He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
It's very wrong of people to want to pursue violent criminals through the courts. How very dare they?
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
These are two separate things. The Democrats, of course, will try to beat Trump in any event.
Frankly, arguing that Trump should be immune from being held legally to account for his actions just because he’s running for election seems a pretty poor argument to me. It’s certainly not an argument a court would entertain.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
Your post sums up the problem neatly in the US.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
A book about Truss' premiership? Maybe a pamphlet.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
Sibling movies contd. Pride and Prejudice. Sense and Sensibility. Pride, Prejudice and Zombies.
(Everyone else still thinking about Michelle Pfeiffer...)
Thanks for this and the other sibling suggestions. I’d say some of these are in the Godfather category: siblings feature, but they’re not the main story. Sense and sensibility is perhaps closer to a true sibling story than P&P.
Of the sitcoms Frazier probably counts.
I’d forgotten Twins.
I'd argue that Godfather 2 is a sibling story, at least in the 1950s line (and even then other strong elements).
Rain Man worth a mention.
Rain Man was in my initial list. Only fools and horses was a good addition, if having a third old man there doesn’t dilute it.
Actually I just realised - maybe this was obvious and I’m the only one who didn’t know - that Father Ted is the same premise as Only Fools, just on a different setting.
Both of the Guardian's top 2 TV shows of 2023 - The Bear and Succession - have sibling relationships at their core. Perhaps siblings stories are having a moment? I agree it is an unexplored theme in our culture and produces some very affecting and successful drama, eg Frozen and Rain Man, two of my favourite films.
Also, I didn't much care for Fleabag but the relationship between the main character and her sister was one of the few parts that I liked. A Streetcar Named Desire has the sibling relationship at its heart. Phil and Grant in Eastenders. What I can't think of is a film or series with a brother/sister relationship at its core (ie different sexes). There's Ross and Monica in friends I suppose but that's not central to the plot of the sitcom. Ritchie and Joanie in Happy Days? Again, not central to the plot.
Beverley Hills 90210. Cruel Intentions.
Ah yes Cruel Intentions... "you can put it anywhere"... Technically not siblings but still, great film. I'm definitely up for Cruel Intentions the Musical on the West End next year.
Isn't Cruel Intentions just Les Liaisons Dangereuses with extra steps?
Yes, but it has the merit of not having John Malkovich trying to play a Frenchman.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
That’s because you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
Sibling movies contd. Pride and Prejudice. Sense and Sensibility. Pride, Prejudice and Zombies.
(Everyone else still thinking about Michelle Pfeiffer...)
Thanks for this and the other sibling suggestions. I’d say some of these are in the Godfather category: siblings feature, but they’re not the main story. Sense and sensibility is perhaps closer to a true sibling story than P&P.
Of the sitcoms Frazier probably counts.
I’d forgotten Twins.
I'd argue that Godfather 2 is a sibling story, at least in the 1950s line (and even then other strong elements).
Rain Man worth a mention.
Rain Man was in my initial list. Only fools and horses was a good addition, if having a third old man there doesn’t dilute it.
Actually I just realised - maybe this was obvious and I’m the only one who didn’t know - that Father Ted is the same premise as Only Fools, just on a different setting.
Both of the Guardian's top 2 TV shows of 2023 - The Bear and Succession - have sibling relationships at their core. Perhaps siblings stories are having a moment? I agree it is an unexplored theme in our culture and produces some very affecting and successful drama, eg Frozen and Rain Man, two of my favourite films.
Also, I didn't much care for Fleabag but the relationship between the main character and her sister was one of the few parts that I liked. A Streetcar Named Desire has the sibling relationship at its heart. Phil and Grant in Eastenders. What I can't think of is a film or series with a brother/sister relationship at its core (ie different sexes). There's Ross and Monica in friends I suppose but that's not central to the plot of the sitcom. Ritchie and Joanie in Happy Days? Again, not central to the plot.
Beverley Hills 90210. Cruel Intentions.
Ah yes Cruel Intentions... "you can put it anywhere"... Technically not siblings but still, great film. I'm definitely up for Cruel Intentions the Musical on the West End next year.
Isn't Cruel Intentions just Les Liaisons Dangereuses with extra steps?
Yes, but it has the merit of not having John Malkovich trying to play a Frenchman.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
He's admitted breaking the law on elections, but says laws don't apply to him. He's also admitted retaining documents, but says that's OK because laws don't apply to him. He's been convicted of fraud and had a gagging order imposed - KC claimed it had been lifted, but it had only been paused and has been reimposed. He's been declared guilty of treason, even though I will admit I'm not happy with the process used.
It's staggering and really quite worrying that despite this he's still being touted for another run at the Presidency. It's like hearing that Reggie Kray is being considered for Home Secretary.
What's even more amazing is he was a terrible president too. He failed in every single policy area, bungled every foreign deal he tried and ended up urging people to drink bleach.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
Your post sums up the problem neatly in the US.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
The SC has denied a quick resolution of the question of whether Trump is immune from prosecution. I can’t see a good reason to delay resolving that.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
That’s because you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
3 years to gather evidence?
This is getting to the level of the old Italian justice system, where getting through the courts took so long that the statute of limitations was a shield for serious crimes.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
I think you mean 'none of that is proven'. 'None of that is true' is a statement that we cannot possibly confirm, and reads more like a statement of faith than a statement of fact.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
He's admitted breaking the law on elections, but says laws don't apply to him. He's also admitted retaining documents, but says that's OK because laws don't apply to him. He's been convicted of fraud and had a gagging order imposed - KC claimed it had been lifted, but it had only been paused and has been reimposed. He's been declared guilty of treason, even though I will admit I'm not happy with the process used.
It's staggering and really quite worrying that despite this he's still being touted for another run at the Presidency. It's like hearing that Reggie Kray is being considered for Home Secretary.
What's even more amazing is he was a terrible president too. He failed in every single policy area, bungled every foreign deal he tried and ended up urging people to drink bleach.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
In a nutshell, why PB.com is not the best place to discuss US politics.
You say ‘none of that is true’ but it is all on the record what was denied and now what is being admitted. Truly remarkable.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
Your post sums up the problem neatly in the US.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
The SC has denied a quick resolution of the question of whether Trump is immune from prosecution. I can’t see a good reason to delay resolving that.
And since the immunity claim will end up at the Supreme Court, anyway, why not take it there now?
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
I think you mean 'none of that is proven'. 'None of that is true' is a statement that we cannot possibly confirm, and reads more like a statement of faith than a statement of fact.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
In a nutshell, why PB.com is not the best place to discuss US politics.
You say ‘none of that is true’ but it is all on the record what was denied and now what is being admitted. Truly remarkable.
No it isn't. And you know it.
In fact, the Republicans have been desperate to *stop* Hunter Biden getting on the record because they have less evidence on him than Trump has integrity. That's why they've tried to negate his plea deals and hurriedly abandoned ideas of a trial when he refused to let it be in camera (illegally).
