It’s not the economy, stupid? – politicalbetting.com

System

It’s not the economy, stupid? – politicalbetting.com

Growing the economy or reducing immigration? Brits are split 37% – 39% as to what should be the priorityWhich should the government prioritise?Economic growth, even if it means more immigration: 37% (Con voters 20%, Lab 56%)Reducing immigration, even if it means less… pic.twitter.com/bd01qxoG3F

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Primus inter pares.

londonpubman

GE 2024 WILL be decided on the economy.

IanB2

Third, like the Tories deserve…

david_herdson

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

david_herdson

In terms of what matters, it is the economy - and also public services.

To the extent that it's immigration, lots of voters who think it matters (as a negative) will think the Tories have failed and vote Reform, or are already voting Tory because that's where their values lie.

Ghedebrav

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

bondegezou

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Given Trump doesn't want democracy in the US, it's not a surprise he's not interested in spreading democracy around the world.

HYUFD

If you are a working class Leaver, growing the economy doesn't do much for you if heavy and uncontrolled low skilled immigration constantly undercuts your wages and adds to pressure for housing and on public services

HYUFD

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/793364307/timeline-how-the-u-s-came-to-strike-and-kill-a-top-iranian-general

eek

HYUFD said:

If you are a working class Leaver, growing the economy doesn't do much for you if heavy and uncontrolled low skilled immigration constantly undercuts your wages and adds to pressure for housing and on public services

So they won’t be voting for the Tory party - which is why Reform / Brexit will do so well

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Primus inter pares.

First time you match Justin Welby!

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Luckyguy1983

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

His idea is 'America in one country', like Stalin's 'Socialism in one country' took over from Lenin's 'Permanent revolution'. Giving up on turning the whole world into America (or Soviet Russia) and withdrawing behind a figurative wall, armed to the teeth. It worked for Stalin, giving the USSR a far longer tenure than it might have otherwise had.

Ironically, it's very similar to what Biden has done in practice. Yes, he's donated a load of old military equipment to Ukraine, but the main thrust of policy has been to strengthen America's economy - often at the expense of allies like the UK (aggressively lobbying for CT rise), readying the US to withdraw behind an unassailable wall as China takes over everywhere else.

TimS

Curse of the new thread so copying my India tip fpt and @boulay ‘s comprehensive follow up.

TimS said:
» show previous quotes
I probably missed lots of replies in the interim but I had a very interesting time a few years ago in the Shekawati region of Rajasthan. Properly off the beaten track (I was staying in a mud hut with no hot running water run by a man with a most exotic moustache and turban), but each village was filled with remarkable merchants' houses called Havelis which were all ornately decorated with detailed frescoes. As were many of their public buildings and even wells. I've never seen anything like it before or since outside a few renaissance churches in Italy.

The village I stayed in was Nawalgarh.

Boulay:
I did two weeks on horse through a chunk of Rajasthan and also was taken by the beauty of the Havelis. Didn’t really know of their existence beforehand. Took in Delhi, Jaipur, Jodphur , Amer for the Amber Fort etc but found the small towns and villages extraordinary for many weird things. The piles of waste at the ends of each village being snaffled by animals, the women working their arses off and the chaps seeming to by lying in the shade on daybeds whatever time you rode by.

Started at a place called Dundlod in Nawalgarh district where the local noble had his fort we stayed at but kept his own colonial era cavalry regiment going with regular displays and practice of tent pegging. I think he found the Raj era harder to let go of than any Briton.

Also went to the Pushkar Mela so was surrounded by a hundred thousand or so camels and horses for sale at the festival. A special scent I shall not forget.

The strange thing about the trip is that when riding from town to village through fields and semi-desert I could have been any Englishman taking the same trip and seeing the same scenes as one 250 years earlier, 150 years or 50 years earlier as there were very few signs of the modern world where I was.

bondegezou

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

bondegezou

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

To quote David H, "Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest."

rcs1000

This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.

And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:

"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"

"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"



* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions

** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".

rcs1000

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Ghedebrav

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

I should have been more specific and de-parenthesised the point on regime change, typically by western states in coalition (rather than international peacekeeping).

OldKingCole

rcs1000 said:

This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.

