I remember back in February when PJohnson was on here pushing the line that Russia was winning and it's best Ukraine rolls over.
The last few months have not really supported that view. If only PJohnson was still here to defend these view. I'm sure as a reasonable person they have probably now changed their mind in the face of the evidence.
Yes Russia suffered setbacks but sadly they are now winning in the donbass hence the conciliatory noises now being made in the west
I think peak ukrainian resistance is over
Yes I actually think it would be better if Ukraine surrenders.. their defeat is inevitable
Putin going for the win tonite [ 25th February ]
Breaking news all routes out of Kiev blocked by the russians
This is "greatest hits" territory and they were only here for 90 comments. Epic.
You obviously remember this guy well so well you recall his exact quotes, but remember things change, Ukraine got armed by the west and pushed back then the Russians regrouped and started to make gains again in the east But the cost in misery and human lives has been immense,, pray for the ukrainians
No we must pray for the Russians. Their souls are in extreme peril, and we must pray for them to repent of their evil.
By the way, this is the EASY bit for Russia. Occupying a country of 40+ million people who hate and despise you is essentially impossible, that would suck Russia dry.
The best thing for Russia, I'm sure @GaryL would agree, would be for them to avoid the deaths of thousands of young men and the impoverishment of their country.
And how can they avoid such an outcome? Ah yes, Russia can withdraw from Ukraine.
I agree for the whole country but I certainly think Russia could hold the eastern part And unfortunately we don't have the power to order Russia to withdraw from Ukraine
Quite the come down from three months ago Maybe it might as well go for broke invade Eastern Europe see where the chips land
Come back in August, and it'll be Maybe Russia can hold most of the country east of the Urals?
I still don't get why Putin went for Kiev. Hubris I suppose.
Same folly as most dictators. He believed his own propaganda.
Western elites are clearly losing their resolve as Putin calculated they would
Not at all. Didn't you see the Polish PM in Kyiv today, promising whatever it takes?
You may not be aware that we have a free press, so newspapers here are not just government mouth pieces like in your country, so publish a variety of opinions.
Poland is not the major player in this as I'm sure you know uk USA France and Germany are key countries I don't regard Poland as part of the western elite
I know. They are just baby Slavs who should bow down to the glory of Great Russia. That's the Kremlin line isn't it?
Don't think that is an argument maybe it's time to have a look in more shopping trollies for inspiration
Yeah, perhaps you could update us on the empty shopping trollies in St Petersberg?
I see the youngsters there are getting restive. How far off is the storming of the Winter Palace?
Young, urban Russians attend a concert in St. Petersburg.
The entire crowd is chanting “F the war”.
One of the few occasions to voice dissent without getting arrested.
Young urban Russians there are equivalent to 20 something woke islingtonians in the uk and just as unrepresentative
Young urban Russians with any get up and go are getting up and going. The most lasting consequence of the "special military operation" will be the next generation of people who might have got Russia out of a hole no longer identifying as Russian.
Western elites are clearly losing their resolve as Putin calculated they would
Not at all. Didn't you see the Polish PM in Kyiv today, promising whatever it takes?
You may not be aware that we have a free press, so newspapers here are not just government mouth pieces like in your country, so publish a variety of opinions.
Poland is not the major player in this as I'm sure you know uk USA France and Germany are key countries I don't regard Poland as part of the western elite
I know. They are just baby Slavs who should bow down to the glory of Great Russia. That's the Kremlin line isn't it?
Don't think that is an argument maybe it's time to have a look in more shopping trollies for inspiration
Yeah, perhaps you could update us on the empty shopping trollies in St Petersberg?
I see the youngsters there are getting restive. How far off is the storming of the Winter Palace?
Young, urban Russians attend a concert in St. Petersburg.
The entire crowd is chanting “F the war”.
One of the few occasions to voice dissent without getting arrested.
Western elites are clearly losing their resolve as Putin calculated they would
Not at all. Didn't you see the Polish PM in Kyiv today, promising whatever it takes?
You may not be aware that we have a free press, so newspapers here are not just government mouth pieces like in your country, so publish a variety of opinions.
Poland is not the major player in this as I'm sure you know uk USA France and Germany are key countries I don't regard Poland as part of the western elite
I know. They are just baby Slavs who should bow down to the glory of Great Russia. That's the Kremlin line isn't it?
Don't think that is an argument maybe it's time to have a look in more shopping trollies for inspiration
Yeah, perhaps you could update us on the empty shopping trollies in St Petersberg?
I see the youngsters there are getting restive. How far off is the storming of the Winter Palace?
Young, urban Russians attend a concert in St. Petersburg.