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
Somebody didn’t take their medication tonight
Didn't you? I'm not surprised, but I suggest you remedy it.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
I think you mean 'none of that is proven'. 'None of that is true' is a statement that we cannot possibly confirm, and reads more like a statement of faith than a statement of fact.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
Err, Guilty
'Err' implies there would have been some hesitation in delivering the verdict.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
I think you mean 'none of that is proven'. 'None of that is true' is a statement that we cannot possibly confirm, and reads more like a statement of faith than a statement of fact.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
What The Kitchen Cabinet has said about these statements is not true. Demonstrably so. They are simply lies dreamed up on and for social media by the likes of Carlson.
Whether the allegations behind them are true is another question. It seems unlikely but it isn't impossible.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
That’s because you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
3 years to gather evidence?
This is getting to the level of the old Italian justice system, where getting through the courts took so long that the statute of limitations was a shield for serious crimes.
Indeed. The Hunter Biden investigation began in 2018, and that is a far simpler case with far fewer parties involved.
Is our justice system really a great deal quicker, though ?
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
In a nutshell, why PB.com is not the best place to discuss US politics.
You say ‘none of that is true’ but it is all on the record what was denied and now what is being admitted. Truly remarkable.
No it isn't. And you know it.
In fact, the Republicans have been desperate to *stop* Hunter Biden getting on the record because they have less evidence on him than Trump has integrity. That's why they've tried to negate his plea deals and hurriedly abandoned ideas of a trial when he refused to let it be in camera (illegally).
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
I think you mean 'none of that is proven'. 'None of that is true' is a statement that we cannot possibly confirm, and reads more like a statement of faith than a statement of fact.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
Err, Guilty
'Err' implies there would have been some hesitation in delivering the verdict.
Indeed. There would be no hesitation at all. We would be hearing how Trump sold the country to China.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
Somebody didn’t take their medication tonight
Didn't you? I'm not surprised, but I suggest you remedy it.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
Well, as Socrates said, "the most stupid people in the world are those who they know everything because they do not realise they know nothing". I think you are in danger of turning into one of those people.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
If you look at the Industrial Revolution, what spurred the replacement of labour by machines was that labour at the time was expensive. Conversely if labour is cheap - as was the case in the UK, particularly once Eastern European migrants could seek jobs, it discouraged firms from boosting productivity by investing in equipment,
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
The problems started long before that.
The problem is aversion to long term investment in technology, equipment and training. Both government and private sector.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
Your post sums up the problem neatly in the US.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
The SC has denied a quick resolution of the question of whether Trump is immune from prosecution. I can’t see a good reason to delay resolving that.
And since the immunity claim will end up at the Supreme Court, anyway, why not take it there now?
The issue is already being fast-tracked and will be wrapped up with shiny paper and bows, ready for the Supreme Court by end January. So why bugger up their holiday break, when they can let a normal time-line apply?
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
That’s because you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
3 years to gather evidence?
This is getting to the level of the old Italian justice system, where getting through the courts took so long that the statute of limitations was a shield for serious crimes.
Here’s a small example of evidence taking a long time to obtain.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
The problems started long before that.
The problem is aversion to long term investment in technology, equipment and training. Both government and private sector.
Definitely probable.
But when dealing with an "everything is the fault of brexit" poster, I think it's always worth asking people to google the UK GDP per capita figures 1960-now then asking them to point out on the chart where Brexit hurt them.
2008 is clearly the inflection point where people stopped getting and, presumably, stopped feeling richer. Brexit is a consequence of the UK's decline, not a cause of it.
Off topic: Since SSI2 is here, I'll repeat my request that he give us an account of the recent Seattle elections. (I think the results are instructive, and provide hope for democracy, even in places that elect a Trotskyite.)
My brief summary: A failed leftist majority on the Seattle City Council has been -- apparently -- replaced by a majority that lives in the real world. Mostly.
(My own election was disappointing, but not surprising, and not particularly instructive.)
OK, I'll bite . . . HOWEVER what was your "own election"? Am guessing city council race out in the badlands on the north shore of Lake Sammamish???
As for Seattle City Council, all seven district seats were up for election, with "progressives" including Trot =5, and "moderates" =2, with 2 at-large seats split 1-1, thus total council was prog =6, mod =3.
For starters, note that only three incumbents (all progs) sought re-election, which one might have thought would disadvantage moderate side. However, what happened was
> D1 (south) West Seattle - moderate newcomer won handily over progressive opponent > D2 southeast Seattle (only minority majority district) - progressive incumbent narrowly beat moderate challenger > D3 eastern Seattle (including Capitol Hill) - incumbent the Trot, won narrowly by moderate, a Black lesbian former pro-basketball player now local pot shop owner > D4 inner northeast Seattle (including U of WA) - moderate narrowly defeated prog in district polarized between affluent homeowners versus young (and youngish) students & etc. > D5 outer north Seattle - moderate newcomer won landslide against weak progressive hopeful > D6 inner northwest Seattle (including Ballard) - progressive incumbent won versus moderate challenger, in large part by flipfloping on police, from "defund" to "refund". > D7 inner western Seattle (includes Queen Anne) - progressive incumbent ousted by moderate challenger; in this case, it was the prog who flipped by first opposing criminalizing public drug use, then opposing it . . . but too late to save his political hide.
Upshot is that balance of district city council seats now mod =5, pro =7.
PLUS note the progressive at-large city councilmember, was elected to the King County Council (less work for more pay) AND that the NEW council, including the one moderate at-large, will be selecting replacement after first of the year, to serve remainder of that term until next election.
A major factor in above results, was campaign spending, of three basic types
1. Traditional candidate fundraising 2. Public funding based on collecting "democracy vouchers" from city residents 3. Independent (of candidates and their campaigns) expenditures both for and against certain candidates.
Note that the D6 progressive survived in large measure because he was NOT targeted by major business IE campaign, unlike other prog incumbents and hopefuls.
Further note that the D7 prog was not only targeted by business, he was NOT backed by labor, in his case hotel workers union that four years ago made BIG contributions direct & IE to elect him in the first place. But NOT in 2023.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
Your post sums up the problem neatly in the US.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
The SC has denied a quick resolution of the question of whether Trump is immune from prosecution. I can’t see a good reason to delay resolving that.
And since the immunity claim will end up at the Supreme Court, anyway, why not take it there now?
That was more or less the thrust of the application which has been denied. We don’t know why.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
Somebody didn’t take their medication tonight
Didn't you? I'm not surprised, but I suggest you remedy it.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
Well, as Socrates said, "the most stupid people in the world are those who they know everything because they do not realise they know nothing". I think you are in danger of turning into one of those people.
I saw Socrates prison on Wednesday. Interesting that he didn't want to defend himself from a death sentence and asked them to get on with it. Their method of execution was also interesting. Hemlock.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
The problems started long before that.
The problem is aversion to long term investment in technology, equipment and training. Both government and private sector.
Definitely probable.
But when dealing with an "everything is the fault of brexit" poster, I think it's always worth asking people to google the UK GDP per capita figures 1960-now then asking them to point out on the chart where Brexit hurt them.
2008 is clearly the inflection point where people stopped getting and, presumably, stopped feeling richer. Brexit is a consequence of the UK's decline, not a cause of it.
It was definitely before that for the people at the lower end of scale. The SNP breakthrough was driven by a narrative that Labour *liked* the stagnation in many areas. Similarly the Red Wall was many years in the building.
