Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.
If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.
Good morning PB.
Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.
The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.
It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
Lord only knows what our elected police commissioner has done apart from getting caught speeding more than Jenrick and whacking up the PCC precept on everyone's council tax bill for - well - noone in Nottinghamshire knows really. She'll be out on her ear when she's next up.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.
I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.
I'm the same. When my small business finally started making enough for me to start paying a little bit of tax a few years ago I actually felt quite proud of myself lol! I don't mind making a contribution but taxes should be kept as low as possible (especially for the lowest earners) and Corporations should pay their fair share.
One thing I have to give the coalition is the way they kept raising the thresholds and taking the lowest earners out of tax from 2010 to 2015. Things have slipped in that regard recently.
Indeed. The current administration are happy to punish lower and middle earners and give rewards to the wealthiest.
It is hardly fair, but what do people expect if they vote for them.
Increasing tax take by freezing thresholds was bad.
Doing it for multiple years at once was sneaky.
Extending it, especially after a bulge of inflation is worse.
If it's capped off by a reduction in the rate (I think we're all expecting "Jeremy says 2p off!" next budget) that's effectively an increase at the bottom and a reduction higher up. Which would be a blooming disgrace.
And Sunak and Hunt (for the actions are theirs) genuinely are the sane moderates in the government.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
TBF that has only happened twice since 1918 although it happened three times in the late nineteenth century.
Again, if the Republicans were sane they might want to pause and ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote once, and that by a wafer thin margin, since the end of the Cold War. That's the real problem and why they have become obsessed with voter fraud as the explanation.
If instead of going crazy they actually worked out some policies that would appeal to more swing voters in swing states, as Biden did, they might have a chance of winning even when their opponent isn't Hilary Clinton.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
No American troops in Ukraine.
Edit - incidentally wasn't it Trump who ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan? And drew up the timetable for it?
Albeit Biden should have had the sense to abandon that timeframe when he got into office...
They're all as bad as each other, when they're manifestly not all as bad as each other, is what allows people like Trump and Johnson to get away with it.
They both engage in the same tactics and for the same reasons. You just excuse the side that fits in with your politics. The same happens the other way.
No losing Democrat incumbent president has ever sent a mob to storm the US Capitol after claiming that the results of the election were invalid. As that has never happened, Democrats have never been forced to respond to such an occurrence. So you can only judge the Republicans by the way in which they have reacted. There is no "they're all as bad as each other" in this case because it is only the GOP that has been tested. And it has failed totally to meet that test.
I cannot quite believe people still argue electoral sour grapes and 'considering' things is the same as dozens of baseless legal challenges (to stoke a narrative of 'there must be a problem) and incitement of a mob. Which the mainstream GOP implicitly or explicitly supports by claiming the election was stolen despite the legal cases being thrown out.
It's pretty darn simple, there's a maxim as old as time to cover it - all are sinners, but not all sins are equal.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.
If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.
Good morning PB.
Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.
The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.
It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
Lord only knows what our elected police commissioner has done apart from getting caught speeding more than Jenrick and whacking up the PCC precept on everyone's council tax bill for - well - noone in Nottinghamshire knows really. She'll be out on her ear when she's next up.
The idea about holding them accountable is bunk since they will win or lose their positions based on the national picture anyway. Most if not all of the indys have gone by now.
They're all as bad as each other, when they're manifestly not all as bad as each other, is what allows people like Trump and Johnson to get away with it.
On gerrymandering and attempting to get “their” judges to rule they way they want, Republicans and Democrats *are* bad as each other. I don’t doubt that the judge who was elected last night will be as partisan as her opponent would have been.
On voter suppression, and tolerating political violence, the Republicans are much worse. Biden won narrowly, but still fair and square.
What’s odd is that all this still doesn’t make much difference to overall outcomes, even if it does in individual States.
A small win in vote share for the Democrats in 2020, gave them a small win in the House and Senate. A small win in vote share for the Republicans in 2022 gave them a small win the House and a small defeat in the Senate.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
No American troops in Ukraine.
Edit - incidentally wasn't it Trump who ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan? And drew up the timetable for it?
Albeit Biden should have had the sense to abandon that timeframe when he got into office...
Yes he did but was then told the fuck up it would be by his generals and backed off. Biden took over in his own right with a clean sheet and had no obligation to ape his predecessor.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors ...