The entire crowd is chanting “F the war”.
One of the few occasions to voice dissent without getting arrested.
Young urban Russians there are equivalent to 20 something woke islingtonians in the uk and just as unrepresentative
Young urban Russians with any get up and go are getting up and going. The most lasting consequence of the "special military operation" will be the next generation of people who might have got Russia out of a hole no longer identifying as Russian.
Don't worry, all the old babushkas in the middle of nowhere will keep waving their Putin photos as Russia fails around them, and as they wonder why the shops are empty and why their grandson seems to have disappeared.
By the way, this is the EASY bit for Russia. Occupying a country of 40+ million people who hate and despise you is essentially impossible, that would suck Russia dry.
The best thing for Russia, I'm sure @GaryL would agree, would be for them to avoid the deaths of thousands of young men and the impoverishment of their country.
And how can they avoid such an outcome? Ah yes, Russia can withdraw from Ukraine.
I agree for the whole country but I certainly think Russia could hold the eastern part And unfortunately we don't have the power to order Russia to withdraw from Ukraine
Quite the come down from three months ago Maybe it might as well go for broke invade Eastern Europe see where the chips land
Come back in August, and it'll be Maybe Russia can hold most of the country east of the Urals?
I still don't get why Putin went for Kiev. Hubris I suppose.
Because he wants to remove Ukraine from the map. Fascists love a bit of lebensraum.
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
RIGA, Latvia — When Russian authorities blocked hundreds of Internet sites in March, Konstantin decided to act. The 52-year-old company manager in Moscow tore a hole in the Digital Iron Curtain, which had been erected to control the narrative of the war in Ukraine, with a tool that lets him surf blocked sites and eyeball taboo news.
Konstantin turned to a virtual private network, an encrypted digital tunnel commonly known as a VPN. Since the war began in late February, VPNs have been downloaded in Russia by the hundreds of thousands a day, a massive surge in demand that represents a direct challenge to President Vladimir Putin and his attempt to seal Russians off from the wider world. By protecting the locations and identities of users, VPNs are now granting millions of Russians access to blocked material.
Mikhail Klimarev, who heads an opposition group ssociated with Navalny, estimates that "the number of VPN users in Russia has risen to roughly 30 percent of the 100 million Internet users in Russia. "
By the way, this is the EASY bit for Russia. Occupying a country of 40+ million people who hate and despise you is essentially impossible, that would suck Russia dry.
The best thing for Russia, I'm sure @GaryL would agree, would be for them to avoid the deaths of thousands of young men and the impoverishment of their country.
And how can they avoid such an outcome? Ah yes, Russia can withdraw from Ukraine.
I agree for the whole country but I certainly think Russia could hold the eastern part And unfortunately we don't have the power to order Russia to withdraw from Ukraine
Quite the come down from three months ago Maybe it might as well go for broke invade Eastern Europe see where the chips land
Come back in August, and it'll be Maybe Russia can hold most of the country east of the Urals?
I still don't get why Putin went for Kiev. Hubris I suppose.
TBF he wasn't the only person who didn't realize the invasion would fail the way it did. A lot of well-informed people seem to have assumed the Ukrainian government would either collapse like Afghanistan or evacuate to Lviv and leave Putin with his half. Some things are just hard to know until you try them.
I'm off to bed now rcs so if I don't reply again its not rudeness,,and no I have no idea about my IP maybe it's a mistake Have a good day my good friend
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
Nice flattery.
But how about you explain why your IP address (which you can find by Googling "what's my IP address") is in the Spamhaus database?
To get there, one of two things is normally the case:
(1) Your day job is sending unsolicited emails or (2) You are accessing the Internet via a compromised PC
Of course, you could just be stupendously unlucky and it is the case that your own machine has been compromised. In which case, I'd advise you to backup any files you need to a USB drive, and then reformat your hard drive and start over.
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
We don’t have any western elites around here since Charles stormed off in a huff because somebody outed his Aunt Fanny.
By the way, this is the EASY bit for Russia. Occupying a country of 40+ million people who hate and despise you is essentially impossible, that would suck Russia dry.
The best thing for Russia, I'm sure @GaryL would agree, would be for them to avoid the deaths of thousands of young men and the impoverishment of their country.
And how can they avoid such an outcome? Ah yes, Russia can withdraw from Ukraine.
I agree for the whole country but I certainly think Russia could hold the eastern part And unfortunately we don't have the power to order Russia to withdraw from Ukraine
But I thought that Putin had already been confined to quarters by the Generals and the Oligarchs. Putin's Russia is already in retreat.
It is time for Russia to reclaim her place in the real world under a new leader.