The prosperity of the middle and upper classes was based, in part, on a growing group of the low paid. The garment factories of Leicester delivering to the posh-but-cheap shops etc.
He's not going to be jailed or even convicted ahead of the election, once again people hoping events would take care of him for them will be disappointed.
The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former president Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Trump's efforts to delay his trial appears successful, as the case must now work through the appeals process.
The US economic data out today is actually positive and there are signs the US consumer is becoming more optimistic. That is the best chance for Biden.
Those hoping to use the courts to rule against Trump are only going down a dead end and are fuelling his arguments
That he should be immune from prosecution ? You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
My complaint is that the investigations into Jan 6 turned into process led “must have a long investigation”, rather than a shaper, shorter exercise. Prosecutions should have started within 6 months of the events. Trump should have been in court years ago.
That’s because you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
3 years to gather evidence?
This is getting to the level of the old Italian justice system, where getting through the courts took so long that the statute of limitations was a shield for serious crimes.
Here’s a small example of evidence taking a long time to obtain.
Off topic, but important to anyone who likes elections: "For more than a decade and a half, autocracy has been steadily advancing around the globe. Dictators routinely arrest their foes, including those demanding basic rights such as freedom of expression. But they have modernized their methods, taking control of the internet and using it to broadcast disinformation while censoring the truth. They have forced independent media to close and aimed surveillance at social media and the people who use it. They have created firewalls and imposed internet shutdowns. Freedom House found in its latest annual survey of political rights and civil liberties that democracy has been in decline for 17 years — and one of the biggest drivers has been attacks on freedom of expression." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/21/autocracy-democracy-internet-circumvention/
And, some dictators have been undermining democracies, wherever they can.
I've not seen much discussion about events in Poland since the election and the emergence of a new majority coalition led by Donald Tusk.
The previous Law & Justice Government had sought to control the publicly-owned media by appointing pro-Government representatives to run TVP (TV Poland) and the news channel TVP INFO quickly became a pro-Law & Justice outlet which was a huge advantage given its reach across Poland. Throughout the election campaign, its coverage was strongly pro-Law & Justice and anti-Civic Platform (Tusk's party).
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, Tusk prevailed and since the election TVP INFO has continued to run strongly anti-Tusk commentary claiming disunity in the new coalition and that Law & Justice were the rightful Government as they won the most votes and seats.
With Tusk's new Government confirmed by the Sejm on Monday, retribution has been swift. The pro-Law & Justic placemen have been fired and on Tuesday TVP INFO had its signal cut and its websites closed down.
There's an old saying about two wrongs not making a right and for all I understand Tusk's frustration, shutting the channel down seems an over-reaction. As a liberal, I support and welcome tolerance but I learnt a long time ago you can't force people to be tolerant. You have to be strong enough to tolerate intolerance - condemn it, use education against it if you can but don't suppress or ban it.
I'd like to think Tusk, rather then making the channel dance to his tune, would encourage and even mandate balance. Some on here may disagree but one thing the BBC does is provide a degree of balance and certainly far more than you'll get from GB News for example. Could balance be enforced - should it?
It’s problematic. The previous regime had entrenched its cronies in every part of the state. Remedying that without drastic action would have been a multi decade project.
You have to read all of the report but the report implies the owner was absolutely lashed; he had his face voluntarily right up against the dogs and his punch wasn't there and then but a bit later. Dog was also a very small pup.
Christie needs to bow out now and endorse Haley. He's on 13% in the state.
It is no brainer surely. This is the one chance to stop Trump.
Whilst Christie's still in the race - and so in the debates ahead of the primaries - he still has a voice to rail at the MAGA crazies. Haley still thinks Trump is a fit candidate. Christie does not.
But yes, Christie is currently not doing anything to actually stop Trump being a candidate. His price for dropping out might be Haley taking a more aggressive position that Trump is not a fit candidate. That might be helped by an early ruling on the level of damages in the New York civil trial. A payment of close on a billion dollars based on a regime of fraud in the Trump companies might give Haley the opportunity to row back from her previous position. The New Hampshire primary is 23rd January; the New York outcome might be before that.
I do not share the "oh wasn't Ed Davey a good Minister" view. He was the Minister responsible for Postal Affairs between 2010 - 2012 when the Horizon debacle was in full swing. He was approached by subpostmasters complaining about the issues with Horizon and the prosecutions and simply replied that the Post Office told him that all was hunky dory and so they should fuck off. He even refused a meeting.
Two years ago - when some of the convictions were overturned - he said that he should have asked more questions of the Post Office. No shit, Sherlock! That was his fucking job and he failed at it. His job was not to sit there just passing on messages without any level of professional curiosity. A well trained Labrador could do that. Instead, like so many Ministers he just sat there doing sod all, getting his knighthood and then trousers £275,000 in consultancy fees from one of the law firms involved in advising the Post Office in how to defeat the subpostmasters. That sum is more than the average compensation paid to those few subpostmasters who have actually received any compensation. And is on top of his Parliamentary salary and pension.
Since that one interview there's been silence from him about this matter. What Ministers did and did not do is not part of the scope of the Williams Inquiry. So we will learn nothing about what happened and a fresh set of Ministers can repeat the same or worse mistakes at the expense of the little people they claim to represent and in whose service they are meant to be working.
We get exercised by the Michelle Mones of this world. We should get equally exercised by grifting do-nothing Ministers.
And the subpostmaster he refused to meet? One Alan Bates. The man whose story is being told in the ITV drama this New Year. The other day I was chatting to one of local shopkeepers about other matters and she happened to mention this programme and what she'd learnt from the publicity about what had been going on. She was furious. She is another small businesswoman of the type who might have been running a Post Office. I really hope this drama does bring this matter to the wider public and puts some pressure on politicians.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
None of that is true. And unless you are as stupid as you come across, a circumstance of which it is hard to conceive, you know it. It is fantasy invented by the lunatics of the far right. As you swallow them, you are either a Nazi or an imbecile (or both of course).
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
In a nutshell, why PB.com is not the best place to discuss US politics.
You say ‘none of that is true’ but it is all on the record what was denied and now what is being admitted. Truly remarkable.
No it isn't. And you know it.
In fact, the Republicans have been desperate to *stop* Hunter Biden getting on the record because they have less evidence on him than Trump has integrity. That's why they've tried to negate his plea deals and hurriedly abandoned ideas of a trial when he refused to let it be in camera (illegally).
I know you hate the rule of law, but really.
Wasn't Hunter Biden influence peddling when he got paid (was it?) 80k usd per month by Burisma? Maybe this isn't Joe Biden's fault, but I think it stinks and the Democrats shouldn't have considered him as a candidate. They need a candidate who shows an absolute contrast to the corruption of Trump.
Of course it's a bit delusional to think that Joe Biden is as much of a gangster as Trump, but it's natural for those who are less sympathetic to his politics to think that way. We all do it to a certain extent - giving the benefit of the doubt to politicians we agree with, and assuming the worst of the ones we strongly disagree with.