And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:

"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"

"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"



* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions

** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".

Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies.
Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?

Nigelb

What is the Congressional GOP argument here ?

The offer by Hunter Biden's lawyer for him to testify publicly to the House Oversight Committee runs into conflict with what the chairman, James Comer, says the committee has demanded be conducted first -- a closed-door deposition.
https://twitter.com/HouseInSession/status/1729516398332752321

What Comer "demands" is irrelevant. For a start, Congress's subpoena powers in this instance are legally dubious.
If they derive from the impeachment powers, then they don't exist, as that requires a full vote of the House, which the GOP have avoided, as they'd lose it.

If it's for 'legislative purposes', then the deposition should be public.

This is just self serving bullshit from Comer.

OldKingCole

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Because Obama had a bigger crowd at his inauguration?

Fairliered

From the thread header “Back in 2019 Tory party members, so radicalised by Brexit, were prepared to cause significant damage to the economy to achieve Brexit.”
It’s good to see that the Tories have achieved at least one of their aims.

OnlyLivingBoy

Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

It is when it amounts to overtly leveraging power for economic advantage. That's not to say it's irrational but it's the action of a bully rather than someone who accepts the concept of a rules-based-system (which of course he doesn't, in any setting).

It also aligns with Trump's view of trade - and life in general - as zero-sum. If you 'win' then I must, by definition, have 'lost'.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Have mercantilist policies brought prosperity historically?

rcs1000

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.

And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:

"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"

"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"



* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions

** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".

Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies.
Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?

I believe the issue is that there is a large *net* movement of students to the UK.

(FWIW, I suspect some of that is noise around Covid. Simply the number of foreign students in the UK has risen from very low levels in 2021 when many returned home, and few came to the country.)

david_herdson

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.

That's not guaranteed. One day, they might find that out.

OldKingCole

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.

And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:

"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"

"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"



* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions

** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".

Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies.
Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?

I believe the issue is that there is a large *net* movement of students to the UK.

(FWIW, I suspect some of that is noise around Covid. Simply the number of foreign students in the UK has risen from very low levels in 2021 when many returned home, and few came to the country.)

You could well be right. Comparing apples and pears again!

bondegezou

Ghedebrav said:

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

I should have been more specific and de-parenthesised the point on regime change, typically by western states in coalition (rather than international peacekeeping).

What's on your list then? Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone?

Nigelb

Ghedebrav said:

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

I should have been more specific and de-parenthesised the point on regime change, typically by western states in coalition (rather than international peacekeeping).

So which ardent regime changers is Trump running against, then ?

Vladimir Putin ?

kinabalu

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.

Nigelb

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.

But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives.
The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.

Nigelb

Should be fun.

Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in Smartmatic defamation case against Fox
https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/status/1729528950613827961

Ghedebrav

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

I should have been more specific and de-parenthesised the point on regime change, typically by western states in coalition (rather than international peacekeeping).

What's on your list then? Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone?

From the top of my head, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Arguably Panama, though that's going back a bit further.

noneoftheabove

Growth is the wrong economic comparator here, the better (leading but fair) questions are:

Do we want 600k students of which perhaps a fifth will stay to find work or increase our balance of payments deficit by 50% or so (£30bn-40bn)?

Do we want 150k care and healthcare workers or increase waiting lists in the NHS and make state social care a even more of a postcode lottery?

Do we want to play our part in helping Ukraine defeat Russia?

Do we want to honour our responsibilities to the British National (overseas) Hong Kongers?

rcs1000

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

Ghedebrav

Nigelb said:

Ghedebrav said:

bondegezou said:

Ghedebrav said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

In fairness, given how disastrously self-defeating western interventions have been over the last thirty years (at least those with the overt or covert aim of regime change), there is some objective common sense to that.

I think we remember the less successful ones, but they haven't all been disastrous.

Here's a list of UN military missions in the last 25 years (there have of course been non-UN actions too):

United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)
United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (MINUCI)
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Liberia
United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH)
United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES)
United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP)
United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)
United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO)
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

I should have been more specific and de-parenthesised the point on regime change, typically by western states in coalition (rather than international peacekeeping).

