DeSantis raises $8.2m in first 24 hours after his WH2024 declaration – politicalbetting.com
The big development in the 2024 White House race has been the expected announcement by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that he was in fact standing for the presidency. This was hardly a surprise that has had almost exactly no impact on the betting.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Yeah, but at least they're fully staffed with engineers to do the work.
Is $8.2m a lot in US terms? Presumably a lot of this was "pre-pledged" pending the formal announcement. I suspect that a US campaign will burn through that fairly rapidly. The question going forward will be whether he can replenish it. And that probably depends on Trump and whether he remains the clear leader. Getting your bribes, sorry contributions in early makes sense if your man becomes front runner but not so much otherwise.
Big Ron very much running as an anti Woke crusader. He and Trump set for a battle royale for the GOP nomination at the moment, perhaps the closest since Reagan v Ford in 1976 which went all the way to the convention
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
It could but as the EC would be majority Trump electors that would be unlikely. He would also have to be inaugrated if he won the EC, even if only let out on license to the Capitol to take the Oath before returning to jail.
So the most powerful man in the world could in theory be making decisions and have the nuclear button in his prison cell lying in a bunk under a man with big tattoos. Would get a big confusing between Secret Service and Prison Guards though. First time White House State Dinners are prison food too!
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
It could but as the EC would be majority Trump electors that would be unlikely. He would also have to be inaugrated if he won he EC, even if only let out on license to the Capitol to take the Oath before returning to jail.
So the most powerful man in the world could in theory be making decisions and have the nuclear button in his prison cell lying in a bunk under a man with big tattoos. Would get a big confusing between Secret Service and Prison Guards though. First time White House State Dinners are prison food too!
Well, the issue that was slightly puzzling me is that in New York and Georgia prisoners don't have the vote.
If he were in prison in either of those states, wouldn't he therefore technically be ineligible?
(The point is moot because the American legal system is so slow, but it's an interesting point.)
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
It could but as the EC would be majority Trump electors that would be unlikely. He would also have to be inaugrated if he won he EC, even if only let out on license to the Capitol to take the Oath before returning to jail.
So the most powerful man in the world could in theory be making decisions and have the nuclear button in his prison cell lying in a bunk under a man with big tattoos. Would get a big confusing between Secret Service and Prison Guards though. First time White House State Dinners are prison food too!
Well, the issue that was slightly puzzling me is that in New York and Georgia prisoners don't have the vote.
If he were in prison in either of those states, wouldn't he therefore technically be ineligible?
(The point is moot because the American legal system is so slow, but it's an interesting point.)
No, as even if he couldn't vote for himself he could still be President if he won the EC constitutionally
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
Does he actually need to be inaugurated? My understanding is that the inauguration is a ceremony akin to the Coronation.
LBJ became president as soon as JFK died. He had a series of increasingly terse phone calls with Bobby Kennedy with regards to when he became president and the need to administer the oath. The attorney general, his department and pretty much everybody agreed that LBJ was the president regardless of oath or inauguration.
I think ydoethur has it right, the bigger problem for Trump would be that he would surely be ineligible for election in at least a number of states.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Maybe the boss shouldn't have shut down so much infrastructure while simultaneously attempting to expand the service ?
Big Ron very much running as an anti Woke crusader. He and Trump set for a battle royale for the GOP nomination at the moment, perhaps the closest since Reagan v Ford in 1976 which went all the way to the convention
He'll need a much more optimistic tone for the Presidential election eventually I think, if he beats Trump. American voters like the more genial candidate, the one with an optimistic vision. Anger and negativity rarely sell when times are reasonably good, as they are at the moment, with the economy doing well on an avalanche of federal spending. I think of Bob Dole in 1996 and his "Where's the outrage?".
Trump in 2016 is the obvious exception to that, but he had his showbiz glamour to sell, and of course he lost the popular vote.
Fwiw I am in the US now, amongst friends of both parties who are more than averagely political, and none of them have mentioned the Presidential election or nomination race. Few are focusing on it yet I think.
He was unrepentant, just as he was at trial when he testified on his own behalf for a little over a day. Even then, as a jury actively held his fate in their hands, he publicly smeared proceedings in jailhouse interviews while comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. And just four days ago, in yet another interview from jail, Rhodes kept up The Big Lie.