Brown may have earned credit for how he handled the financial crisis. But he deserves a considerable amount of the blame for why RBS ended up in the mess it did. Not primarily because of the system of financial regulation but because the authorities were specifically warned twice some 18 months earlier of some very serious concerns around RBS's expansion. They did nothing. A foreign government was sufficiently concerned to try and take action. But the British government did nothing. That part of the story is never told so we get the convenient myth about Brown's wonderful rescue when - if he and others had actually done their job - there would likely have been no need for a rescue.
Ditto Heywood: had he lived he would have had to face some pretty searching questions about his role in the Greensill affair. To call him naive is being kind. It might even be true. But someone at the top of the Civil Service is not paid to be naive.
I have lost patience with all these people taking the praise, the honours, the money, avoiding questions, blaming others and never ever taking any responsibility for their failures. The rest of us are not so fortunate. This is one of the real unfairnesses in our society. And it's one which those who bleat endlessly about fairness never want to address.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
Somebody didn’t take their medication tonight
Didn't you? I'm not surprised, but I suggest you remedy it.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
Well, as Socrates said, "the most stupid people in the world are those who they know everything because they do not realise they know nothing". I think you are in danger of turning into one of those people.
I saw Socrates prison on Wednesday. Interesting that he didn't want to defend himself from a death sentence and asked them to get on with it. Their method of execution was also interesting. Hemlock.
Christie needs to bow out now and endorse Haley. He's on 13% in the state.
It is no brainer surely. This is the one chance to stop Trump.
Sadly, top priority of Chris Christie is NOT defeating Trump, but instead keeping himself super-inflated, at level comparable to the Goodyear Blimp.
Is, was and always will be.
Punters keep in mind, that politicos discredited/disgraced/exposed in their home states, do NOT make prime POTUS prospects.
Seeing as how Chris Christie - who these days couldn't get himself elected State Dogcatcher in New Jersey - is but the latest in a long line of suchlike.
He's admitted breaking the law on elections, but says laws don't apply to him. He's also admitted retaining documents, but says that's OK because laws don't apply to him. He's been convicted of fraud and had a gagging order imposed - KC claimed it had been lifted, but it had only been paused and has been reimposed. He's been declared guilty of treason, even though I will admit I'm not happy with the process used.
It's staggering and really quite worrying that despite this he's still being touted for another run at the Presidency. It's like hearing that Reggie Kray is being considered for Home Secretary.
What's even more amazing is he was a terrible president too. He failed in every single policy area, bungled every foreign deal he tried and ended up urging people to drink bleach.
On a pedantic point: it was 'inject' bleach, not 'ingest' (some folk misheard). Which would have had even quicker and more decisive results, mind.
Brown may have earned credit for how he handled the financial crisis. But he deserves a considerable amount of the blame for why RBS ended up in the mess it did. Not primarily because of the system of financial regulation but because the authorities were specifically warned twice some 18 months earlier of some very serious concerns around RBS's expansion. They did nothing. A foreign government was sufficiently concerned to try and take action. But the British government did nothing. That part of the story is never told so we get the convenient myth about Brown's wonderful rescue when - if he and others had actually done their job - there would likely have been no need for a rescue.
Ditto Heywood: had he lived he would have had to face some pretty searching questions about his role in the Greensill affair. To call him naive is being kind. It might even be true. But someone at the top of the Civil Service is not paid to be naive.
I have lost patience with all these people taking the praise, the honours, the money, avoiding questions, blaming others and never ever taking any responsibility for their failures. The rest of us are not so fortunate. This is one of the real unfairnesses in our society. And it's one which those who bleat endlessly about fairness never want to address.
When Barclays pulled out of bidding for ABN, the government tried strong arming them. Publicly announced that they would provide evidence and backing for a shareholder lawsuit against Barclays management….
SSI2 - Thanks for that report. I would add two thoughts to what you said about the Seattle elections:
First, even from across Lake Washington I can see that crime and homelessness were signficant issues in the election, and that many voters believed the incumbents had failed onthose problems. (Seattle does not have the crime problems of, for example, Chicago and St. Louis, but this year's murder total has hit the highest total in many years: https://twitter.com/HomicideSeattle?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Second -- and on this we no doubt disagree -- in this area, a "progressive" typically believes in ideas more common in the 19th century and earlier, than now. They are, for example, in love with the technology of those times, such as trains, influenced by 19th century crackpots like Karl Marx, and obsessed with race, as so many were back then. So, when I hear that a local political figure is a "progressive", I automatically translate that to "reactionary". (Not that reactionaries are always wrong, but nostalgia is usually a bad basis for policy decisions.)
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
Inflation and interest rates, in the UK, are entirely in line with peer nations.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
The notion that pre-Brexit, lots of us were jetting off to our second homes on the Continent, to live, love and work, wherever we wanted, was laughable.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
The notion that pre-Brexit, lots of us were jetting off to our second homes on the Continent, to live, love and work, wherever we wanted, was laughable.
The refusal to acknowledge the inequality of those who benefitted from FOM was one of the things that baffled me about the referendum debate. The economic migrants to the UK were creating competition at the low end of the wage scale with British workers who had no desire whatsoever to leave their neighbourhoods let alone work abroad.
Look at the number of Brits living in Eastern Europe in 2019. 36k in Poland vs 900k Poles in England. That’s why FOM drove Brexit
On Hunter Biden: The WaPo's very good fact checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote a very detailed Hunter Biden time line. From which I conclude, tentatively, is that Biden's career was conventional until he got into hard drugs.
For example, he graduated from Georgetown in 1992, married in 1993, and earned a law degree from Yale in 1996. He then got a job, where his father's position no doubt helped: "1996-1998: Hunter rises to senior vice president at Delaware-based MBNA America, a credit-card issuer and major donor to his father."
And then worked in the Commerce Department in the last two years of the Clinton administration.
None of this is too surprising, especially among Democrats. And, from what I can tell, there were no major illegalities before the drug addiction. And, after, many.
(That effect of the drugs on his son-- and this is just speculation on my part -- may explain why President Biden has been so reluctant to act forcefully on the fentanyl problem. (He did ask "Emperor" Xi to stop sending us so much of the stuff.) To confront the problem he has to face what drugs did to his son, and that is, understandably, difficult for him to do.
Brown may have earned credit for how he handled the financial crisis. But he deserves a considerable amount of the blame for why RBS ended up in the mess it did. Not primarily because of the system of financial regulation but because the authorities were specifically warned twice some 18 months earlier of some very serious concerns around RBS's expansion. They did nothing. A foreign government was sufficiently concerned to try and take action. But the British government did nothing. That part of the story is never told so we get the convenient myth about Brown's wonderful rescue when - if he and others had actually done their job - there would likely have been no need for a rescue.
Ditto Heywood: had he lived he would have had to face some pretty searching questions about his role in the Greensill affair. To call him naive is being kind. It might even be true. But someone at the top of the Civil Service is not paid to be naive.
I have lost patience with all these people taking the praise, the honours, the money, avoiding questions, blaming others and never ever taking any responsibility for their failures. The rest of us are not so fortunate. This is one of the real unfairnesses in our society. And it's one which those who bleat endlessly about fairness never want to address.