So which ardent regime changers is Trump running against, then ?

Vladimir Putin ?

Er, none? I think we're at cross-purposes here. Just saying that a blind squirrel may occasionally find a nut.

Mexicanpete

...

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

Rishi likes him. So maybe.

kjh

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Obviously no, but deals should benefit both i.e. you give away what has less value to you than it does to whom you are negotiating with and you try and get what has greater value to you than it does to whom you are negotiating with. That is a great deal for all.

Deals that are one sided i.e you try and screw the other party might be popular initially as you do well out of it, but they invariably breakdown in acrimony and fail.

I suspect Trump goes for the 'screw the other party' deals.

Anabobazina

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

kjh

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

Oh dear. Definitely no.

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Have mercantilist policies brought prosperity historically?

Historically yes. It helped both the US and Germany become industrial powers.

Ghedebrav

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

To save folk a click it's Musko hinting that the nonsensical 'pizzagate' conspiracy theory is true. Expect him to move on to the Wayfair one soon.

david_herdson

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Obviously no, but deals should benefit both i.e. you give away what has less value to you than it does to whom you are negotiating with and you try and get what has greater value to you than it does to whom you are negotiating with. That is a great deal for all.

Deals that are one sided i.e you try and screw the other party might be popular initially as you do well out of it, but they invariably breakdown in acrimony and fail.

I suspect Trump goes for the 'screw the other party' deals.

Indeed. I suspect for Trump, the ideal 'deal' is one in which the other party gains no benefits whatsoever and is forced solely by pressure of events to sign.

In business, there are courts to enforce those deals (subject to bankruptcy etc). In diplomacy, less so - hence his willingness to use security guarantees as leverage.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

IMV Musk is as much a threat to the world as the Donald.

noneoftheabove

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

What is this pizzagate thing anyway? Did Obama or Hillary put mango on a kids pizza?

MattW

Nigelb said:

Should be fun.

Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in Smartmatic defamation case against Fox
https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/status/1729528950613827961

We need to be clear.

This is deposed as in "called to testify on oath".

Not deposed as in "removed from his position".

JosiasJessop

And in better news, it looks as though everyone has been rescued from the Uttarakhand tunnel in India. Well done to the team involved.

https://twitter.com/divya_gandotra/status/1729453263840284891

Mexicanpete

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

After Braverman's defenestration it was all going gangbusters for Rishi until it wasn't.

Still, he showed the Greeks who's boss today.

noneoftheabove

JosiasJessop said:

And in better news, it looks as though everyone has been rescued from the Uttarakhand tunnel in India. Well done to the team involved.

https://twitter.com/divya_gandotra/status/1729453263840284891

Surprised Muskybaby not involved in this one yet.

JosiasJessop

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

What is this pizzagate thing anyway? Did Obama or Hillary put mango on a kids pizza?

Something I'd hoped had been left long behind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

TLDR; basically, idiots and @sshats decided that senior democratic figures were running a child abuse ring under a pizza store.

Ghedebrav

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

What is this pizzagate thing anyway? Did Obama or Hillary put mango on a kids pizza?

Something about vampires.

noneoftheabove

Ghedebrav said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

What is this pizzagate thing anyway? Did Obama or Hillary put mango on a kids pizza?

Something about vampires.

So this pizza joint was an all you can eat buffy?

kinabalu

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.

But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives.
The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.

A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.

Mexicanpete

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

What is this pizzagate thing anyway? Did Obama or Hillary put mango on a kids pizza?

The allegation does involve Hillary, kids and pizza, but not in a good way. No mangos as far as I'm aware.

JosiasJessop

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Have mercantilist policies brought prosperity historically?

Historically yes. It helped both the US* and Germany become industrial powers.

There's a reason they abandoned those policies, though. It's because what works when you are small and growing, is much harder to make work when you are highly integrated into the world.

The risk, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, is that other countries enact tit-for-tat trade restrictions.

And then we're all fucked.

* The US is also a lot more nuanced than that. Tariffs started falling in the US in 1830, and kept falling as the US's industrial base kept rising, all the way through to Smoot-Hawley in 1930.