The 2020 election was fraudulent, he argued, and the U.S. government had launched a “terror campaign” on Jan. 6 defendants. Four days ago he called for “regime change” and in words that could haunt any appeal of his conviction in the future, he added: “We’re going to have to stop it, the American people” and “It’s not going to stop until it’s stopped.” ..
I'm still recovering from my hangover celebrating the Germans having zero growth!
Your going to have to do it all over again, their economy shrank
So we're on another bender this evening are we?
Oktoberfest is starting early
I heard one of your school chums on the radio the other day Andre Geim and very impressive he was too. He did mention his German roots but only as a small part of the equation
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
Does he actually need to be inaugurated? My understanding is that the inauguration is a ceremony akin to the Coronation.
LBJ became president as soon as JFK died. He had a series of increasingly terse phone calls with Bobby Kennedy with regards to when he became president and the need to administer the oath. The attorney general, his department and pretty much everybody agreed that LBJ was the president regardless of oath or inauguration.
I think ydoethur has it right, the bigger problem for Trump would be that he would surely be ineligible for election in at least a number of states.
The VP is in office for exactly that purpose and is "inaugurated" when he takes the oath. I agree the jamboree in front of Congress is not necessary but I think the oath to uphold the constitution of the US would need to be administered. Could that be done in a prison cell? Possibly.
He was unrepentant, just as he was at trial when he testified on his own behalf for a little over a day. Even then, as a jury actively held his fate in their hands, he publicly smeared proceedings in jailhouse interviews while comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. And just four days ago, in yet another interview from jail, Rhodes kept up The Big Lie.
The 2020 election was fraudulent, he argued, and the U.S. government had launched a “terror campaign” on Jan. 6 defendants. Four days ago he called for “regime change” and in words that could haunt any appeal of his conviction in the future, he added: “We’re going to have to stop it, the American people” and “It’s not going to stop until it’s stopped.” ..
Well there is one guy who will be very much hoping for a Trump Presidency.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall with Musk and DeSantis during the problems. I mean, the latter has launched an all out war with a global conglomerate and huge state employer because they criticised him once, I doubt he took it well.
I'm still recovering from my hangover celebrating the Germans having zero growth!
Your going to have to do it all over again, their economy shrank
So we're on another bender this evening are we?
Oktoberfest is starting early
I heard one of your school chums on the radio the other day Andre Geim and very impressive he was too. He did mention his German roots but only as a small part of the equation
Time to leave dreary London and head out to the real world
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Yeah, but at least they're fully staffed with engineers to do the work.
There’s still about 1500 people working there. It only needs a few dozen actual engineers on product development.
Good piece on the Today R4 8.10 interview about how covid restrictions prevented eg social workers from carrying out their duties and hence lead to situations such as that of Finlay Boden.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
Make America Florida is already comedy. I want to see DeSantis campaign to arm all elementary school kids. Giving 5 year olds a gun is the only civilised way to keep them safe.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
The inauguration is like the coronation - ceremonial, not necessary. A president needs to swear the oath, but that can be done, and has been done, anywhere. Trump would take the oath in his prison cell.
Big Ron very much running as an anti Woke crusader. He and Trump set for a battle royale for the GOP nomination at the moment, perhaps the closest since Reagan v Ford in 1976 which went all the way to the convention
Is 'Big' ironic ? He seems quite small, in every sense.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Yeah, but at least they're fully staffed with engineers to do the work.
There’s still about 1500 people working there. It only needs a few dozen actual engineers on product development.
Given how many were sacked and the level of problems not being that frequent for day to day users (there seems to have been greater trouble with policy decisions) it seems that even if they are a bit short now he was probably right they could easily have halved the workforce.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
It depends exactly why he’s in prison. In many states, it’s not allowed for convicted felons to stand for elected office. There are some suggestions / conspiracy theories, that the NY prosecutor intends to charge Trump with a criminal felony as soon as his nomination is confirmed, with the intention of disqualifying him from the ballot in many states.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
The inauguration is like the coronation - ceremonial, not necessary. A president needs to swear the oath, but that can be done, and has been done, anywhere. Trump would take the oath in his prison cell.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
The inauguration is like the coronation - ceremonial, not necessary. A president needs to swear the oath, but that can be done, and has been done, anywhere. Trump would take the oath in his prison cell.