Source for that ? Your maths doesn't seem to add up. There is a large disparity though nowhere close to your claim) between the candidates, but overall it's closer.
WisPolitics review: Spending in Supreme Court race surpasses $45 million https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-review-spending-in-supreme-court-race-nears-45-million ...Of that, $$24.4 million has been spent by liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz and the groups backing her. That includes the $2.2 million that the Dem group A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund spent opposing Jennifer Dorow in the four-way primary, a move that insiders saw as a play to help fellow conservative Daniel Kelly advance to the April election.
Meanwhile, more than $19.2 million has been spent backing Kelly or opposing Protasiewicz since the beginning of the race. That number also includes anti-Dorow ads run in the primary by conservative groups...
..The biggest spender on the liberal side beyond Protasiewicz has been A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund. That group has reported nearly $6.2 million in independent expenditures since the race began.
The biggest spenders on the pro-Kelly side have been Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Issues Mobilization Council at $5.8 million, according to a source tracking media buys, and Fair Courts America, which has filed reports detailing nearly $5.2 million in spending...
Don't go upsetting TKC with the facts. Facts don't matter in Trumpworld.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
Trump invariably appeals to his base and his base appears to be the US group most in favour of cutting support to Ukraine. It seems incredibly Pollyana-esque to assume that for once Trump would cleave to pragmatic principle rather than the MAGAts.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
Yep ...
When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.
Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.
But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.
But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.
The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.
If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.
This Illinois?
Overall, Illinois does not set off statistical alarms for partisan gerrymandering. Illinois has multiple opportunity-to-elect districts, drawn under the guidance of state law, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution.
The 2020 result in Illinois was 57 - 40 for Biden over Trump. Any comparison with Wisconsin is more than a stretch.
What's amusing is that Biden won Illinois by 1.5 points less than Nixon did in 1972. Have a look at the map for each result . Also take a look at Johnson 64 Illinois map.
Really shows the rural GOP / urban Dem long term shift.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
Well that's elected judges for you. I'm surprised it's held together as well as it has, which is a credit to judges trying not to be partisan all the time, but if you make it political it becomes political after all.
I wonder what the biggest electorate where it's realistic for a non-partisan candidate to break through is? Feels like the sort of question where there's some politics/network maths mashup going on.
A large council ward, so a few thousand people?
(I'd exclude Livingstone and Stewart in London, and Macron in France; they got their profile in parties that they then broke away from, which is a different category.)
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?
As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.
You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.
Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.
However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.
Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:
1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.
2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.
3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.
Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
A couple of things there.
1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.
2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),
3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.
4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.
3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.
4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
Nice to see that calling for justice not to be used as a political football and to recognise that both sides need to stop claiming they have the absolute hold on truth is now "an admiration of Fascism".
And this coming from the poster who thinks it is entirely acceptable to outlaw one of the two major political parties in the United States.
Now go off and polish your jackboots. Make sure you trim that toothbrush moustache of yours as well.
I love you, Kitchen Cabinet. The deliciousness of your ironies is beyond taste. After all, you are the one who wants violent criminals to have their violent criminality ignored.
By the way - what was your source for the false claim about election spending? Or indeed, for 'Republicans bad, Democrats good?'
My ironies are almost as good as yours ydoethur. The beauty of calling someone an admirer of fascism after admitting they would be happy to ban a major political party in the US is superb.
As for saying I want violent criminals to have their violent actions ignored, that is a fair leap of imagination. To quote yourself "what was your source for the false claim"?
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
That's an incredibly optimistic comment. Surely there's nothing 'likely' about it?
Abandoning Ukraine would bring us close to WWIII. That is the reason why Trump must not win.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
Trump invariably appeals to his base and his base appears to be the US group most in favour of cutting support to Ukraine. It seems incredibly Pollyana-esque to assume that for once Trump would cleave to pragmatic principle rather than the MAGAts.
Hits the nail on the head. If they clamour for it he'd resist why?
Trump might yet legitimately win the next election, but that he sought to stay in illegitimately, including through violence, and still insists it should be overturned even now, means he doesn't get benefit if the doubt on his intentions in a lot of things.
Democrats being shits on redistricting etc doesn't flip the scale or make it even. He refuses to accept results of elections, and if he had the power would have done more. Thats fundamentally wrong.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?
As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.
You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.
Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.
However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.
Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:
1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.
2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.
3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.
Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
A couple of things there.
1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.
2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),
3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.
4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.
3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.
4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
Nice to see that calling for justice not to be used as a political football and to recognise that both sides need to stop claiming they have the absolute hold on truth is now "an admiration of Fascism".
And this coming from the poster who thinks it is entirely acceptable to outlaw one of the two major political parties in the United States.
Now go off and polish your jackboots. Make sure you trim that toothbrush moustache of yours as well.
I love you, Kitchen Cabinet. The deliciousness of your ironies is beyond taste. After all, you are the one who wants violent criminals to have their violent criminality ignored.
By the way - what was your source for the false claim about election spending? Or indeed, for 'Republicans bad, Democrats good?'
My ironies are almost as good as yours ydoethur. The beauty of calling someone an admirer of fascism after admitting they would be happy to ban a major political party in the US is superb.
As for saying I want violent criminals to have their violent actions ignored, that is a fair leap of imagination. To quote yourself "what was your source for the false claim"?
You said Republicans are not bad. I've demonstrated how they are, including violent criminals. You refuse to accept that. You therefore want them to get away with their crimes.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
That's an incredibly optimistic comment. Surely there's nothing 'likely' about it?
Abandoning Ukraine would bring us close to WWIII. That is the reason why Trump must not win.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Speaking personally I'm glad he did bottle out of North Korea.
I just wish he hadn't whipped things up with his 'locked and loaded' comments on Twitter to start with!
Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?
Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.
They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.
The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.
The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.
After WWII, the U.K. military used properly randomised code names - a colour, followed by words from a list, for projects. This was as a result of the Germans (in particular) using code words which were often badly selected and gave clues as to what was happening.
Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?
Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.
They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.
The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.
The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.
After WWII, the U.K. military used properly randomised code names - a colour, followed by words from a list, for projects. This was as a result of the Germans (in particular) using code words which were often badly selected and gave clues as to what was happening.
If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
What could they possibly do that would make any material difference? It's costing $1bn/week to keep the SMO going. No European country is going to sign up for a significant share of that.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
Trump invariably appeals to his base and his base appears to be the US group most in favour of cutting support to Ukraine. It seems incredibly Pollyana-esque to assume that for once Trump would cleave to pragmatic principle rather than the MAGAts.
Hits the nail on the head. If they clamour for it he'd resist why?
Trump might yet legitimately win the next election, but that he sought to stay in illegitimately, including through violence, and still insists it should be overturned even now, means he doesn't get benefit if the doubt on his intentions in a lot of things.
Democrats being shits on redistricting etc doesn't flip the scale or make it even. He refuses to accept results of elections, and if he had the power would have done more. Thats fundamentally wrong.
Oddly it’s many of the hard headed, worldly skeptics (usually with regard to the good intentions of ‘lefties’ tbf) who seem to be still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. ‘They’re all as bad as each other’ seems to be the new ‘I’m no fan of Trump, but’.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Speaking personally I'm glad he did bottle out of North Korea.
I just wish he hadn't whipped things up with his 'locked and loaded' comments on Twitter to start with!
You should have ignored it, he makes things up to see what the reaction is.
Trump is a media creation his man of controversy schtick gained him more TV coverage than trying to outspend Clinton. The media thought the bogeyman would frighten voters but all it did was give him a notoriety he built on and subsequently scared the crap out of themselves. Trumpzilla lives and they cant control him.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?
As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.
You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.
Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.
However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.
Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:
1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.
2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.
3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.
Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
A couple of things there.
1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.
2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),
3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.
4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.
3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.
4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
Nice to see that calling for justice not to be used as a political football and to recognise that both sides need to stop claiming they have the absolute hold on truth is now "an admiration of Fascism".
And this coming from the poster who thinks it is entirely acceptable to outlaw one of the two major political parties in the United States.
Now go off and polish your jackboots. Make sure you trim that toothbrush moustache of yours as well.
I love you, Kitchen Cabinet. The deliciousness of your ironies is beyond taste. After all, you are the one who wants violent criminals to have their violent criminality ignored.
By the way - what was your source for the false claim about election spending? Or indeed, for 'Republicans bad, Democrats good?'
My ironies are almost as good as yours ydoethur. The beauty of calling someone an admirer of fascism after admitting they would be happy to ban a major political party in the US is superb.
As for saying I want violent criminals to have their violent actions ignored, that is a fair leap of imagination. To quote yourself "what was your source for the false claim"?