The UnHerd piece I posted earlier is one of the best essays I've read for many months. [The one slightly silly thing in it was the bit about "evidence based medicine" which caused someone below to say they weren't going to read any more of it].
Some special golf being played in Oklahoma this evening.
Some bloody awful golf, more like. Poor old Mito, leading all day, needing par to win and finding the water on the last hole. Young & Fitzpatrick also threw away winning chances.
Some special golf being played in Oklahoma this evening.
Some bloody awful golf, more like. Poor old Mito, leading all day, needing par to win and finding the water on the last hole. Young & Fitzpatrick also threw away winning chances.
Getting over the line is difficult.
Amazing shot by Thomas on the second play-off hole. Now, can he close the deal where Pereira couldn’t?
By the way, this is the EASY bit for Russia. Occupying a country of 40+ million people who hate and despise you is essentially impossible, that would suck Russia dry.
The best thing for Russia, I'm sure @GaryL would agree, would be for them to avoid the deaths of thousands of young men and the impoverishment of their country.
And how can they avoid such an outcome? Ah yes, Russia can withdraw from Ukraine.
I agree for the whole country but I certainly think Russia could hold the eastern part And unfortunately we don't have the power to order Russia to withdraw from Ukraine
Quite the come down from three months ago Maybe it might as well go for broke invade Eastern Europe see where the chips land
Come back in August, and it'll be Maybe Russia can hold most of the country east of the Urals?
I still don't get why Putin went for Kiev. Hubris I suppose.
Because he wants to remove Ukraine from the map. Fascists love a bit of lebensraum.
Russia is hardly short of raum.
"Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!" - Stalin, 1945.
Some special golf being played in Oklahoma this evening.
Some bloody awful golf, more like. Poor old Mito, leading all day, needing par to win and finding the water on the last hole. Young & Fitzpatrick also threw away winning chances.
Playing golf might be interesting but I've never understood the attraction of watching it. 😊
Some special golf being played in Oklahoma this evening.
Some bloody awful golf, more like. Poor old Mito, leading all day, needing par to win and finding the water on the last hole. Young & Fitzpatrick also threw away winning chances.
Playing golf might be interesting but I've never understood the attraction of watching it. 😊
Some special golf being played in Oklahoma this evening.
Some bloody awful golf, more like. Poor old Mito, leading all day, needing par to win and finding the water on the last hole. Young & Fitzpatrick also threw away winning chances.
Playing golf might be interesting but I've never understood the attraction of watching it. 😊
You can bet on it.
Justin Thomas has won the US PGA. Second favourite at the start but 700/1 in-running.
I'm off to bed now rcs so if I don't reply again its not rudeness,,and no I have no idea about my IP maybe it's a mistake Have a good day my good friend
I too am off to bed (UK) but your use of language reminds me of a previous poster who bleated on about the problems this unjust war might cause the Ukrainians. Shirely no relation?
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
True salt of the Earth Brits often refer to people as 'Western elites'. Haha. You have a shit job in a shit country with a shit leader.
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
True salt of the Earth Brits often refer to people as 'Western elites'. Haha. You have a shit job in a shit country with a shit leader.
You mean he works as a coat clerk in a nightclub in Luton?
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Bollocks do they. Sensible leaders realise that Ukraine has the resolve to fight Russia indefinitely if they armed to do so. But can Russia keep going? Probably not, they will have to escalate or fold. And I suspect that the number of Russian military leaders confident of their ability to wage a greater war is declining by the day. Hell, even Putin probably realises he's fucked it up.
So why the sounds of compromise from the west tonite you don't do that if you are winning
Ukraine is unwilling to cede territory. The Russian military needs to bleed, burn, and the survivors go home. America will provide the means to do that.
How long would that take,, months , years, never meanwhile the developing world starves and the western economies crash
At current rates of loss, the Russian army will no longer be capable of offensive operations soon. Whether it becomes a stalemate or a rout at that point is unclear.
If a stalemate though, there will be no end to sanctions.
I always find doctors some of the most gullible in believing everything they read in the msm, I get my information from many sources
Nah, Russia is toast. Its the Russo-Japanese war revisited, with revolution to come. Oligarchs and their lapdogs should flee while they can.
Not sure about revolution. Seems just as likely that Vlad will be moved to a hospital for 'treatment' for various 'illnesses' and another group will take over from within the silovik who will find a way out of the morass of Ukraine and concentrate on the home land and its economy and rebuilding a shattered military no longer able to police its own borders.
Yes, the future of Russia is as an inward looking failed state.
Quite possibly, fractured statelets which Moscow will struggle to hold together in any coherent nation.
