He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The simple fact is you've been wrong on everything to do with Hunter Biden and Trump. And you know it. Which is why you never cite your sources.
Very simply, Hunter Biden's an idiot - indeed a criminal - with a history of firearms offences, drug problems and tax frauds who once had a laptop nicked. But somehow that means Biden's going to resign because Biden is Slow Joe.
Being accused of 'losing the plot' by you merely confirms me in my views that I'm in the right.
And you still haven't explained *why* migration was surging under Trump (and it was, as you yourself admit) if it's Biden's fault.
Again, the claim he opened the borders or said all are welcome is in origin a Tucker Carlson claim. Why do you listen to him?
And finally, we come back to you think Trump should be allowed on the ballot unless convicted of a crime (reasonable) but then think he should not be prosecuted for any crimes essentially because he's Trump (which is not reasonable).
So, again, your analysis is worthless. You accuse me of knowing nothing about US politics but everyone on this board (bearing in mind everyone here is calling you out) knows a great deal more than you.
Ok, there are a number of things in there which I didn’t actually say, a number of things which are factually incorrect and a number of points where you seem to be convinced of your intellectual / moral superiority. Overall, I’d say a typical post from you when it comes to discussing anything to do with Trump.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
I’ve watched the whole thing through on ITVX. Yes, it’s well made and they do their best to deliver a reasonably feelgood ending. Jones is outstanding. Some of the PO and legal characters are caricatured somewhat crudely, but understandable in the circs. Given the legal and IT complexities of the real story, the editors have done a decent job of creating an understandable drama out of it; anyone who has followed the full story will see the many corners that have been cut, and of course the drama focuses on the latter part of the story - the prosecutions and attempted cover up - rather than how the whole sorry tale came to pass in the first place. The drama delivers on the central point that it’s a shocking story that should never have happened.
Zahawi appears to have played himself, although being unable to recreate his own demeanour at the actual BIS select committee, when the original is recorded on tape, is an acting fail, I suggest. If you can’t play yourself, what hope is there?
1. Just Q1? 12% 2. May 2nd (As I've pushed the theory of Sunak wanting to take on the title fight undercooked rather than risk the pointless risky eliminator) 3. All leaders as now (Sunak, SKS, Davey, Yousaf, Tice) 4. Labour, majority 90 5. Trump, Biden 6. Biden on normalish swing back 7. 4.5% 8. 3.1% 9. 110bn 10. 51
As an aside, if you want to see what migrants are willing to go through, this YouTube video on crossing the Darien Gap is well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zft0wAPxZnc
That's very sobering.
Much more genuine, deep, and less earnest than you'd get from a BBC dispatch.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
The end of a long thread of GE predictions by Rob Ford
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows: Lab 40.5 (+7.5) Con 28 (-16.7) LD 12 (n.c.) ReformUK 10 (+8) Greens 4.5 (+1.7) SNP 3 (-1) PC/Oth 2 (+1)
A hideous infectious disease takes out literally every other Conservative MP, with the possible exception of Flick Drummond.
(There might be another current Conservative MP- not a disowned sleazy independent- who would be even less acceptable to the Party In The Country, but I can't think who off the top of my head.)
The end of a long thread of GE predictions by Rob Ford
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows: Lab 40.5 (+7.5) Con 28 (-16.7) LD 12 (n.c.) ReformUK 10 (+8) Greens 4.5 (+1.7) SNP 3 (-1) PC/Oth 2 (+1)
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
There’s only 1 y in Haley, but I agree. If Trump was out of the picture, I think any Republican candidate saner than Trump (so maybe not Ramaswamy) would be well positioned to win the White House, and the Republicans would do well in the House and Senate too. If Trump is still in the picture but not the candidate, he might however take the party down with him.
This morning just after 1 a.m., a private Boeing 777 originating from San Antonio, Texas landed at the Rockford/Chicago airport carrying 350 asylum seekers. There was no communication from Texas, and the City of Chicago was alerted by authorities in Rockford regarding the flight.
Upon landing, asylum seekers were placed on buses chartered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and dropped in various surrounding suburbs, left to find their way to the city.
This is the second recorded instance of the Texas governor transporting asylum seekers via private plane.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
Oh, completely. The WaPo poll had her with a 15 point lead over Biden. A Republican who isn't a threat to democracy who probably walk the election. One who was also intelligent, articulate and clearly not suffering from dementia could probably hop it.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
There’s only 1 y in Haley, but I agree. If Trump was out of the picture, I think any Republican candidate saner than Trump (so maybe not Ramaswamy) would be well positioned to win the White House, and the Republicans would do well in the House and Senate too. If Trump is still in the picture but not the candidate, he might however take the party down with him.
I think the point has been made that Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, Generic Democrat beats Generic Republican, and Generic Republican beats Biden.
I'm not sure that's correct, but can see the argument.
The end of a long thread of GE predictions by Rob Ford
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows: Lab 40.5 (+7.5) Con 28 (-16.7) LD 12 (n.c.) ReformUK 10 (+8) Greens 4.5 (+1.7) SNP 3 (-1) PC/Oth 2 (+1)
I can't see the Tories going below 30%. But most of the figures seem reasonable.