Don't they take the oath privately the day before inauguration or something?
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
Make America Florida is already comedy. I want to see DeSantis campaign to arm all elementary school kids. Giving 5 year olds a gun is the only civilised way to keep them safe.
The World is in a very dark place when f***tards across the globe are being selected and winning high office. And there are plenty on PB flying the flag for these knob heads.
Money for advertising is a bit of a waste when Trump will just tweet 'Meatball Ron is a CUCK Woke slimeBALL!!!' and every network breathless cuts to a panel of reporters and pundits going 'Damnnnnnn, that's harsh/behold the word of the Lord'.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
Does he actually need to be inaugurated? My understanding is that the inauguration is a ceremony akin to the Coronation.
LBJ became president as soon as JFK died. He had a series of increasingly terse phone calls with Bobby Kennedy with regards to when he became president and the need to administer the oath. The attorney general, his department and pretty much everybody agreed that LBJ was the president regardless of oath or inauguration.
I think ydoethur has it right, the bigger problem for Trump would be that he would surely be ineligible for election in at least a number of states.
The VP is in office for exactly that purpose and is "inaugurated" when he takes the oath. I agree the jamboree in front of Congress is not necessary but I think the oath to uphold the constitution of the US would need to be administered. Could that be done in a prison cell? Possibly.
Of course it could. A majority of the Justices would crawl over broken glass to confirm a Republican. And they're the ones who get to decide what the Constitution says, however implausibly.
Money for advertising is a bit of a waste when Trump will just tweet 'Meatball Ron is a CUCK Woke slimeBALL!!!' and every network breathless cuts to a panel of reporters and pundits going 'Damnnnnnn, that's harsh/behold the word of the Lord'.
Well Trump isn't wrong is he. DeSantis wants to ban everything. Has anyone seen DeSantis and Xi in the same room together?
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
It depends exactly why he’s in prison. In many states, it’s not allowed for convicted felons to stand for elected office. There are some suggestions / conspiracy theories, that the NY prosecutor intends to charge Trump with a criminal felony as soon as his nomination is confirmed, with the intention of disqualifying him from the ballot in many states.
How does that work if appeals are in play?
I dont think he'll end up having a problem with it.
I do wish some of one dragging on like Georgia would make a decision already. I know we're in no position to criticise on speed but given the reported stage they're at it seems like a call should have been possible by now.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
The inauguration is like the coronation - ceremonial, not necessary. A president needs to swear the oath, but that can be done, and has been done, anywhere. Trump would take the oath in his prison cell.
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
He needs to be inaugurated so he can pardon himself. Although I think he can only pardon himself of Federal crimes.
The inauguration is like the coronation - ceremonial, not necessary. A president needs to swear the oath, but that can be done, and has been done, anywhere. Trump would take the oath in his prison cell.
Don't they take the oath privately the day before inauguration or something?
Only, I think, if 20th January (noon on 20th is specified by the Constitution as the handover time) falls on a Sunday. Then they have the formal inauguration on Monday 21st but administer the oath on 20th.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Yeah, but at least they're fully staffed with engineers to do the work.
There’s still about 1500 people working there. It only needs a few dozen actual engineers on product development.
Given how many were sacked and the level of problems not being that frequent for day to day users (there seems to have been greater trouble with policy decisions) it seems that even if they are a bit short now he was probably right they could easily have halved the workforce.
The company was pretty much close to bankrupt when the Musk consortium took it over, and he way overpaid right at the top of the Bull market. He had little choice but to cut costs right down, and then look to ways of growing revenue. He’s very much following the Silicon Valley startup mould of moving fast and breaking things, which is not what’s often done with an established company.
The DeSantis campaign launch was an embarrassment though, both to the platform and the candidate. The platform simply couldn’t scale sufficiently, for what wasn’t a particularly large following. It crashed at just over 500k.
