Best Of

.

I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.

Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.

Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates

What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.

Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.

No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups

What a naive view.

Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.

Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.

If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.

All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.

I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.

My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.

Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided

My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.

Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.

Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.

I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.

That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK

"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home"
That's right?

If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them

1 - People change
2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions
3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light

Your stance rejects all of the above.
My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you.
For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.

For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.

To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.

I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.

Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.

Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so

You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.

Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.

The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun

Wrong.

America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.

Not a traditional view of the family.

And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.

One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.

Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.

Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.

All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.

Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal

For his day he bloody well was.

Overturning the money tables and the whole eye of the needle thing. Wanting to feed the hungry, help the poor, heal the sick.

He was incredibly woke for his era.

Wokeism is ultra pro LGBTQ+, pro division on race and sexuality lines with a particular rejection of white heterosexual male 'privilege' and uber feminist (albeit with some clash with them and the equally woke uber trans).

It is perfectly possible for big corporations to be very woke and many now are and for a poor man to be socially conservative and anti woke. Hence Harris won lots of executives from the former and Trump lots of the latter

A good way to resolve this is to ask ourselves, if Jesus came again to us now, would he watch Ch4 news and take the Guardian? I sense he would.

A bit of an Anglocentric worldview there.

Yes fair cop. I was assuming that if He comes again it will be to Britain. But why would he? There's no need now we have a Labour government.

God is, of course, an Englishman.

Which gives his son citizenship, I believe?

We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.

She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.

She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?

Well said, and I'm so sorry for her situation.

Nobody should be forced against their will to live in misery like that.

This Bill is a good starting point but it does not remotely go far enough. The six month rule should be eliminated. I hope it gets amended out.

I think we should have the capacity to direct our future care now, when we are mentally competent. We can direct that we receive no medication other than pain relief, that in the event of us losing mental capacity we do not want to be revived, that if we become physically incompetent to care for ourselves that we should receive no more care than is necessary for us to become comfortable and, subject to appropriate safeguards, if we become mentally incompetent we are to be given a fatal dose of something painless.

I would sign such a document now, in a heart beat. I would not want to live the way my mother in law does. I think I should have the right to make these choices and for them to be binding on future medical practitioners. My critique of this bill is that it does not go nearly far enough and does not address our real problems. Perhaps it will be a trial where difficulties can be ironed out but in my earlier sixties I am impatient for this to be resolved. Looking at my mother in law with genuine affection and compassion is scary.

.

I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.

Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.

Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates

What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.

Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.

No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups

What a naive view.

Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.

Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.

If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.

All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.

I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.

My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.

Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided

My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.

Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.

Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.

I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.

That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK

"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home"
That's right?

If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them

1 - People change
2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions
3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light

Your stance rejects all of the above.
My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you.
For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.

For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.

To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.

I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.

Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.

Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so

You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.

Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.

The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun

Wrong.

America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.

Not a traditional view of the family.

And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.

One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.

Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.

Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.

All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.

Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal

.

I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.

Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.

Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates

What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.

Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.

No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups

What a naive view.

Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.

Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.

If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.

All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.

I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.

My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.

Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided

My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.

Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.

Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.

I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.

That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK

"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home"
That's right?

If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them

1 - People change
2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions
3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light

Your stance rejects all of the above.
My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you.
For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.

For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.

To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.

I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.

Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.

Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so

You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.

Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.

The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun

Wrong.

America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.

Not a traditional view of the family.

And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.

One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.

Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.

Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.

All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.

Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal

Polling terribly, ratings down the toilet, all those broken promises before they were elected.
Time to bash benefit scroungers in the Mail!

https://x.com/toryfibs/status/1860439896105558401?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.

There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:

https://bsky.app/profile/labourlewis.bsky.social/post/3lbiiht5u7c2z

I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.

I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?

Writes a Liz Truss fanboi.

N.B. Although you have a point, this Government is a bit s***. Not for hounding farmers out of their multi million pound inheritances but doing next to nothing to alleviate one-in-three child poverty and nothing about homelessness and vagrancy.

What an absolute farce COP is, excerpts from BBC

China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.

As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.

Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.

The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".

Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though

What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?

He has already agreed it and accepted the communique

Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.

Not everyone by some distance

Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there

But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?

Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?

Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from

And all the others don't?

That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?

Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.

Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid

How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers

Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.

Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.

This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.

It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.

Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.

A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.

I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.

I would put a few strings on it though:

1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent
2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK.
3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc

No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.

You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R19I8rdyR4

China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.

China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.

The mistake here is to think of the Chinese as a unitary government. Despite the dictatorship of Xi, much policy (especially domestic) is decided between his barons.

So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.

It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.

At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.

Sky reporting Argentina have withdrawn from COP 29 following a telephone call between Trump and Argentina's Milei

https://news.sky.com/story/argentina-walks-away-from-cop29-amid-fears-trump-may-pull-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal-13253961

Ten or fifteen years ago, Musk was seen as a hero by many in the green movement. Many of whom also bought his cars when Tesla really needed the sales.

I wonder how they feel now?

There seems to be a big market in bumper stickers along the lines of, "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy." I think that gives some indication of how they feel.

Tesla sales are down 24% in California this year. I do wonder if he's managing to piss of liberal car purchasers without attracting conservative ones.

And, not to worry. The thing will fall apart before too long so it won't be an embarrassment forever.

Don't worry about Tesla. Trump is going to axe subsidies to buy EVs. As Tesla are already profitable selling cars cheaply and their competitors are not, the analysts are reporting this as very good news for Tesla.

Musk may be a bastard, but he's a smart bastard. This gamble to go all in on Trump will turn out to be one of the most inspires of punts.

He has said himself that he is upset about his trans child disowning him, so then he vowed to take on the 'woke mind virus'. The other point often overlooked, is that the liberals would never accept him; in most circumstances he would have been cancelled by now due to the issues set out in the link below. I think these are points that have just driven him to supporting Trump, so much so it may have been a decisive factor in the outcome of the election.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elon-musk-misconduct-allegations.html