You said Republicans are not bad. I've demonstrated how they are, including violent criminals. You refuse to accept that. You therefore want them to get away with their crimes.
Still no sources...
I doubt there will be. One lesson that Trump and his Orwellian "Truth Social" network have learned is that his fans and apologists never bother to check facts, they regurgitate his rubbish unquestioningly. Anyone who Tries to point out the facts is peddling "Fake News:" Quite how the US got into this state is anyone's guess.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Speaking personally I'm glad he did bottle out of North Korea.
I just wish he hadn't whipped things up with his 'locked and loaded' comments on Twitter to start with!
You should have ignored it, he makes things up to see what the reaction is.
Trump is a media creation his man of controversy schtick gained him more TV coverage than trying to outspend Clinton. The media thought the bogeyman would frighten voters but all it did was give him a notoriety he built on and subsequently scared the crap out of themselves. Trumpzilla lives and they cant control him.
Sure he is a media creation or at least media fuelled and it would be better if the whole world ignored him. But they don't and he is therefore dangerous, and dangerous beyond just US democracy to the world order and global economy.
On the specifics of the charges it seems they are a bit flimsy in terms of being a felony rather than misdemeanour. Was expecting a tax evasion link, but actually Trump et al have overpaid taxes on the hush money!
If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
What could they possibly do that would make any material difference? It's costing $1bn/week to keep the SMO going. No European country is going to sign up for a significant share of that.
It's going to take a while if each city back/forth takes as long as the battle of Bakhmut. The Russian side does tend to retreat more quickly if they know they're going to lose though. c.f. Bakhmut/Mariupol vs Kherson.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.
If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.
Good morning PB.
Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.
The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.
It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
Lord only knows what our elected police commissioner has done apart from getting caught speeding more than Jenrick and whacking up the PCC precept on everyone's council tax bill for - well - noone in Nottinghamshire knows really. She'll be out on her ear when she's next up.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
The fact that it is even a political contest is absolutely nuts to me.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
He has publicly stated several times now that he would end the war within a day. That can really mean only one thing.
If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
What could they possibly do that would make any material difference? It's costing $1bn/week to keep the SMO going. No European country is going to sign up for a significant share of that.
That's $100 per European per year - absolute bargain of the century when it comes to European security.
Far cheaper than having to spend at least that much extra money on defence if Putin succeeds in Ukraine and Europe has to look to defend itself without the US.
Re the discussion on 'likes' the other day - I am throwing them around like confetti this morning. Some very good points well made, in my opinion, this morning.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Speaking personally I'm glad he did bottle out of North Korea.
I just wish he hadn't whipped things up with his 'locked and loaded' comments on Twitter to start with!
You should have ignored it, he makes things up to see what the reaction is.
Trump is a media creation his man of controversy schtick gained him more TV coverage than trying to outspend Clinton. The media thought the bogeyman would frighten voters but all it did was give him a notoriety he built on and subsequently scared the crap out of themselves. Trumpzilla lives and they cant control him.
Sure he is a media creation or at least media fuelled and it would be better if the whole world ignored him. But they don't and he is therefore dangerous, and dangerous beyond just US democracy to the world order and global economy.
On the specifics of the charges it seems they are a bit flimsy in terms of being a felony rather than misdemeanour. Was expecting a tax evasion link, but actually Trump et al have overpaid taxes on the hush money!
Perhaps you can point me to the hit of the world economy under Trump's watch or the major conflict. To put it in context see what Putin has done as a benchmark.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
I think Alanbrooke is right that we shouldn't assume Trump would necessarily do anything in particular, as his policies and rhetoric are almost random. The issue is exactly that - it's plausible that the would-be President of the largest global power might start WW3, because of some irrational reason that we can't even imagine. It doesn't need to be probable, but if we think there's even a 10% chance then he's too dangerous.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
He has publicly stated several times now that he would end the war within a day. That can really mean only one thing.
Trump is an over-rated buffoon, fortunate enough to be opposed by an ageing politician on the edge of dementia. I worry about the Denocrats. First they supposed that of the 300 million Americans, the ex-wife of a former President is the logical choice, but they look to be using the state apparatus to take revenge.