We can Westernize and democratize them one by one. After Ukraine and Belarus, we can start with Kaliningrad.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
Some of it is technical language for we should not sneer at Angela Merkel for closing Germany's nuclear power stations with no replacement ready. Motes and beams.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
So this inflationary spike is to be welcomed? OK. Try selling that to the red wall. Even Boris doesn’t try that one anymore.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
So this inflationary spike is to be welcomed? OK. Try selling that to the red wall. Even Boris doesn’t try that one anymore.
There are two elements to the inflationary spike. One is low income labour, one is energy cost. The first part is to be welcomed, the second is not. But those of you saying "Brexit is awful because it's costing us all because these plebs are being paid too much" are showing how little you care about the British working class.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
So this inflationary spike is to be welcomed? OK. Try selling that to the red wall. Even Boris doesn’t try that one anymore.
There are two elements to the inflationary spike. One is low income labour, one is energy cost. The first part is to be welcomed, the second is not. But those of you saying "Brexit is awful because it's costing us all because these plebs are being paid too much" are showing how little you care about the British working class.
Where are all those low wage winners? They exist merely in your embittered fantasies.
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
So this inflationary spike is to be welcomed? OK. Try selling that to the red wall. Even Boris doesn’t try that one anymore.
There are two elements to the inflationary spike. One is low income labour, one is energy cost. The first part is to be welcomed, the second is not. But those of you saying "Brexit is awful because it's costing us all because these plebs are being paid too much" are showing how little you care about the British working class.
Where are all those low wage winners? They exist merely in your embittered fantasies.
Inflation is a problem for everyone.
What do you think it means when lack of labour supply causes inflation?
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
This is all technical language for wages going up very quickly for the poor. Low income wages are going up faster than inflation. Restricting unskilled immigration works.
Where is your evidence for that ? I’m sure it’s true that some low income wages are, but in general ?
The effect of high inflation will be what it always is. It will create winners and losers, but more of the latter than the former - and that includes among the low paid.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
It’s been going on for a while. In 2014 the guardian reported of GAzproms links with anti fracking groups.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Or perhaps, in a slightly more complicated world, they had more than one policy aim? Encouraging a lack of respect for independent judiciary an obvious example, or encouraging protectionism in the west.
Here’s more ‘settled law’ the Republicans seem to be thinking about challenging.
"U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses."
Under Lopez's plan, each county would get between three and eleven electoral votes, depending not on their population, but on their voter turnout rate. As 9NEWS noted, "Colorado's rural, conservative counties had seven of the 10 highest voter turnout percentages in the 2018 race for governor. Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election."
Under this system, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who won the 2018 election by double digits, would have received 181 electoral votes to the 263 earned by his Republican opponent, Walker Stapleton. "Lopez's weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties' combined 761,873 voters," said the report.
This plan would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which enforced the principle of "one person, one vote" in state elections. Lopez has openly admitted his plan would not count voters equally, saying, "It's not about one-person, one-vote. It's about true representation."
Lopez has also drawn controversy for his stance opposing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest — while avoiding questions about his 1993 arrest for violently assaulting his then-pregnant wife…
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
Indeed.
To add to their catastrophic military blunderings. Ukraine is not the first example and was, you may recall, a reason why I didn't believe they would invade in the first place.
Football supporters would doubtless be chanting, 'You don't know what you're doing'.
Putin is rubbish. A little man who was best suited to clandestine poisonings, and even then they cocked half of them up. A great leader he is not.
The UnHerd piece I posted earlier is one of the best essays I've read for many months. [The one slightly silly thing in it was the bit about "evidence based medicine" which caused someone below to say they weren't going to read any more of it].
Tried it but I found it a bit waffley and protracted, to be honest; it had too many tangential philosophical references that broke its flow and weakened its point/s.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
I meant such statements such as the only way to stop the deaths is for ukraine to give in when we know all that will stop is russian deaths as they came prepared with 45k body bags and death lists at a time when they expected to roll over ukraine in a week.
We all can see how much of a paper tiger the russian military is from the last couple of months of fighting and I don't doubt that russia is making progress in Donbass right now....however my suspicion is to do so they are throwing everything they have at it to try and actually get some progress to show....that can only go on so long however.
I expect the ukranians to withdraw slowly letting the russians expend their energy then counter attack when they are exhausted
F1: Hamilton and Russell around 20 or under for the title. I backed both ahead of practice in Miami then hedged after second practice, so I'm flat (or ahead of they win) so not tempted by this now.