When Barclays pulled out of bidding for ABN, the government tried strong arming them. Publicly announced that they would provide evidence and backing for a shareholder lawsuit against Barclays management….
..... while ignoring the criminality around the bid .......
Sibling movies contd. Pride and Prejudice. Sense and Sensibility. Pride, Prejudice and Zombies.
(Everyone else still thinking about Michelle Pfeiffer...)
Thanks for this and the other sibling suggestions. I’d say some of these are in the Godfather category: siblings feature, but they’re not the main story. Sense and sensibility is perhaps closer to a true sibling story than P&P.
Of the sitcoms Frazier probably counts.
I’d forgotten Twins.
I'd argue that Godfather 2 is a sibling story, at least in the 1950s line (and even then other strong elements).
Rain Man worth a mention.
Rain Man was in my initial list. Only fools and horses was a good addition, if having a third old man there doesn’t dilute it.
Actually I just realised - maybe this was obvious and I’m the only one who didn’t know - that Father Ted is the same premise as Only Fools, just on a different setting.
Both of the Guardian's top 2 TV shows of 2023 - The Bear and Succession - have sibling relationships at their core. Perhaps siblings stories are having a moment? I agree it is an unexplored theme in our culture and produces some very affecting and successful drama, eg Frozen and Rain Man, two of my favourite films.
Also, I didn't much care for Fleabag but the relationship between the main character and her sister was one of the few parts that I liked. A Streetcar Named Desire has the sibling relationship at its heart. Phil and Grant in Eastenders. What I can't think of is a film or series with a brother/sister relationship at its core (ie different sexes). There's Ross and Monica in friends I suppose but that's not central to the plot of the sitcom. Ritchie and Joanie in Happy Days? Again, not central to the plot.
Beverley Hills 90210. Cruel Intentions.
Ah yes Cruel Intentions... "you can put it anywhere"... Technically not siblings but still, great film. I'm definitely up for Cruel Intentions the Musical on the West End next year.
Isn't Cruel Intentions just Les Liaisons Dangereuses with extra steps?
On Hunter Biden: The WaPo's very good fact checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote a very detailed Hunter Biden time line. From which I conclude, tentatively, is that Biden's career was conventional until he got into hard drugs.
For example, he graduated from Georgetown in 1992, married in 1993, and earned a law degree from Yale in 1996. He then got a job, where his father's position no doubt helped: "1996-1998: Hunter rises to senior vice president at Delaware-based MBNA America, a credit-card issuer and major donor to his father."
And then worked in the Commerce Department in the last two years of the Clinton administration.
None of this is too surprising, especially among Democrats. And, from what I can tell, there were no major illegalities before the drug addiction. And, after, many.
(That effect of the drugs on his son-- and this is just speculation on my part -- may explain why President Biden has been so reluctant to act forcefully on the fentanyl problem. (He did ask "Emperor" Xi to stop sending us so much of the stuff.) To confront the problem he has to face what drugs did to his son, and that is, understandably, difficult for him to do.
I sure hope you in the UK don't copy our terrible mistakes in letting this problem grow.)
I'd have thought the greater reason he (or the two previous very different Presidents who haven't dealt with it since people first started raising the alarm) is that under the US system it's pretty complicated to solve it.
You've got to take on Big Pharma - who have plenty of friends in Congress. Change federal law and get the states to change theirs. Lobby them to treat those who fall into criminality in a different way. Deal with different healthcare systems. Get the FDA to act. Deal with legal challenges. All in Congresses that basically try to block anything that's not a finance bill that can be forced through. As with guns, a President could be desperate to sort it but can't as would be blocked at every step from doing something that would meet the scale of the challenge.
The big temptation is to focus on the big things you can do, and hope the states and courts untangle it for you.
For all our faults, won't happen in Britain given our generally much stricter approach to what drugs people get given.
Bad news for the Chinese, and those worried about global warming: "Hazardous air pollution rebounded in most major Chinese cities this year, research showed, after a surge in coal burning and industrial activity upended a decade of progress toward cleaner skies.
Compared to 2022, levels of microscopic particles spewed into the air from burning fossil fuels were up 7.7 percent by the end of November, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finland-based nonprofit, said on Friday." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/china-pollution-worse-coal/
Air pollution may be causing the premature deaths of almost 2 million Chinese, annually.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
Inflation and interest rates, in the UK, are entirely in line with peer nations.
No. Ours proved stickier to come down than many of our peers. Our exposure to gas imports was greater than many of our peers.
"Two arrests after XL bully mauls Chihuahua puppy to death in street The Chihuahua was taken to the vets where it was put to sleep and the XL bully was seized and remains in police kennels"
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We’re at the there is still zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong point.
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
We have had multiple points at which we have been told something that turns out to be not true. There is also evidence from witnesses, details of cash transactions etc
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
Bloody hell.
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
Somebody didn’t take their medication tonight
Didn't you? I'm not surprised, but I suggest you remedy it.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
Well, as Socrates said, "the most stupid people in the world are those who they know everything because they do not realise they know nothing". I think you are in danger of turning into one of those people.
I saw Socrates prison on Wednesday. Interesting that he didn't want to defend himself from a death sentence and asked them to get on with it. Their method of execution was also interesting. Hemlock.
On topic, the number of homeowners who say that they are going to vote Tory is quite horrendous for them. If they are even behind in that segment come the election they are doomed.
Mortgage rates have peaked and edged back under 6% but for anyone who was a first time buyer in the last decade that comes under the category of extortion (and government incompetence since it could hardly be their own fault that they over borrowed, could it?)
It's getting to be exceedingly rare for anyone who actually works for a living to admit voting Tory.
They’ve previously granted certiorari on far flimsier grounds.
Frankly, the way that American politics is going seems pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. Why not just try and beat Trump, rather than fuel his own narrative....
They are not trying to 'fuel his (Trump's) narrative.' They are pursuing him for very serious criminal acts that he has committed, and which he has said he shouldn't be pursued for because he's Donald Trump and therefore above the law.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Remind me, which part of the vexatious Biden investigations are we at?
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside. We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
We all know it's because the republicans just like looking at pictures of Hunter Biden's penis.
On Hunter Biden: The WaPo's very good fact checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote a very detailed Hunter Biden time line. From which I conclude, tentatively, is that Biden's career was conventional until he got into hard drugs.
For example, he graduated from Georgetown in 1992, married in 1993, and earned a law degree from Yale in 1996. He then got a job, where his father's position no doubt helped: "1996-1998: Hunter rises to senior vice president at Delaware-based MBNA America, a credit-card issuer and major donor to his father."
And then worked in the Commerce Department in the last two years of the Clinton administration.
None of this is too surprising, especially among Democrats. And, from what I can tell, there were no major illegalities before the drug addiction. And, after, many.
(That effect of the drugs on his son-- and this is just speculation on my part -- may explain why President Biden has been so reluctant to act forcefully on the fentanyl problem. (He did ask "Emperor" Xi to stop sending us so much of the stuff.) To confront the problem he has to face what drugs did to his son, and that is, understandably, difficult for him to do.
I sure hope you in the UK don't copy our terrible mistakes in letting this problem grow.)