It might be justified but it's playing into Trump's hands. Perhaps they should go back to being a colony of the UK? Once they pay back the 250 years of tea tax of course.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
One of the defining features of Trumpism is pessimism. So one of the reasons he would abandon Ukraine is that he would see defying Putin as futile.
It's a vision of the US as a weak country, that has failed its democratic ideals, and is unable to defend them. Such a vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, dressed up with bombast about big weapons and doing big deals with dictators. It's a bizarre mix of Lord Halifax and Kim Jong-Un.
So, of course, one worries about what Trump would do, and has done, but it's also what he wouldn't do because he's too much of a wimp and hates democracy, that worries me more.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
I think Alanbrooke is right that we shouldn't assume Trump would necessarily do anything in particular, as his policies and rhetoric are almost random. The issue is exactly that - it's plausible that the would-be President of the largest global power might start WW3, because of some irrational reason that we can't even imagine. It doesn't need to be probable, but if we think there's even a 10% chance then he's too dangerous.
In that case we should remove Biden in case he gets the China's mixed up.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.
If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.
Good morning PB.
Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.
The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.
It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
Lord only knows what our elected police commissioner has done apart from getting caught speeding more than Jenrick and whacking up the PCC precept on everyone's council tax bill for - well - noone in Nottinghamshire knows really. She'll be out on her ear when she's next up.
And voila - there is the beauty of it.
Except that the reason that she will be out next time is that she was a Conservative candidate who narrowly won in May 2021. Won on the national party swing, will lose on the national party swing.
Nothing to do with her performance on the job. She could be a one-woman crime fighting machine and she would still be out on her ear. Much as will happen to many decent local councillors in a month's time.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
One of the defining features of Trumpism is pessimism. So one of the reasons he would abandon Ukraine is that he would see defying Putin as futile.
It's a vision of the US as a weak country, that has failed its democratic ideals, and is unable to defend them. Such a vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, dressed up with bombast about big weapons and doing big deals with dictators. It's a bizarre mix of Lord Halifax and Kim Jong-Un.
So, of course, one worries about what Trump would do, and has done, but it's also what he wouldn't do because he's too much of a wimp and hates democracy, that worries me more.
You will have the joy of Ireland dry humping Joes leg next week so Trump will be a distant memory. Im on the opposite end of the island on hols and hoping he doesnt screw things up with security shutdowns closing everywhere off.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
One of the defining features of Trumpism is pessimism. So one of the reasons he would abandon Ukraine is that he would see defying Putin as futile.
It's a vision of the US as a weak country, that has failed its democratic ideals, and is unable to defend them. Such a vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, dressed up with bombast about big weapons and doing big deals with dictators. It's a bizarre mix of Lord Halifax and Kim Jong-Un.
So, of course, one worries about what Trump would do, and has done, but it's also what he wouldn't do because he's too much of a wimp and hates democracy, that worries me more.
You will have the joy of Ireland dry humping Joes leg next week so Trump will be a distant memory. Im on the opposite end of the island on hols and hoping he doesnt screw things up with security shutdowns closing everywhere off.
The reporting that's already happened from Mayo and Louth can surely not be what the respective RTÉ journalists went into journalism for, you would hope.
I wonder how they will combine minute-by-minute updates on his whereabouts without directly saying that he's having an afternoon nap?
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Im sorry when it comes to Trump people are just as crazy as when it comes to Brexit - a madness takes over.
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
One of the defining features of Trumpism is pessimism. So one of the reasons he would abandon Ukraine is that he would see defying Putin as futile.
It's a vision of the US as a weak country, that has failed its democratic ideals, and is unable to defend them. Such a vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, dressed up with bombast about big weapons and doing big deals with dictators. It's a bizarre mix of Lord Halifax and Kim Jong-Un.
So, of course, one worries about what Trump would do, and has done, but it's also what he wouldn't do because he's too much of a wimp and hates democracy, that worries me more.
You will have the joy of Ireland dry humping Joes leg next week so Trump will be a distant memory. Im on the opposite end of the island on hols and hoping he doesnt screw things up with security shutdowns closing everywhere off.
The reporting that's already happened from Mayo and Louth can surely not be what the respective RTÉ journalists went into journalism for, you would hope.
I wonder how they will combine minute-by-minute updates on his whereabouts without directly saying that he's having an afternoon nap?
Its more his off the cuff remarks that will provide the sport.
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.
You don’t know there’s no contingency planning
That just haven’t shared it with you
I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.
Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years
Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming
But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.
That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.
Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”
Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.
But the actual differences, not a lot.
Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
I doubt it he saw the mess Biden made of Afghanistan
He has publicly stated several times now that he would end the war within a day. That can really mean only one thing.
No, it can mean multiple things but above all it's just braggadocio.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Trump provided 90% of the cost of the Joint Multi-National Training Group at Yavoriv. Or rather the Pentagon did and he didn't notice or didn't care.
He certainly wouldn't think twice about abandoning Ukraine if it helped him though and his base fucking hate Ukraine.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.
The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.
America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.
Most expensive such contest in history.
Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).
New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
I don't disagree. It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.
You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.
Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that. Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
You're just too committed to one side.
You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.
I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?
I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.
Both would be empty rhetoric.
I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.
If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.
I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
I think you're ignoring reality. Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.
You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.
And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.
Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.
No, I'm looking at what Trump and Republicans who backed him attempted last time around. They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
This is just scare monering nonsense.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
He didn't start WWIII but he did threaten to. The fact he didn't may be more luck than judgement, or someone taking his phone off him at the right moment.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
I think Alanbrooke is right that we shouldn't assume Trump would necessarily do anything in particular, as his policies and rhetoric are almost random. The issue is exactly that - it's plausible that the would-be President of the largest global power might start WW3, because of some irrational reason that we can't even imagine. It doesn't need to be probable, but if we think there's even a 10% chance then he's too dangerous.
In that case we should remove Biden in case he gets the China's mixed up.
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
a) It is not a PLC you set up, it is a limited company. A PLC is going somewhat unnecessarily over the top b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Wisconsin is one of those places that looks like it should... be heading republican too.
Really looks like Biden's election to lose now. I think he will sweep Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin again. Might even gain a cheeky North Carolina. Desantis would be a much more formidable opponent.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
a) It is not a PLC you set up, it is a limited company. A PLC is going somewhat unnecessarily over the top b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Technically a PLC s still a limited company. But there's a Private Limited company (LTD) and a Public Limited Company (PLC).
Comments
They won't make the same mistakes next time, if they get the opportunity. I don't regard the threat of states like Wisconsin sending a set of Trump electors to Washington in defiance of the state popular vote as theoretical; it's entirely real.
And the Democrats have regularly lost presidential elections while winning the popular vote, as it is. Switch a couple of states like Wisconsin, and the task becomes impossible.
Doing it for multiple years at once was sneaky.
Extending it, especially after a bulge of inflation is worse.
If it's capped off by a reduction in the rate (I think we're all expecting "Jeremy says 2p off!" next budget) that's effectively an increase at the bottom and a reduction higher up. Which would be a blooming disgrace.
And Sunak and Hunt (for the actions are theirs) genuinely are the sane moderates in the government.
Again, if the Republicans were sane they might want to pause and ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote once, and that by a wafer thin margin, since the end of the Cold War. That's the real problem and why they have become obsessed with voter fraud as the explanation.
If instead of going crazy they actually worked out some policies that would appeal to more swing voters in swing states, as Biden did, they might have a chance of winning even when their opponent isn't Hilary Clinton.
Edit - incidentally wasn't it Trump who ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan? And drew up the timetable for it?
Albeit Biden should have had the sense to abandon that timeframe when he got into office...
It's pretty darn simple, there's a maxim as old as time to cover it - all are sinners, but not all sins are equal.
First time round Trump was going to wreck the economy, start world war 3 and establish a fascist government he did none of those. Indeed he was a fairly peaceful president and the economy was on the up. He was a fairly average president with added bombast.
Trump is a narcissist who just loves the limelight and upsetting apple carts dealing with him is like dealing with a troll on website, just ignore him and he eventually fizzles away.
Trump is a creation of the media to a large extent and currently he's winning from all the attention.
On voter suppression, and tolerating political violence, the Republicans are much worse. Biden won narrowly, but still fair and square.
What’s odd is that all this still doesn’t make much difference to overall outcomes, even if it does in individual States.
A small win in vote share for the Democrats in 2020, gave them a small win in the House and Senate. A small win in vote share for the Republicans in 2022 gave them a small win the House and a small defeat in the Senate.
He tried to overturn an election using violence and fraud to stay in office. Again, he failed, but that was more because he didn't have a clue what he was doing not because he didn't want to.
Two out of three is two too many.