MattW

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

I'm interested that that has not been used much to promote support for Ukraine - the idea that the spending is actually going to investment in Western economies.

It should be a very telling argument in the USA. Less so in the UK since we have bought significant amounts of arms for Ukraine on the open market.

But a lot of our Ukraine money is helping the UK economy - such as boosts for ammunition factories.

david_herdson

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.

But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives.
The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.

A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.

They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.

It's more symbiotic than one-way.

Icarus

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

I think we would kill for a deficit of $9.5bn!!

NickPalmer

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

Not really, though -27 was clearly an outlier. Par seems to be -15 to -20, with no obvious shift recently (though people generally liked the individual measures in the Statement, it didn't change many voting intentions).

Fishing

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

I'm not sure the reading of Trump as an isolationist is the best way of understanding his view of foreign policy. It's more that he has a narrow sense of the US's national interest as opposed to the messianic neocon goal of using American power as a means of spreading democracy around the world.

Trump has pretty much zero sense of the US's national interest as an independent thing from his own interest. To the extent that he does, it's about screwing trade deals for US advantage and using US troops as mercenaries.

Is promoting a trade policy designed to favour your own country's interests really such an outlandish thing?

Have mercantilist policies brought prosperity historically?

Historically yes. It helped both the US and Germany become industrial powers.

That is, to say the least, debatable. America's and Germany's rise was inevitable given their large internal markets, high human skills and commitment to free enterprise domestically. If protectionism helped at all, it was pretty marginal.

And Trump's trade policies are incredibly badly designed so would have the opposite effect to what he presumably intends, raising America's cost of living, promoting inefficiency and uncompetitiveness at home and not necessarily harming foreign competitors at all.

MarqueeMark

Icarus said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

I think we would kill for a deficit of $9.5bn!!

Kill Russians?

Wulfrun_Phil

Sorry TSE, but the thread is based on polling that offers a false choice.

Two reasons:
1. The question should be framed in terms of GDP per head, not absolute economic growth.
2. There's also the question of the rate of immigration. Modest population growth can be coped with. But how quickly can infrastructure expand and adapt to handle the really rapid rate of inward migration that we've recently seen?

In short, there are some nuances to the situation that the polling hasn't tried to deal with, and that devalues its worth.

kinabalu

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

IMV Musk is as much a threat to the world as the Donald.

With you in spirit but not letter there. I do wish he would stay in his lane. It's wide enough surely, the search for AGI and (related) a new planet for us to live on. He's one of the few who might be able to do it. It's so important. And every minute he spends talking utter shit about politics is a minute less on all of that stuff. Focus Elon ffs! Don't waste your gifts!

No_Offence_Alan

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

Of course, comparing government budget to GDP is apples and pears.

Jim_Miller

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

Nigelb

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

IMV Musk is as much a threat to the world as the Donald.

He's the next generation Murdoch.

JosiasJessop

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to defend Elon here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

IMV Musk is as much a threat to the world as the Donald.

He's the next generation Murdoch.

Musk is an order of magnitude worse than Murdoch. Murdoch never had weird nerds willing to jump in front of guns for him.

Wulfrun_Phil

NickPalmer said:

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

Not really, though -27 was clearly an outlier. Par seems to be -15 to -20, with no obvious shift recently (though people generally liked the individual measures in the Statement, it didn't change many voting intentions).

People wouldn't have liked the tax increases resulting from the further freezing of tax allowances Nick, but no pollster I am aware of asked questions about that.

MarqueeMark

david_herdson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.

That's not guaranteed. One day, they might find that out.

And won't they hate Starmer for it...

Icarus

MarqueeMark said:

Icarus said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

I think we would kill for a deficit of $9.5bn!!

Kill Russians?

Our deficit for last month - October 2023 was £14.9bn about $18.9bn - a month not a year!!

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

What is the Congressional GOP argument here ?

The offer by Hunter Biden's lawyer for him to testify publicly to the House Oversight Committee runs into conflict with what the chairman, James Comer, says the committee has demanded be conducted first -- a closed-door deposition.
https://twitter.com/HouseInSession/status/1729516398332752321

What Comer "demands" is irrelevant. For a start, Congress's subpoena powers in this instance are legally dubious.
If they derive from the impeachment powers, then they don't exist, as that requires a full vote of the House, which the GOP have avoided, as they'd lose it.