If you tell YouTube you’re expecting a couple of million watchers, they’ll give you capacity, I think their record is still the 10m who were watching live as Felix Baumgartner jumped from space.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
I'm calling it that the work wont be completed by then. He could just explain himself but like any recalcitrant subject he'll use every ploy to delay and confiscate. Expect a legal submission seeking to challenge the period (even if it's a proceeding of parliament and thus more a political process than legal).
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
The people trying to re-litigate the pandemic, are just as bad as those trying to re-litigate the Brexit decision. We are where we are, let’s spend the effort working out how to make the country better in the future.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
I want him to lose his seat at the next election, because I have an awesome headline lined up.
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Yeah, but at least they're fully staffed with engineers to do the work.
There’s still about 1500 people working there. It only needs a few dozen actual engineers on product development.
Given how many were sacked and the level of problems not being that frequent for day to day users (there seems to have been greater trouble with policy decisions) it seems that even if they are a bit short now he was probably right they could easily have halved the workforce.
The company was pretty much close to bankrupt when the Musk consortium took it over, and he way overpaid right at the top of the Bull market. He had little choice but to cut costs right down...
He added a billion a year to costs for the foreseeable future in debt interest payments. So no, it was nowhere close to bankrupt.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
But I can understand Team Johnson's logic that if Margaret Ferrier doesn't get banned for over 10 days her one massive high risk indiscretion why should Boris get a ban for his several dozen medium risk offences?
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
I want him to lose his seat at the next election, because I have an awesome headline lined up.
Oh god yes and my heart is aflutter at the prospect of the headline but I couldn't give a toss about what nuanced covid rule he did or didn't break.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
That probably isn't the view of the families who lost loved ones through COVID. Do we have a statute of limitations?
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
That probably isn't the view of the families who lost loved ones through COVID. Do we have a statute of limitations?
Nah I would have thought they also want to move on and put the whole thing behind them.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
The people trying to re-litigate the pandemic, are just as bad as those trying to re-litigate the Brexit decision. We are where we are, let’s spend the effort working out how to make the country better in the future.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
I want him to lose his seat at the next election, because I have an awesome headline lined up.
Oh god yes and my heart is aflutter at the prospect of the headline but I couldn't give a toss about what nuanced covid rule he did or didn't break.
However there's a benefit in keeping Boris Johnson on the canvas.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
I want him to lose his seat at the next election, because I have an awesome headline lined up.
Oh god yes and my heart is aflutter at the prospect of the headline but I couldn't give a toss about what nuanced covid rule he did or didn't break.
However there's a benefit in keeping Boris Johnson on the canvas.
Disagree, we want him out of the ring and retired. By all means give the Cons an opportunity to further define Rishi in contradistinction to Boris if that's your game, though.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Both are bad (and are linked) but I'd say inflation has the potential to be more damaging. And it's looking bad imo. What Bailey said mustn't happen is happening. It's getting embedded.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
a) on the blockquote management in your response to @Casino_Royale; and b) using "uteri" in any kind of post.
As to the substance of your post. To explain woke is very easy, just substitute "political correctness gone mad" whenever anyone uses it and all becomes clear.
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
That probably isn't the view of the families who lost loved ones through COVID. Do we have a statute of limitations?
Nah I would have thought they also want to move on and put the whole thing behind them.
Indeed we do. But I'm quite happy to see Johnson hung out to dry for being a pillock.
And it is, after all, he who is responsible for setting up the costly and delayed enquiry into the Covid response. Hoist and petard.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Ronald Reagan explained it with customary clarity. "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours and a recovery, " he said pointing at Jimmy Carter, "is when he loses his."
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Ronald Reagan explained it with customary clarity. "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours and a recovery, " he said pointing at Jimmy Carter, "is when he loses his."
I knew this would be mentioned.
But it's the key point. No one cares about GDP. They care about having a job and they care about inflation.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
You do indeed keep being asked the question but never give a very good answer. Your answer to me was along the lines of "Woke defines people by what they are born not what they have become" or some such. Which makes the KKK "Woke". It is a term only used by the right to demonise those on the left and when those on the left ask for a definition all we get is your endless Ad Hominems and evasions.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
Well you haven't made an attempt to counter my point other than to imply I am an ill-educated and thick poster. Facts which I agree are beyond question. But please, have a go, humour me.