The DNFs of Leclerc and Verstappen are helpful, but the window of opportunity for Mercedes is closing.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
You think the government did these things that are in Russia's interest despite, not because of, Russian funding? Well then, I suppose you are right and the Russians were wasting their money if it all would have happened anyway.
Here’s more ‘settled law’ the Republicans seem to be thinking about challenging.
"U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses."
Under Lopez's plan, each county would get between three and eleven electoral votes, depending not on their population, but on their voter turnout rate. As 9NEWS noted, "Colorado's rural, conservative counties had seven of the 10 highest voter turnout percentages in the 2018 race for governor. Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election."
Under this system, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who won the 2018 election by double digits, would have received 181 electoral votes to the 263 earned by his Republican opponent, Walker Stapleton. "Lopez's weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties' combined 761,873 voters," said the report.
This plan would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which enforced the principle of "one person, one vote" in state elections. Lopez has openly admitted his plan would not count voters equally, saying, "It's not about one-person, one-vote. It's about true representation."
Lopez has also drawn controversy for his stance opposing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest — while avoiding questions about his 1993 arrest for violently assaulting his then-pregnant wife…
The United States of America - the land of the gerrymander
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here. There were few outright supporters of Corbyn on here, and probably only one remaining. Likewise, there isn't much support for the 'extreme right' on here - I can't think of a single regular poster who comes across as anything like fascist.
But there are issues. Take me: I'm generally pro-trans and pro-choice. I'm willing to pay more taxes if required (well, Mrs J is... ), and I firmly believe in a welfare safety net. These might be seen as 'left' issues.
But I'm also a firm believer in having a strong, flexible military, in the nuclear deterrent, in a country generally balancing its books, and in people who work hard gaining from that work. These might be seen as 'right' issues.
I'm generally in favour of better public transport, of renewable energy (of the right sorts...), of recycling, of reducing waste - which could all be seen as 'green' issues.
The thing is, both Labour- and Conservative-supporting posters can look at those issues and see the way their party backs these, and their opponents do not.
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Bollocks do they. Sensible leaders realise that Ukraine has the resolve to fight Russia indefinitely if they armed to do so. But can Russia keep going? Probably not, they will have to escalate or fold. And I suspect that the number of Russian military leaders confident of their ability to wage a greater war is declining by the day. Hell, even Putin probably realises he's fucked it up.
So why the sounds of compromise from the west tonite you don't do that if you are winning
Ukraine is unwilling to cede territory. The Russian military needs to bleed, burn, and the survivors go home. America will provide the means to do that.
How long would that take,, months , years, never meanwhile the developing world starves and the western economies crash
I'm confident the West can afford to arm Ukraine to fight Russia indefinitely. Russia's problems are only beginning.
The entire Russian defence budget is a rounding error in the Pentagon. There is also enthusiastic backing from all sides in Congress for spending lots of money on a stimulus package for the American arms industry.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
You think the government did these things that are in Russia's interest despite, not because of, Russian funding? Well then, I suppose you are right and the Russians were wasting their money if it all would have happened anyway.
We often do things that the french, germans or dutch would feel is in there interest as well. This just means that we did it because we felt it was in our interests to do so and coincidentally its also in the interests of others we do so.
Now that is not to claim there is no russian influence merely to say that sometimes whats in our interest putin also believes to be in his and we can't just assume therefore influence was bought and paid for. For example shutting our gas storage while it was stupid to do so in hindsight there were under the conditions prevailing when it was closed that it was money taxpayers didn't need to spend.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
You think the government did these things that are in Russia's interest despite, not because of, Russian funding? Well then, I suppose you are right and the Russians were wasting their money if it all would have happened anyway.
Look at it another way: you are essentially saying that the government as no agency; it does just what the Russians want. The meta events of the last ten years say the opposite, although perhaps the biggest case for it would be Brexit.
But look at the areas where government policy has gone away from Russia's interests at a large scale: we led in sanctions against Russia. We have gone for a more distributed energy policy, including moving away from gas and oil, etc, etc.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
F1: Hamilton and Russell around 20 or under for the title. I backed both ahead of practice in Miami then hedged after second practice, so I'm flat (or ahead of they win) so not tempted by this now.
The DNFs of Leclerc and Verstappen are helpful, but the window of opportunity for Mercedes is closing.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
You think the government did these things that are in Russia's interest despite, not because of, Russian funding? Well then, I suppose you are right and the Russians were wasting their money if it all would have happened anyway.
Look at it another way: you are essentially saying that the government as no agency; it does just what the Russians want. The meta events of the last ten years say the opposite, although perhaps the biggest case for it would be Brexit.
But look at the areas where government policy has gone away from Russia's interests at a large scale: we led in sanctions against Russia. We have gone for a more distributed energy policy, including moving away from gas and oil, etc, etc.