If it's for 'legislative purposes', then the deposition should be public.

This is just self serving bullshit from Comer.

Congressperson has a stab at answering my question...

Rep. Ben Cline says Hunter Biden's offer to testify publicly is just part of Democrats' effort to block Comer's investigation
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1729530966941536694

kjh

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

I desperately want to post but I don't know what to say. You have to be here. Trying to think of a US comparison in terms of division. How about the 2nd amendment.

For some exporters it has been disastrous, particularly lowish value items to the EU or stuff requiring specific types of paperwork.

Loss of freedom of movement is very annoying and impacts people I know badly, although for me it has been inconvenient but not hugely.

noneoftheabove

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

The obsession with Brexit is certainly mistaken, what is done is done. But in a lot of remainers opinions we havent had an increase in democracy at all. Quite the reverse, the takeover of a conservative Conservative party that believed in democracy and the rule of law with something radical, incompetent and at times unpleasant that has left the country, and what used to the be the centre right very divided - this is in my opinion very bad for democracy.

And the Greek economy has been disastrous since I was born (it seems that way at least) so I would be more perturbed if they suddenly got their act together.....to be fair it probably started when they lost their marbles.

eek

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

Not really, though -27 was clearly an outlier. Par seems to be -15 to -20, with no obvious shift recently (though people generally liked the individual measures in the Statement, it didn't change many voting intentions).

People wouldn't have liked the tax increases resulting from the further freezing of tax allowances Nick, but no pollster I am aware of asked questions about that.

It’s an incredibly complex question when you start thinking how do you ask it - so I can see why no-one has gone near it

Jim_Miller

Off topic, but important. Jim Geraghty's latest column:
"How many American evangelicals know their faith is being targeted by Russian military forces in Ukraine?

In November last year, a Ukrainian evangelical church leader, Anatoliy Prokopchuk, and his 19-year-old son Oleksandr were abducted by Russian soldiers. Four days later, their bodies were discovered in a forest, with evidence the pair had been tortured and executed. Russian occupying forces closed down the three largest evangelical Protestant churches in Melitopol and shut down churches in Mariupol. In August, Ukrainian Baptist Theological Seminary President Yaroslav Pyzh estimated that about 400 Ukrainian Baptist congregations had been lost in the war in Ukraine, in part from evacuations and displaced communities, and in part from casualties and destroyed churches."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/28/russia-attacks-ukraine-evangelicals/

One of the continuities in Russian history is the persecution of this group, a persecution which has drawn less attention than it deserves.

(There are a number of Russian Baptist churches in this area, probably thanks to the late, great Senator "Scoop" Jackson.)

Nigelb

ChatGPT does a pretty good job of teasing out US campaign finance law.
This is actually quite good (is a bit prolix).
https://chat.openai.com/share/0616d882-eb8f-488e-8e6a-67c06521e02a

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Primus inter pares.

First time you match Justin Welby!

I have nothing in common with the privately educated Cambridge graduate.

He's the Archbishop of Canterbury, I'm the Archbishop of Banterbury.

Anabobazina

Mexicanpete said:

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

After Braverman's defenestration it was all going gangbusters for Rishi until it wasn't.

Still, he showed the Greeks who's boss today.

That's why they call him the Iron Man.

viewcode

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Primus inter pares.

First time you match Justin Welby!

I have nothing in common with the privately educated Cambridge graduate.

He's the Archbishop of Canterbury, I'm the Archbishop of Banterbury.

Stop bashing the (Arch)Bishop.

Chris

No_Offence_Alan said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Russia will now allocate an incredible 39% of its entire government budget to its global wars of conquest, officially putting the country at a deficit of $9.5 billion/year."

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1729384048974282875

In comparison, the US has spent 0.2% of its GDP supporting Ukraine. Whilst using mostly out-of-date or near-retirement kit.

Of course, comparing government budget to GDP is apples and pears.

Well, in Britain, one is roughly half of the other.

There's a factor of 195 between those figures that were quoted.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.

Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.

But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives.
The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.