I'd have thought the greater reason he (or the two previous very different Presidents who haven't dealt with it since people first started raising the alarm) is that under the US system it's pretty complicated to solve it.
You've got to take on Big Pharma - who have plenty of friends in Congress. Change federal law and get the states to change theirs. Lobby them to treat those who fall into criminality in a different way. Deal with different healthcare systems. Get the FDA to act. Deal with legal challenges. All in Congresses that basically try to block anything that's not a finance bill that can be forced through. As with guns, a President could be desperate to sort it but can't as would be blocked at every step from doing something that would meet the scale of the challenge.
The big temptation is to focus on the big things you can do, and hope the states and courts untangle it for you.
For all our faults, won't happen in Britain given our generally much stricter approach to what drugs people get given.
Is pharma really the problem ? Opioid type prescriptions have fallen significantly over the last two to three years.
The alarming death rate is now largely the result of illegal fentanyl (or other similar synthetic opioids). Some manufactured domestically, but much produced in Mexico. I don’t know how feasible it is to greatly reduce the cross border smuggling - which is generally a separate problem from immigration, though clearly there’s some overlap in enforcement. It’s just too easy, and the demand, and profit incentives, too great.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
And Brexit which this shower own completely
The UK has been on the same trajectory since at least the global financial crisis. Stagnant wage growth, low productivity, reliance on imported workers, underinvestment in capital, completely flat GDP per capita since 2008 despite huge population growth.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
My celebration was the freedom and ease of of movement which should help all travellers. Allowing second home owners to stay for 6 months is just the beginning of freeing up all of us to the position we enjoyed before the 2016 vote. Something the evidence suggests the vast majority will welcome. We blackballed ourselves and lost a wonderful freedom for absolutely no benefit (unless you consider having Johnson as PM a benefit).
MJW - The majority of drug overdose deaths in the US are now from illegal drugs, most of them, as far as I can tell, from fentanyl. Typically, fentanyl precursors come in to Mexico from China, and are then converted to fentanyl by the drug cartels, which move them across the border into the US. Because the damn stuff is so potent, they don't have to move enormous quantities to make enormous profits.
In principle, we might be able to work out an agreement with Mexico to block those imports, but, as far as I know, we haven't even tried to do so.
"Two arrests after XL bully mauls Chihuahua puppy to death in street The Chihuahua was taken to the vets where it was put to sleep and the XL bully was seized and remains in police kennels"
Sibling movies contd. Pride and Prejudice. Sense and Sensibility. Pride, Prejudice and Zombies.
(Everyone else still thinking about Michelle Pfeiffer...)
Thanks for this and the other sibling suggestions. I’d say some of these are in the Godfather category: siblings feature, but they’re not the main story. Sense and sensibility is perhaps closer to a true sibling story than P&P.
Of the sitcoms Frazier probably counts.
I’d forgotten Twins.
I'd argue that Godfather 2 is a sibling story, at least in the 1950s line (and even then other strong elements).
Rain Man worth a mention.
Rain Man was in my initial list. Only fools and horses was a good addition, if having a third old man there doesn’t dilute it.
Actually I just realised - maybe this was obvious and I’m the only one who didn’t know - that Father Ted is the same premise as Only Fools, just on a different setting.
Both of the Guardian's top 2 TV shows of 2023 - The Bear and Succession - have sibling relationships at their core. Perhaps siblings stories are having a moment? I agree it is an unexplored theme in our culture and produces some very affecting and successful drama, eg Frozen and Rain Man, two of my favourite films.
Also, I didn't much care for Fleabag but the relationship between the main character and her sister was one of the few parts that I liked. A Streetcar Named Desire has the sibling relationship at its heart. Phil and Grant in Eastenders. What I can't think of is a film or series with a brother/sister relationship at its core (ie different sexes). There's Ross and Monica in friends I suppose but that's not central to the plot of the sitcom. Ritchie and Joanie in Happy Days? Again, not central to the plot.
Beverley Hills 90210. Cruel Intentions.
Ah yes Cruel Intentions... "you can put it anywhere"... Technically not siblings but still, great film. I'm definitely up for Cruel Intentions the Musical on the West End next year.
Isn't Cruel Intentions just Les Liaisons Dangereuses with extra steps?
Comments
The Democrats, of course, will try to beat Trump in any event.
Frankly, arguing that Trump should be immune from being held legally to account for his actions just because he’s running for election seems a pretty poor argument to me.
It’s certainly not an argument a court would entertain.
You’re as much a scofflaw as he is.
And how exactly did Truss in her minuscule reign bugger up mortgages?
Let’s be honest, it’s a myth. A convenient myth for a) everyone looking for an excuse not to vote conservative next time b) every Tory member and MP who did not want Truss as PM and wanted Sunak instead, and, going forward c) everyone who wants an easy scapegoat for Tories becoming unpopular and thrown out of power.
However, to write up a true historical account of this period of politics, the outing of this as a myth has to be in the book.
The main driver of the high interest rates was large and stubborn inflation in UK, in our comparison with most peers, and the main driver of that inflation was price of the volume of imported gas we are dependant on.
These crimes include fraud, electoral fraud and incitement to riot.
People saying 'oh you shouldn't pursue him because politics' are missing the point entirely. He's not pursued for his political beliefs, mad and bad though they are, but BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL.
The irony is it's the Republicans that are pursuing vexatious cases against Biden while claiming victimisation because they're being pursued for the actual crimes they have committed. Just as, in 2020, it was the Republicans who engaged in widespread electoral fraud and then tried to claim the Democrats must have cheated because they still lost.
Whether someone is actually guilty or not has gone out of the window. As far as you are concerned, Trump is guilty. You have to do the trial because you have to show at least some consideration for due process but, in reality, you would much prefer if we went straight to what you want, namely the sentencing. And now the SC has denied a quick route, you throw your toys out the pram like a kid throwing a tantrum.
We have had "It's Russian disinformation" - that has gone by the wayside
We have had "It's not Hunter Biden's laptop" - that has gone by the wayside
We have had "Joe never got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" - that has gone by the wayside
We have had "Joe never knew about Hunter's business dealings with China" - that has gone by the wayside
We have had "Joe never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings" - that has gone by the wayside.
We have had "Joe never conducted business with Hunter" - that is now being rode back.
Put simply, if there was nothing there, this would have been put to bed months ago. The fact the story is still going and arguably growing suggests there might be a possibility more has to come out.
Just as your claims Trump's legal difficulties were dying down were untrue. And you knew it. Or your claims about January 6th were untrue. And you knew it.
But if your brain prefers lies to truth, violence to democracy, and vexation to due process of law don't let me stop you. Just be aware you come across as an apologist for criminals and traitors.
The investigations indeed started within months of the events - but due process means that the gathering if evidence requires a good deal of time.
Unless you’re suggesting that Trump and his coterie should have been denied due process ?
Like the rest of your persuasion, you conflate Hunter Biden with the President.
He's admitted breaking the law on elections, but says laws don't apply to him.
He's also admitted retaining documents, but says that's OK because laws don't apply to him.
He's been convicted of fraud and had a gagging order imposed - KC claimed it had been lifted, but it had only been paused and has been reimposed.
He's been declared guilty of treason, even though I will admit I'm not happy with the process used.