I was willing to suspend judgement on him in 2016, because I thought he couldn't possibly be much worse than Hilary Clinton. I was completely wrong and the likes of Foxy who told me I was wrong in advance have every right to feel vindicated. But I don't suppose they're celebrating.
The last thing anyone needs is four more years of this.
Also take a look at Johnson 64 Illinois map.
Really shows the rural GOP / urban Dem long term shift.
A large council ward, so a few thousand people?
(I'd exclude Livingstone and Stewart in London, and Macron in France; they got their profile in parties that they then broke away from, which is a different category.)
As for saying I want violent criminals to have their violent actions ignored, that is a fair leap of imagination. To quote yourself "what was your source for the false claim"?
Trump is all bombast and frankly is more likely to bottle out of a confrontation and then claim victory.
The US media feed the beast and everyone falls in line.
Trump might yet legitimately win the next election, but that he sought to stay in illegitimately, including through violence, and still insists it should be overturned even now, means he doesn't get benefit if the doubt on his intentions in a lot of things.
Democrats being shits on redistricting etc doesn't flip the scale or make it even. He refuses to accept results of elections, and if he had the power would have done more. Thats fundamentally wrong.
Still no sources...
I just wish he hadn't whipped things up with his 'locked and loaded' comments on Twitter to start with!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Code
Anyway, ipad is out of charge and work beckons. Have a good morning.
Trump is a media creation his man of controversy schtick gained him more TV coverage than trying to outspend Clinton. The media thought the bogeyman would frighten voters but all it did was give him a notoriety he built on and subsequently scared the crap out of themselves. Trumpzilla lives and they cant control him.
On the specifics of the charges it seems they are a bit flimsy in terms of being a felony rather than misdemeanour. Was expecting a tax evasion link, but actually Trump et al have overpaid taxes on the hush money!
"One in three young teachers in England skipping meals to make ends meet"
c.f. Bakhmut/Mariupol vs Kherson.
That can really mean only one thing.
Far cheaper than having to spend at least that much extra money on defence if Putin succeeds in Ukraine and Europe has to look to defend itself without the US.
https://www.thefp.com/p/alvin-braggs-dangerous-stunt
but Im not
It might be justified but it's playing into Trump's hands. Perhaps they should go back to being a colony of the UK? Once they pay back the 250 years of tea tax of course.
It's a vision of the US as a weak country, that has failed its democratic ideals, and is unable to defend them. Such a vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, dressed up with bombast about big weapons and doing big deals with dictators. It's a bizarre mix of Lord Halifax and Kim Jong-Un.
So, of course, one worries about what Trump would do, and has done, but it's also what he wouldn't do because he's too much of a wimp and hates democracy, that worries me more.
Nothing to do with her performance on the job. She could be a one-woman crime fighting machine and she would still be out on her ear. Much as will happen to many decent local councillors in a month's time.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case
I wonder how they will combine minute-by-minute updates on his whereabouts without directly saying that he's having an afternoon nap?
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/president-joe-biden-hot-water-26495421
He certainly wouldn't think twice about abandoning Ukraine if it helped him though and his base fucking hate Ukraine.
BBC
Obviously this is great news for Scottish Independence or something.
He did so somewhat reluctantly (then again, Obama's administration was very poor on Ukraine as well)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-resisted-ukraine-sale-javelin-antitank-missile/
And there were some idiotic constraints:
https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-leaving-out-key-detail-trump-javelin-sale-to-ukraine-2019-11?r=US&IR=T
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
I fear he may have exploded in delight.
Malcolm, could you confirm you're ok?
How entertaining. Indy is dead for a generation
All credit to @malcolmg who predicted exactly this for years
In fact it was a 10% swing since last year's House elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/04/us/elections/results-wisconsin-supreme-court.html
Just because someone had been arrested doesn’t imply guilt.
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/april/investigation-into-scottish-national-party-funding-and-finances-man-arrested/
"The matter is active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the public are therefore advised to exercise caution if discussing it on social media"
Likely to be one of the more widely ignored pieces of advice.
CHORTLE
Some people arses will be making buttons this morning.
b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Really looks like Biden's election to lose now. I think he will sweep Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin again. Might even gain a cheeky North Carolina.
Desantis would be a much more formidable opponent.
patio?
Omg how can Yousless ride this out? He can’t
Forbes will be leader of a much diminished party within a year. Or they split