A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.

They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.

It's more symbiotic than one-way.

The lights will soon be going out in America. It may be some time before we see them lit again.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Mexicanpete said:

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

After Braverman's defenestration it was all going gangbusters for Rishi until it wasn't.

Still, he showed the Greeks who's boss today.

Until he sends gunboats into the Aegean to blockade the f***ers, I'll not be satisfied. Dear old Don Pacifico must be spinning in his grave over this pathetic response.

rcs1000

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.

On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.

Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.

Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.

Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.

Sean_F

Jim_Miller said:

Off topic, but important. Jim Geraghty's latest column:
"How many American evangelicals know their faith is being targeted by Russian military forces in Ukraine?

In November last year, a Ukrainian evangelical church leader, Anatoliy Prokopchuk, and his 19-year-old son Oleksandr were abducted by Russian soldiers. Four days later, their bodies were discovered in a forest, with evidence the pair had been tortured and executed. Russian occupying forces closed down the three largest evangelical Protestant churches in Melitopol and shut down churches in Mariupol. In August, Ukrainian Baptist Theological Seminary President Yaroslav Pyzh estimated that about 400 Ukrainian Baptist congregations had been lost in the war in Ukraine, in part from evacuations and displaced communities, and in part from casualties and destroyed churches."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/28/russia-attacks-ukraine-evangelicals/

One of the continuities in Russian history is the persecution of this group, a persecution which has drawn less attention than it deserves.

(There are a number of Russian Baptist churches in this area, probably thanks to the late, great Senator "Scoop" Jackson.)

For many of them, there is no God but Trump.

Jim_Miller

noneoftheabove - "World War II (1939–1945) devastated the country's economy, but the high levels of economic growth that followed from 1950 to 1980 have been called the Greek economic miracle.[55] From 2000 Greece saw high levels of GDP growth above the Eurozone average, peaking at 5.8% in 2003 and 5.7% in 2006."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece

Here's a graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_per_capita_development_of_Greece.svg

Sean_F

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Primus inter pares.

First time you match Justin Welby!

I have nothing in common with the privately educated Cambridge graduate.

He's the Archbishop of Canterbury, I'm the Archbishop of Banterbury.

Spending a quiet afternoon bashing the Bishop again, Mr Eagles?

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.

On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.

Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.

Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.

Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.

Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?

If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??

No.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.

The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.

Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more

HYUFD

Jim_Miller said:

Off topic, but important. Jim Geraghty's latest column:
"How many American evangelicals know their faith is being targeted by Russian military forces in Ukraine?

In November last year, a Ukrainian evangelical church leader, Anatoliy Prokopchuk, and his 19-year-old son Oleksandr were abducted by Russian soldiers. Four days later, their bodies were discovered in a forest, with evidence the pair had been tortured and executed. Russian occupying forces closed down the three largest evangelical Protestant churches in Melitopol and shut down churches in Mariupol. In August, Ukrainian Baptist Theological Seminary President Yaroslav Pyzh estimated that about 400 Ukrainian Baptist congregations had been lost in the war in Ukraine, in part from evacuations and displaced communities, and in part from casualties and destroyed churches."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/28/russia-attacks-ukraine-evangelicals/

One of the continuities in Russian history is the persecution of this group, a persecution which has drawn less attention than it deserves.

(There are a number of Russian Baptist churches in this area, probably thanks to the late, great Senator "Scoop" Jackson.)

There can be no challenges to the Russian Orthodox Church of course, the religious wing of the Kremlin

No_Offence_Alan

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.

On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.

Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.

Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.

Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.

Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?

If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.

Could you furnish us with examples where countries e.g. the post-Brexit UK have successfully "used the normal instruments of trade policy" to their advantage?
Having a single currency for many countries means one less thing for their governments to get wrong.

Richard_Tyndall

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

I think this is spot on and your measured observations from a distance are certainly closer to the truth than much of the rather overwrought reaction we get from some commentators here.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Jim_Miller said:

Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.

From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.

Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.

(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)

So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.

On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.

Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.

Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.

Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.

Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?

If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.

What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.

Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.

More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.

The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?

Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?

That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"

When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.

He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).

He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.

Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.

That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.

The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.

Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more

Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.