Oh and a reminder, you haven't given me an off topic or a flag for a while, shape up!
'It should be noted that even if he was conducting his campaign from a prison cell and got elected Trump would still be president.'
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
As HYUFD is fond of noting, yes the EC could elect somebody else. But I think they probably wouldn't. And he doesn't have to be inaugurated, he just has to be sworn in, which can be done in his cell (see LBJ in Air Force One)
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
Big Ron very much running as an anti Woke crusader. He and Trump set for a battle royale for the GOP nomination at the moment, perhaps the closest since Reagan v Ford in 1976 which went all the way to the convention
He'll need a much more optimistic tone for the Presidential election eventually I think, if he beats Trump. American voters like the more genial candidate, the one with an optimistic vision. Anger and negativity rarely sell when times are reasonably good, as they are at the moment, with the economy doing well on an avalanche of federal spending. I think of Bob Dole in 1996 and his "Where's the outrage?".
Trump in 2016 is the obvious exception to that, but he had his showbiz glamour to sell, and of course he lost the popular vote.
Fwiw I am in the US now, amongst friends of both parties who are more than averagely political, and none of them have mentioned the Presidential election or nomination race. Few are focusing on it yet I think.
I'm not sure Trump was entirely an exception at all.
Trump actually followed in the footsteps of Obama and all his predecessors in being optimistic in his campaigning - its just that the things he was optimistic over were not good things for those of us who aren't crazy.
"Make America Great Again" is much more optimistic than "you're destroying America with your woke attitudes".
"Build That Wall" is an optimistic expression of what you want to achieve, even if what you want to achieve is repellent.
Voters tend to like politicians who pledge to get done what they want doing, rather than pure negativity. Trump is awful and negative, but he phrased himself in a positive way to those who liked him.
While Hillary managed to make herself be turned into the negative one with mis-steps like "basket of deplorables" etc - I still think she would have won had she campaign more positively, especially in the swing states like Pennsylvania which she lost but Biden won.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
Well you haven't made an attempt to counter my point other than to imply I am an ill-educated and thick poster. Facts which I agree are beyond question. But please, have a go, humour me.
Oh and a reminder, you haven't given me an off topic or a flag for a while, shape up!
I have no desire to waste my time with posters who are incapable of intelligent discussion or thought. Why would I? It's like spending all day on the doorstep with JW.
I'm not interested enough to flag or off topic your posts unless you say something libellous or personally insulting, and there isn't a button for boring.
Occasionally you can be interesting. When you are again you can be sure I'll pick up.
I'm still recovering from my hangover celebrating the Germans having zero growth!
Your going to have to do it all over again, their economy shrank
So we're on another bender this evening are we?
Oktoberfest is starting early
I heard one of your school chums on the radio the other day Andre Geim and very impressive he was too. He did mention his German roots but only as a small part of the equation
Time to leave dreary London and head out to the real world
If you want to do a stint I can put in a good word for you
God how I've missed those tractor races and then the pub crawls along the Conservative Clubs on Broad Street. I see they've got James Cleverly as guest speaker. Quite a scoop
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
This whole debate reminds me of Political Correctness. The opponents of it had a hard time coming up with a definition. A common repost was to say that it didn't exists.
In both opposition and advocacy, it was used to label people as Bad Thinkers. And if you have a Bad Mind, you need to be Cancelled.
It is interesting how people need so very very much an ideology to comfort them, by doing their thinking for them.
EDIT: Just to be clear, this goes for both sides in the debate.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
You do indeed keep being asked the question but never give a very good answer. Your answer to me was along the lines of "Woke defines people by what they are born not what they have become" or some such. Which makes the KKK "Woke". It is a term only used by the right to demonise those on the left and when those on the left ask for a definition all we get is your endless Ad Hominems and evasions.
I have given a very clear answer and your argument on the KKK actually supports my point, not refutes it.
Why would new groups that argue they advocate for social justice but actually act more in the spirit of the KKK when it comes to group identity be a good thing?
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
Well you haven't made an attempt to counter my point other than to imply I am an ill-educated and thick poster. Facts which I agree are beyond question. But please, have a go, humour me.