It's staggering and really quite worrying that despite this he's still being touted for another run at the Presidency. It's like hearing that Reggie Kray is being considered for Home Secretary.
What's even more amazing is he was a terrible president too. He failed in every single policy area, bungled every foreign deal he tried and ended up urging people to drink bleach.
That doesn’t mean Joe took money - the evidence for that is not there. But it does mean that it should be investigated.
This is getting to the level of the old Italian justice system, where getting through the courts took so long that the statute of limitations was a shield for serious crimes.
"Is that significant?' he was asked.
"In financial terms NO. But if you are a Prime Minister heading into an election year YOU DON'T WANT THAT WORD ANYWHERE NEAR YOU!
Like he's not having enough problems with boats
Whatever they're paying you to troll, you're not worth it.
Unless the first paragraph is finally an admission about your hero, of course.
It is one theory that Hunter was the 'nominated defendant' of the Biden family - the one to actually get his hands dirty to keep Joe clean. It could also be that Joe is a just a loving (and rather naive) father. But there are questions to answer, and it's interesting to think what PB's collective verdict on all this would be if Hunter were Hunter Trump.
You say ‘none of that is true’ but it is all on the record what was denied and now what is being admitted. Truly remarkable.
In fact, the Republicans have been desperate to *stop* Hunter Biden getting on the record because they have less evidence on him than Trump has integrity. That's why they've tried to negate his plea deals and hurriedly abandoned ideas of a trial when he refused to let it be in camera (illegally).
I know you hate the rule of law, but really.
I agree, this isn't a good place for you to discuss US politics. You get shown up as a liar and a fool. Because we are all far too bright to be fooled by your trolling.
Whether the allegations behind them are true is another question. It seems unlikely but it isn't impossible.
The Hunter Biden investigation began in 2018, and that is a far simpler case with far fewer parties involved.
Is our justice system really a great deal quicker, though ?
https://oversight.house.gov/timeline/ukraine-11/biden-firing-ukraine-prosecutor-clip/
There you go. Biden saying he got him fired.
Now, note in my comment I didn't state why he got him fired, just that he did.
You can argue that Brexit has accelerated the decline if you want, but it seems to me fairly irrelevant when tracking the post 2008 trends.
I'd argue that voting for Brexit was a symptom of that obvious decline, realising that something was wrong but not quite knowing what to do about it. Remain was a vote for the "status quo" which clearly wasn't working for the majority of people.
Your post the other day celebrating happy days for people who are fortunate enough to own second homes on the continent does rather exemplify a certain remainer stereotype - rich and lucky enough to own second homes on the continent, very little interest in wage growth among the working class.
BBC News - Swansea: Owner's punch killed French bulldog puppy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67805350
The problem is aversion to long term investment in technology, equipment and training. Both government and private sector.
The FBI seized these phones in Nov 2021; a judge has just ruled on what evidence can be used:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.569823/gov.uscourts.nysd.569823.164.0.pdf
But when dealing with an "everything is the fault of brexit" poster, I think it's always worth asking people to google the UK GDP per capita figures 1960-now then asking them to point out on the chart where Brexit hurt them.
2008 is clearly the inflection point where people stopped getting and, presumably, stopped feeling richer. Brexit is a consequence of the UK's decline, not a cause of it.
As for Seattle City Council, all seven district seats were up for election, with "progressives" including Trot =5, and "moderates" =2, with 2 at-large seats split 1-1, thus total council was prog =6, mod =3.
For starters, note that only three incumbents (all progs) sought re-election, which one might have thought would disadvantage moderate side. However, what happened was
> D1 (south) West Seattle - moderate newcomer won handily over progressive opponent
> D2 southeast Seattle (only minority majority district) - progressive incumbent narrowly beat moderate challenger
> D3 eastern Seattle (including Capitol Hill) - incumbent the Trot, won narrowly by moderate, a Black lesbian former pro-basketball player now local pot shop owner
> D4 inner northeast Seattle (including U of WA) - moderate narrowly defeated prog in district polarized between affluent homeowners versus young (and youngish) students & etc.
> D5 outer north Seattle - moderate newcomer won landslide against weak progressive hopeful
> D6 inner northwest Seattle (including Ballard) - progressive incumbent won versus moderate challenger, in large part by flipfloping on police, from "defund" to "refund".
> D7 inner western Seattle (includes Queen Anne) - progressive incumbent ousted by moderate challenger; in this case, it was the prog who flipped by first opposing criminalizing public drug use, then opposing it . . . but too late to save his political hide.
Upshot is that balance of district city council seats now mod =5, pro =7.
PLUS note the progressive at-large city councilmember, was elected to the King County Council (less work for more pay) AND that the NEW council, including the one moderate at-large, will be selecting replacement after first of the year, to serve remainder of that term until next election.
A major factor in above results, was campaign spending, of three basic types
1. Traditional candidate fundraising
2. Public funding based on collecting "democracy vouchers" from city residents
3. Independent (of candidates and their campaigns) expenditures both for and against certain candidates.
Note that the D6 progressive survived in large measure because he was NOT targeted by major business IE campaign, unlike other prog incumbents and hopefuls.
Further note that the D7 prog was not only targeted by business, he was NOT backed by labor, in his case hotel workers union that four years ago made BIG contributions direct & IE to elect him in the first place. But NOT in 2023.
We don’t know why.
The prosperity of the middle and upper classes was based, in part, on a growing group of the low paid. The garment factories of Leicester delivering to the posh-but-cheap shops etc.
What Trump has to fear from the Michigan tape
Two conservative lawyers say the recording creates significant new legal exposure for the former president.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/22/what-trump-has-to-fear-from-the-michigan-tape-00133115
Trump rails after poll shows Haley within 4 points in New Hampshire
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4373785-trump-rails-after-poll-shows-haley-within-four-points-in-new-hampshire/
He's got the power under law . . . and without twisting the law as is the (Out)Law and (In)Justice Way.
It is no brainer surely. This is the one chance to stop Trump.
Because Donald Trump fears Nikki Haley.
Somewhat similar (yet quite different?) to the way he feared (and still fears) Nancy Pelosi.
But yes, Christie is currently not doing anything to actually stop Trump being a candidate. His price for dropping out might be Haley taking a more aggressive position that Trump is not a fit candidate. That might be helped by an early ruling on the level of damages in the New York civil trial. A payment of close on a billion dollars based on a regime of fraud in the Trump companies might give Haley the opportunity to row back from her previous position. The New Hampshire primary is 23rd January; the New York outcome might be before that.
But.
I do not share the "oh wasn't Ed Davey a good Minister" view. He was the Minister responsible for Postal Affairs between 2010 - 2012 when the Horizon debacle was in full swing. He was approached by subpostmasters complaining about the issues with Horizon and the prosecutions and simply replied that the Post Office told him that all was hunky dory and so they should fuck off. He even refused a meeting.
Two years ago - when some of the convictions were overturned - he said that he should have asked more questions of the Post Office. No shit, Sherlock! That was his fucking job and he failed at it. His job was not to sit there just passing on messages without any level of professional curiosity. A well trained Labrador could do that. Instead, like so many Ministers he just sat there doing sod all, getting his knighthood and then trousers £275,000 in consultancy fees from one of the law firms involved in advising the Post Office in how to defeat the subpostmasters. That sum is more than the average compensation paid to those few subpostmasters who have actually received any compensation. And is on top of his Parliamentary salary and pension.
