.
-
Bill Maher on the Democrats and their reaction to the loss
https://youtu.be/BtCK-dMb-F8?si=lMxn83UaStbNi3VV
-
You seem confused. You said that 'it was blatantly false' for someone having a feeling that the economy might do better under the Republicans in thus four year period, which means you were claiming it as a fact that it wouldn't. You can't then cite a 'tendency' as a fact about what will happen, and it doesn't deal with people feeling worse off than they were four years ago.
It's fact. Democrat administrations do better than Republican ones on the economy. You might not like it, but it is true.
-
It's fact. Democrat administrations do better than Republican ones on the economy. You might not like it, but it is true.
It's nothing to with what either of us like. It's about voters in the US feeling they were worse off than 4 years and voting for something different.
-
Some interesting stuff on the religious vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g1zvgj4do