Oh and a reminder, you haven't given me an off topic or a flag for a while, shape up!
I have no desire to waste my time with posters who are incapable of intelligent discussion or thought. Why would I? It's like spending all day on the doorstep with JW.
I'm not interested enough to flag or off topic your posts unless you say something libellous or personally insulting, and there isn't a button for boring.
Occasionally you can be interesting. When you are again you can be sure I'll pick up.
If you read you posts this morning, you do come across as telling people in what manner they're allowed to converse with you, and setting yourself up as an arbiter of their value, and values. All of which is fair enough - except that it's also what you complain of in your interlocutors.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
Well it doesn't seem that dissimilar to the situation in the early 2010s when the coalition was trying to bring the deficit under control and lets not forget Dave and George weren't exactly in the poor house...
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
Comments
'Boris Johnson the man that broke Britain'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hc_f-cfdiY
https://twitter.com/foaddabiri/status/1661817359580147712
It’s fair to say that they need some serious work on the Spaces infrastructure, and it failed in the most high-profile way possible that managed to embarrass the boss.
Would that be the case? I realise it's never been tested but in those circumstances could the EC instead elect the Vice President?
Because after all, he couldn't be inaugurated...
So the most powerful man in the world could in theory be making decisions and have the nuclear button in his prison cell lying in a bunk under a man with big tattoos. Would get a big confusing between Secret Service and Prison Guards though. First time White House State Dinners are prison food too!
If he were in prison in either of those states, wouldn't he therefore technically be ineligible?
(The point is moot because the American legal system is so slow, but it's an interesting point.)
LBJ became president as soon as JFK died. He had a series of increasingly terse phone calls with Bobby Kennedy with regards to when he became president and the need to administer the oath. The attorney general, his department and pretty much everybody agreed that LBJ was the president regardless of oath or inauguration.
I think ydoethur has it right, the bigger problem for Trump would be that he would surely be ineligible for election in at least a number of states.
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
But obviously he can carry no blame.
As with Jeb! it's the absence of personality - thus far not available, even for ready money.
Trump in 2016 is the obvious exception to that, but he had his showbiz glamour to sell, and of course he lost the popular vote.
Fwiw I am in the US now, amongst friends of both parties who are more than averagely political, and none of them have mentioned the Presidential election or nomination race. Few are focusing on it yet I think.
‘NOTHING HAS CHANGED, MR. RHODES, NOTHING HAS CHANGED’: Seditious Oath Keeper Elmer Rhodes sentenced to 18 years
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/05/25/nothing-has-changed-mr-rhodes-nothing-has-changed-seditious-oath-keeper-elmer-rhodes-sentenced-to-18-years/
...Rhodes offered no surprises at the Prettyman courthouse in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.
He was unrepentant, just as he was at trial when he testified on his own behalf for a little over a day. Even then, as a jury actively held his fate in their hands, he publicly smeared proceedings in jailhouse interviews while comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. And just four days ago, in yet another interview from jail, Rhodes kept up The Big Lie.
The 2020 election was fraudulent, he argued, and the U.S. government had launched a “terror campaign” on Jan. 6 defendants. Four days ago he called for “regime change” and in words that could haunt any appeal of his conviction in the future, he added: “We’re going to have to stop it, the American people” and “It’s not going to stop until it’s stopped.” ..
https://ludlow.org.uk/events2.asp?Month=6
If you want to do a stint I can put in a good word for you
https://www.derbyshire.police.uk/news/derbyshire/news/news/north/2023/april/parents-found-guilty-of-murder-of-10-month-old-son/
Doesn't show up in the covid or any other stats, that said.
Sentencing today.
He seems quite small, in every sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign
A majority of the Justices would crawl over broken glass to confirm a Republican. And they're the ones who get to decide what the Constitution says, however implausibly.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/johnson-has-a-week-to-explain-chequers-lockdown-party-claims-3kfxphdc0
I dont think he'll end up having a problem with it.
I do wish some of one dragging on like Georgia would make a decision already. I know we're in no position to criticise on speed but given the reported stage they're at it seems like a call should have been possible by now.
The DeSantis campaign launch was an embarrassment though, both to the platform and the candidate. The platform simply couldn’t scale sufficiently, for what wasn’t a particularly large following. It crashed at just over 500k.