Since that one interview there's been silence from him about this matter. What Ministers did and did not do is not part of the scope of the Williams Inquiry. So we will learn nothing about what happened and a fresh set of Ministers can repeat the same or worse mistakes at the expense of the little people they claim to represent and in whose service they are meant to be working.
We get exercised by the Michelle Mones of this world. We should get equally exercised by grifting do-nothing Ministers.
And the subpostmaster he refused to meet? One Alan Bates. The man whose story is being told in the ITV drama this New Year. The other day I was chatting to one of local shopkeepers about other matters and she happened to mention this programme and what she'd learnt from the publicity about what had been going on. She was furious. She is another small businesswoman of the type who might have been running a Post Office. I really hope this drama does bring this matter to the wider public and puts some pressure on politicians.
Maybe this isn't Joe Biden's fault, but I think it stinks and the Democrats shouldn't have considered him as a candidate. They need a candidate who shows an absolute contrast to the corruption of Trump.
Of course it's a bit delusional to think that Joe Biden is as much of a gangster as Trump, but it's natural for those who are less sympathetic to his politics to think that way. We all do it to a certain extent - giving the benefit of the doubt to politicians we agree with, and assuming the worst of the ones we strongly disagree with.
As for Brown and Heywood:
Brown may have earned credit for how he handled the financial crisis. But he deserves a considerable amount of the blame for why RBS ended up in the mess it did. Not primarily because of the system of financial regulation but because the authorities were specifically warned twice some 18 months earlier of some very serious concerns around RBS's expansion. They did nothing. A foreign government was sufficiently concerned to try and take action. But the British government did nothing. That part of the story is never told so we get the convenient myth about Brown's wonderful rescue when - if he and others had actually done their job - there would likely have been no need for a rescue.
Ditto Heywood: had he lived he would have had to face some pretty searching questions about his role in the Greensill affair. To call him naive is being kind. It might even be true. But someone at the top of the Civil Service is not paid to be naive.
I have lost patience with all these people taking the praise, the honours, the money, avoiding questions, blaming others and never ever taking any responsibility for their failures. The rest of us are not so fortunate. This is one of the real unfairnesses in our society. And it's one which those who bleat endlessly about fairness never want to address.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g189400-d1064123-Reviews-Prison_of_Socrates-Athens_Attica.html
It's not actually Socrates prison, as the information board tells you. Nice park, though.
Is, was and always will be.
Punters keep in mind, that politicos discredited/disgraced/exposed in their home states, do NOT make prime POTUS prospects.
Seeing as how Chris Christie - who these days couldn't get himself elected State Dogcatcher in New Jersey - is but the latest in a long line of suchlike.
Dukes of Hazzard actor John Schneider called for public hanging of Joe Biden: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/21/dukes-hazzard-actor-john-schneider-biden-execution
Advocating violence against the President like that gets you on the Secret Service shit list. Since before Clinton was president.
First, even from across Lake Washington I can see that crime and homelessness were signficant issues in the election, and that many voters believed the incumbents had failed onthose problems. (Seattle does not have the crime problems of, for example, Chicago and St. Louis, but this year's murder total has hit the highest total in many years: https://twitter.com/HomicideSeattle?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Second -- and on this we no doubt disagree -- in this area, a "progressive" typically believes in ideas more common in the 19th century and earlier, than now. They are, for example, in love with the technology of those times, such as trains, influenced by 19th century crackpots like Karl Marx, and obsessed with race, as so many were back then. So, when I hear that a local political figure is a "progressive", I automatically translate that to "reactionary". (Not that reactionaries are always wrong, but nostalgia is usually a bad basis for policy decisions.)
Look at the number of Brits living in Eastern Europe in 2019. 36k in Poland vs 900k Poles in England. That’s why FOM drove Brexit
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1061707/eu-population-in-united-kingdom/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1059795/uk-expats-in-europe/
For example, he graduated from Georgetown in 1992, married in 1993, and earned a law degree from Yale in 1996. He then got a job, where his father's position no doubt helped:
"1996-1998: Hunter rises to senior vice president at Delaware-based MBNA America, a credit-card issuer and major donor to his father."
And then worked in the Commerce Department in the last two years of the Clinton administration.
None of this is too surprising, especially among Democrats. And, from what I can tell, there were no major illegalities before the drug addiction. And, after, many.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/11/hunter-biden-life-indictments-charges/
(That effect of the drugs on his son-- and this is just speculation on my part -- may explain why President Biden has been so reluctant to act forcefully on the fentanyl problem. (He did ask "Emperor" Xi to stop sending us so much of the stuff.) To confront the problem he has to face what drugs did to his son, and that is, understandably, difficult for him to do.
US opiod deaths each year now are greater than the death toll of all our wars, together, since WW II: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html
I sure hope you in the UK don't copy our terrible mistakes in letting this problem grow.)
You've got to take on Big Pharma - who have plenty of friends in Congress. Change federal law and get the states to change theirs. Lobby them to treat those who fall into criminality in a different way. Deal with different healthcare systems. Get the FDA to act. Deal with legal challenges. All in Congresses that basically try to block anything that's not a finance bill that can be forced through. As with guns, a President could be desperate to sort it but can't as would be blocked at every step from doing something that would meet the scale of the challenge.
The big temptation is to focus on the big things you can do, and hope the states and courts untangle it for you.
For all our faults, won't happen in Britain given our generally much stricter approach to what drugs people get given.
Compared to 2022, levels of microscopic particles spewed into the air from burning fossil fuels were up 7.7 percent by the end of November, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finland-based nonprofit, said on Friday."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/china-pollution-worse-coal/
Air pollution may be causing the premature deaths of almost 2 million Chinese, annually.
The Chihuahua was taken to the vets where it was put to sleep and the XL bully was seized and remains in police kennels"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/xl-bully-attack-doncaster-chihuahua-b2468578.html
Opioid type prescriptions have fallen significantly over the last two to three years.
The alarming death rate is now largely the result of illegal fentanyl (or other similar synthetic opioids). Some manufactured domestically, but much produced in Mexico.
I don’t know how feasible it is to greatly reduce the cross border smuggling - which is generally a separate problem from immigration, though clearly there’s some overlap in enforcement. It’s just too easy, and the demand, and profit incentives, too great.
In principle, we might be able to work out an agreement with Mexico to block those imports, but, as far as I know, we haven't even tried to do so.
(Note, please, the "now" in that first sentence.)
https://drugabusestatistics.org/opioid-epidemic/
Wouldn't change if they could
Fightin' the system
Like a true modern day
Robin HoodLee Harvey OswaldAye sir! (turns to the next person)
DCI, secure those XL Bullies.
Aye sir! (turns to the next person)
DI, secure those XL Bullies.
Aye sir! (turns to the next person)
PC "Stumpy", secure those XL Bullies.
Oh, bugger...
Buffy and Selma Blair doing rudies. Oh, the 90's.