The thesis is not so much that their propaganda sways governments in a particular direction, but rather that it is aimed to encourage and exacerbate political division within a given society.
Hard to prove the degree of success they might have had, but it's not obviously ridiculous. As you say, Brexit is an interesting case.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
That s a ridiculous image. The line of patients would be in the waiting room of the consultants private practise.
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Great post!
If, and it's still a big if, SKS does become PM I will be initially relieved but they are bound to make mistakes and I hope I will critique them when they do.
I like your point about complexity. I think this is partly what confused (confuses) people about me, as well as my propensity to bait, which is not because I'm evil but because I am really angry about some things this Gov't have been up to. I still find it baffling that people happily support them when, for me, they are one of the worst governments of my lifetime. And I can't really see how anyone claims Brexit has been a good thing. I think Boris is an utter schmuck: I intensely dislike him.
All that aside, I'm also a bit of a muddle. Hypocrite probably. I espouse some radical and leftist ideas but I am far from living them out in practice. I annoy myself because of it but I just can't make the leap. For example, much as I would like to support my local health food shop I find myself at the Tesco checkout: the very Tesco store I criticised when it was built.
Oh and one of my favourite governments of all time was the Coalition. I know that's an awful thing to say but it was. I relaxed under them. Possibly because I knew they could never do anything truly shocking. Unless you were a student.
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Great. So when is Russia withdrawing?
Its telling that its always ukraine must surrender to save lives, never russia must give up. But then seems to me its mainly russian lives that would be being saved anyway in this war.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
Here’s more ‘settled law’ the Republicans seem to be thinking about challenging.
"U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses."
Under Lopez's plan, each county would get between three and eleven electoral votes, depending not on their population, but on their voter turnout rate. As 9NEWS noted, "Colorado's rural, conservative counties had seven of the 10 highest voter turnout percentages in the 2018 race for governor. Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election."
Under this system, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who won the 2018 election by double digits, would have received 181 electoral votes to the 263 earned by his Republican opponent, Walker Stapleton. "Lopez's weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties' combined 761,873 voters," said the report.
This plan would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which enforced the principle of "one person, one vote" in state elections. Lopez has openly admitted his plan would not count voters equally, saying, "It's not about one-person, one-vote. It's about true representation."
Lopez has also drawn controversy for his stance opposing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest — while avoiding questions about his 1993 arrest for violently assaulting his then-pregnant wife…
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
Hmmmm not so sure that's right or even stands up to the test of history.
There's something about ideologies themselves and support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
The important thing in politics in my opinion is to remember that no one party has a sole monopoly on the right beliefs or policies. And that means that there is sometimes good in the other. The system in the United Kingdom is not geared up for that kind of mentality but perhaps if there's voting reform it might change.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
That s a ridiculous image. The line of patients would be in the waiting room of the consultants private practise.
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
Not just in Harley St. Out in the sticks single-handed (usually) GP's saw patients in a room in their house ..... usually a bit larger than the average..... and the patients took their prescriptions to the pharmacy, where the pharmacist lived above and behind the shop.
What will the world look like in twenty years time?
Putin will be dead and his theories of a 'creeping war' discredited. I'm sure he truly believes in what he wants to believe. A little like Stalin who never believed in Mendelian genetics, because it went against Marxist dogma. Biology was mutatable, but physics - he had to put up with.
Corbyn will still believe what he was told when he was seven, because NATO is always wrong.
However, the rest of the world will be wrong. Ironic, that Mendel and 'the father of the Big Bang' were far more open-minded. Google him for interest if you don't know who he is.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Just like Pornhub, its all relative.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
Time for realpolitik guys not Marvel comic fantasies
How much Ukraine territory are you proposing to give to the fascist autocrat ? And how much next time he invades ?
Realpolitik is telling him to fuck off back to his own country.
The countries proposing a ‘deal’, with “security guarantees’ for Ukraine - France and Germany (with Italy in tow), are those who underwrote the last set of security guarantees. How did that work out ?
Why didn't we supply arms to czechoslovakia when Russia invaded in 1968
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
Hmmmm not so sure that's right or even stands up to the test of history.
There's something about ideologies themselves and blind support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
With football, it's the excuse to let the inner arsehole out.
As Nick Hornby pointed out in his book on being a football supporter - the policing etc has created a space for socially acceptable (in the groups in question) bad behaviour.
Time for realpolitik guys not Marvel comic fantasies
How much Ukraine territory are you proposing to give to the fascist autocrat ? And how much next time he invades ?
Realpolitik is telling him to fuck off back to his own country.