If you tell YouTube you’re expecting a couple of million watchers, they’ll give you capacity, I think their record is still the 10m who were watching live as Felix Baumgartner jumped from space.
Chancellor comfortable with recession if it brings down inflation
Jeremy Hunt says he feels an obligation to support the Bank of England in its decisions, as a way of ensuring prosperity and economic growth.
https://news.sky.com/story/chancellor-comfortable-with-recession-if-it-brings-down-inflation-12889607
So no, it was nowhere close to bankrupt.
Trump and the House of Mouse is not the quite combo I had in mind but hey ho.
Russia sentences veteran Crimean Tatar activist 'to death' for somebody else’s voice on a tape
https://khpg.org/en/1608812303
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it
all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
EXCLUSIVE:
Boris Johnson was planning to release a photograph of a family lunch in No 10 garden to show it was compliant with 'rule of six'
Photo was never released. The Times told image shows them standing closely together
Johnson says no rules broken
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3c2822ee-fb3b-11ed-9be0-622d8a105167?shareToken=c94ad709b03d0f562ed56cc1b5523d68
Rachel is holding the baby, Charlotte is holding the baby's foot, Johnson is standing directly next to his sister
At the time the rule of six was in place. There were 5 people in the No 10 garden at the time, making it compliant with the regulations
But social distancing guidance at the time stated that people from different households should stand 2 metres apart
Boris Johnson spokesman:
'All these events were completely lawful based on advice from lawyers. No restrictions were broken on this occasion or others'
Boris Johnson told a No 10 press conference on May 28:
'As we take this small step forward, it is critical that those from different households continue to stay 2 metres apart.'
Mr. kinabalu, the best time to kick a man is when he's down.
Perdiccas didn't have Meleager's followers trampled to death by elephants for no reason.
A worrisome article arguing that Putin will probably resort to tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
fantastic effort
a) on the blockquote management in your response to @Casino_Royale; and
b) using "uteri" in any kind of post.
As to the substance of your post. To explain woke is very easy, just substitute "political correctness gone mad" whenever anyone uses it and all becomes clear.
But I'm quite happy to see Johnson hung out to dry for being a pillock.
And it is, after all, he who is responsible for setting up the costly and delayed enquiry into the Covid response. Hoist and petard.
But it's the key point. No one cares about GDP. They care about having a job and they care about inflation.
Oh and a reminder, you haven't given me an off topic or a flag for a while, shape up!
Seven ways to walk past a homeless person without being consumed by middle-class guilt
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/seven-ways-to-walk-past-a-homeless-person-without-being-consumed-by-middle-class-guilt-20230525235593
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
Me I would tell them they should have voted for Jezza and give them 7p
Trump actually followed in the footsteps of Obama and all his predecessors in being optimistic in his campaigning - its just that the things he was optimistic over were not good things for those of us who aren't crazy.
"Make America Great Again" is much more optimistic than "you're destroying America with your woke attitudes".
"Build That Wall" is an optimistic expression of what you want to achieve, even if what you want to achieve is repellent.
Voters tend to like politicians who pledge to get done what they want doing, rather than pure negativity. Trump is awful and negative, but he phrased himself in a positive way to those who liked him.
While Hillary managed to make herself be turned into the negative one with mis-steps like "basket of deplorables" etc - I still think she would have won had she campaign more positively, especially in the swing states like Pennsylvania which she lost but Biden won.
I'm not interested enough to flag or off topic your posts unless you say something libellous or personally insulting, and there isn't a button for boring.
Occasionally you can be interesting. When you are again you can be sure I'll pick up.
In both opposition and advocacy, it was used to label people as Bad Thinkers. And if you have a Bad Mind, you need to be Cancelled.
It is interesting how people need so very very much an ideology to comfort them, by doing their thinking for them.
EDIT: Just to be clear, this goes for both sides in the debate.
Guidelines are not the law - the law is the law. @TOPPING was right on this one throughout.
Why would new groups that argue they advocate for social justice but actually act more in the spirit of the KKK when it comes to group identity be a good thing?
All of which is fair enough - except that it's also what you complain of in your interlocutors.
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.