The countries proposing a ‘deal’, with “security guarantees’ for Ukraine - France and Germany (with Italy in tow), are those who underwrote the last set of security guarantees. How did that work out ?
Why didn't we supply arms to czechoslovakia when Russia invaded in 1968
No land border (Austria being neutral)
Among other things, Czechoslovakia was a massive armament exporter. They were armed to the teeth. The UK was buying weapons from *them* - armour plate especially.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
The effectiveness of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles mean the crossing to Taiwan would be impossibly expensive. And if their Russian-bought kit did actually get onto a beach.....
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
People do defend the rule of law and innocent till proven guilty etc. For example in relation to the recent MP investigation, pointing out how Nigel Evans was tried and found not guilty.
Comments
Not enjoying the current 16 degrees temperature at midnight. First time this year. No AC of course.
I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites
Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
But how about you explain why your IP address (which you can find by Googling "what's my IP address") is in the Spamhaus database?
To get there, one of two things is normally the case:
(1) Your day job is sending unsolicited emails
or
(2) You are accessing the Internet via a compromised PC
Of course, you could just be stupendously unlucky and it is the case that your own machine has been compromised. In which case, I'd advise you to backup any files you need to a USB drive, and then reformat your hard drive and start over.
It is time for Russia to reclaim her place in the real world under a new leader.
Parliament goes into recess on Thursday and isn’t back till June 6th .
Amazing shot by Thomas on the second play-off hole. Now, can he close the deal where Pereira couldn’t?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/stagflation-shock-to-uk-likely-to-be-among-world-s-worst
The UK’s inflation shock will be nastier than in the US and Europe, says Alfred Kammer, the IMF’s European director, because it combines “the worst of the two worlds”—America’s labor shortages and Europe’s energy crisis. Both can be traced to structural capacity shortages.
…
Almost half of the UK’s gas is domestic, sourced from the North Sea, but there’s no storage. Rough, the last major facility, was closed in 2017 because it had become “uneconomic,” according to its owner. This, combined with a laissez-faire approach to energy security that’s put almost half the country’s nuclear power capacity on track to be decommissioned by 2024—two years before any replacement comes onstream—has left the UK exposed to the whims of the spot price in energy markets.
…
Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, on May 9 said it was “possible that Brexit has steepened the wage and price curves” by reducing labor supply and curtailing some imports.
The labor market is now so tight that, for the first time ever, there are more job vacancies than there are unemployed. Since the start of the pandemic, the workforce has shrunk by 440,000. Almost half the decline can be accounted for by a drop in EU workers.
OK. Try selling that to the red wall. Even Boris doesn’t try that one anymore.
They exist merely in your embittered fantasies.
Inflation is a problem for everyone.
I’m sure it’s true that some low income wages are, but in general ?
The effect of high inflation will be what it always is. It will create winners and losers, but more of the latter than the former - and that includes among the low paid.
President Zelenskyy announces introduction of joint customs control with Poland
It will speed up border procedures, remove most of the corruption risks, he believes, "It's also the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the EU"
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1528495920958021633
Pay gap in UK between bosses and workers likely to widen in 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/23/pay-gap-in-uk-between-bosses-and-workers-likely-to-widen-in-2022
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/22/record-420000-children-in-england-treated-for-mental-health-problems
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
Those workers need to show restraint, say the bosses who don’t.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
"U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses."
This nut is very unlikely to get elected, but he might be the Republican nominee.
https://coloradosun.com/2022/04/09/greg-lopez-heidi-ganahl-colorado-governer-primary-gop/
Colorado GOP candidate wants to eliminate statewide popular vote so Republicans can win more races
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/19/colorado-candidate-wants-to-eliminate-statewide-popular-vote-so-can-win-more-races_partner/
Under Lopez's plan, each county would get between three and eleven electoral votes, depending not on their population, but on their voter turnout rate. As 9NEWS noted, "Colorado's rural, conservative counties had seven of the 10 highest voter turnout percentages in the 2018 race for governor. Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election."
Under this system, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who won the 2018 election by double digits, would have received 181 electoral votes to the 263 earned by his Republican opponent, Walker Stapleton. "Lopez's weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties' combined 761,873 voters," said the report.
This plan would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which enforced the principle of "one person, one vote" in state elections. Lopez has openly admitted his plan would not count voters equally, saying, "It's not about one-person, one-vote. It's about true representation."
Lopez has also drawn controversy for his stance opposing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest — while avoiding questions about his 1993 arrest for violently assaulting his then-pregnant wife…
Going well for the party at the moment, isn't it?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/22/tweet-on-tory-local-election-candidates-account-says-teenage-girls-smell-buttery-and-creamy
To add to their catastrophic military blunderings. Ukraine is not the first example and was, you may recall, a reason why I didn't believe they would invade in the first place.
Football supporters would doubtless be chanting, 'You don't know what you're doing'.
Putin is rubbish. A little man who was best suited to clandestine poisonings, and even then they cocked half of them up. A great leader he is not.
Maybe it needs rewriting?
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
We all can see how much of a paper tiger the russian military is from the last couple of months of fighting and I don't doubt that russia is making progress in Donbass right now....however my suspicion is to do so they are throwing everything they have at it to try and actually get some progress to show....that can only go on so long however.
I expect the ukranians to withdraw slowly letting the russians expend their energy then counter attack when they are exhausted
F1: Hamilton and Russell around 20 or under for the title. I backed both ahead of practice in Miami then hedged after second practice, so I'm flat (or ahead of they win) so not tempted by this now.
The DNFs of Leclerc and Verstappen are helpful, but the window of opportunity for Mercedes is closing.
But there are issues. Take me: I'm generally pro-trans and pro-choice. I'm willing to pay more taxes if required (well, Mrs J is...
But I'm also a firm believer in having a strong, flexible military, in the nuclear deterrent, in a country generally balancing its books, and in people who work hard gaining from that work. These might be seen as 'right' issues.
I'm generally in favour of better public transport, of renewable energy (of the right sorts...), of recycling, of reducing waste - which could all be seen as 'green' issues.
The thing is, both Labour- and Conservative-supporting posters can look at those issues and see the way their party backs these, and their opponents do not.
Now that is not to claim there is no russian influence merely to say that sometimes whats in our interest putin also believes to be in his and we can't just assume therefore influence was bought and paid for. For example shutting our gas storage while it was stupid to do so in hindsight there were under the conditions prevailing when it was closed that it was money taxpayers didn't need to spend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8dNzRhMgk
Look at it another way: you are essentially saying that the government as no agency; it does just what the Russians want. The meta events of the last ten years say the opposite, although perhaps the biggest case for it would be Brexit.
But look at the areas where government policy has gone away from Russia's interests at a large scale: we led in sanctions against Russia. We have gone for a more distributed energy policy, including moving away from gas and oil, etc, etc.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-for-wfh-medical-consultants-wkghhxjnh (£££)
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
Hard to prove the degree of success they might have had, but it's not obviously ridiculous. As you say, Brexit is an interesting case.
US would defend Taiwan if attacked by China, says Joe Biden
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/us-would-defend-taiwan-if-attacked-by-china-says-joe-biden
Or perhaps a more muscular version.
"America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I will have to be content with my small profit on Perez.
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
If, and it's still a big if, SKS does become PM I will be initially relieved but they are bound to make mistakes and I hope I will critique them when they do.
I like your point about complexity. I think this is partly what confused (confuses) people about me, as well as my propensity to bait, which is not because I'm evil but because I am really angry about some things this Gov't have been up to. I still find it baffling that people happily support them when, for me, they are one of the worst governments of my lifetime. And I can't really see how anyone claims Brexit has been a good thing. I think Boris is an utter schmuck: I intensely dislike him.
All that aside, I'm also a bit of a muddle. Hypocrite probably. I espouse some radical and leftist ideas but I am far from living them out in practice. I annoy myself because of it but I just can't make the leap. For example, much as I would like to support my local health food shop I find myself at the Tesco checkout: the very Tesco store I criticised when it was built.
Oh and one of my favourite governments of all time was the Coalition. I know that's an awful thing to say but it was. I relaxed under them. Possibly because I knew they could never do anything truly shocking. Unless you were a student.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
There's something about ideologies themselves and support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
The important thing in politics in my opinion is to remember that no one party has a sole monopoly on the right beliefs or policies. And that means that there is sometimes good in the other. The system in the United Kingdom is not geared up for that kind of mentality but perhaps if there's voting reform it might change.
And Good Morning to one and all.
Putin will be dead and his theories of a 'creeping war' discredited. I'm sure he truly believes in what he wants to believe. A little like Stalin who never believed in Mendelian genetics, because it went against Marxist dogma. Biology was mutatable, but physics - he had to put up with.
Corbyn will still believe what he was told when he was seven, because NATO is always wrong.
However, the rest of the world will be wrong. Ironic, that Mendel and 'the father of the Big Bang' were far more open-minded. Google him for interest if you don't know who he is.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
As Nick Hornby pointed out in his book on being a football supporter - the policing etc has created a space for socially acceptable (in the groups in question) bad behaviour.
Taiwan has never looked safer.