More plausible if RefUK are on 10%, which in turn depends on Farage returning to the front line. (Which he can, whenever he likes, and I doubt he will be able to resist.)
And, since it's seats not votes that matter, that leads to: Lab: 388 Cons: 156 LD: 64 SNP: 18 Lab majority of 126
The end of a long thread of GE predictions by Rob Ford
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows: Lab 40.5 (+7.5) Con 28 (-16.7) LD 12 (n.c.) ReformUK 10 (+8) Greens 4.5 (+1.7) SNP 3 (-1) PC/Oth 2 (+1)
This set of predicted figures - perfectly reasonable and possible - none the less illustrate clearly how much there is to play for. Suppose Reform doesn't really show at the starting gate. Suppose (this is politics) Farage says 'vote Tory', then, accompanied by a brutal and dishonest campaign the Tories could end much closer to Labour than either now or these predictions. 2024 will be fascinating, both sides of the pond.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
I'd give Biden the edge, but only by 11/9, in terms of odds. Sean Trende, who I take very seriously, makes Trump the slight favourite.
I think that's broadly right: Biden should be narrow favourite. I think Presidential incumbents tend to get reelected, and that the US economy is doing OK. (And interest rates should start falling next year, which will benefit him slightly.) He's also (probably) facing a candidate with significant issues.
But against that, he's old and infirm and has not been seen as a particularly effective President. He won because people hate Trump, not because they are enthused by him.
My view is that, if the numbers don’t improve by spring, Biden will announce he is standing down, and possibly effective immediately. I think the following scenario is plausible in that case even if it is still a minority chance:
1. Biden steps down in the Spring - cites health as the key reason but that’s a cover.
2. Harris steps up to become President but also announces she will not stand in November - that allows Harris to be (1) President (2) the first female President and (3) to pardon Biden and his family for any potential issues without getting the electoral blowback. Harris will know that, effectively, she can’t win the nomination because her polling is so dire but this allows her to bow out but having become President (if only briefly).
3. At the Democrat convention, the 2024 candidate is chosen. I’d go Whitmer and short Newsom but I can definitely see a scenario where a deal is done that Whitmer is the Presidential pick (to solidify the Midwest vote) and Newsom as VP (so he is in top position for 2028 / 2032).
Pardon Biden for what ? Among your more ridiculous idea, that’s one if the more ridiculous.
Still sticking to your claim that this is all a big Russian disinformation campaign or have you actually read the latest updates as to what the Democrat party line is on what Hunter and Joe were doing (hint: it’s pretty far removed from what you so confidentially stated before)
As I said before, none of us has a clue about what has gone on but what has been shown is that many of the original denials about Hunter / Joe were actually false. So you may want to be less confident in thinking you know the truth.
Classic conspiracy theory reasoning. The GOP has been investigating this for years, and has literally not one single piece of evidence that the President did anything wrong.
1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024. 10%
2. Date of the next UK General Election. 2nd May
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousaf, Tice (with Farage as the leader of their electoral candidates)
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%). Labour, 150 seat majority
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems. Trump and Biden
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner. Biden
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024. 5%
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 4.2%). 4.0%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn). £120bn
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64). 60
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
Oh, completely. The WaPo poll had her with a 15 point lead over Biden. A Republican who isn't a threat to democracy who probably walk the election. One who was also intelligent, articulate and clearly not suffering from dementia could probably hop it.
A Republican who isn't a threat to democracy, is intelligent, articulate, and not suffering from dementia?
The end of a long thread of GE predictions by Rob Ford
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows: Lab 40.5 (+7.5) Con 28 (-16.7) LD 12 (n.c.) ReformUK 10 (+8) Greens 4.5 (+1.7) SNP 3 (-1) PC/Oth 2 (+1)
This set of predicted figures - perfectly reasonable and possible - none the less illustrate clearly how much there is to play for. Suppose Reform doesn't really show at the starting gate. Suppose (this is politics) Farage says 'vote Tory', then, accompanied by a brutal and dishonest campaign the Tories could end much closer to Labour than either now or these predictions. 2024 will be fascinating, both sides of the pond.
Rob Ford goes into detail on all his predictions on this thread
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
I wonder how many possible dates can be ruled out- either absolutely or in practice?
The last possible Thursday is 23 January 2025, so I think that's 56 Thursdays to choose from. But the rules on campaign length rule out the next five, so that's down to 51...
Thanks for all the predictions so far - I have recorded 39 entries!
I will try to find a way of presenting them in a summary table over the next few days.
In the meantime for those who haven't entered, you have until 23:59 GMT Saturday 6 January - I will keep a watch out for further entries but once this thread closes please PM me if you want to make an entry.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
If the matter takes the publics attention thanks to this tv show you’d think the Lib Dem’s would be in trouble. Who would benefit?
Happy 2024. Since we're still pretzeling ourselves to explain why folks think the economy is bad despite all the data, here's the latest update of media coverage of inflation/recession vs unemployment/recovery, thru 12/31/23. The truly astounding imbalances persist even in Q423. https://twitter.com/mcopelov/status/1741822689004707882
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
If the matter takes the publics attention thanks to this tv show you’d think the Lib Dem’s would be in trouble. Who would benefit?
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
Happy 2024. Since we're still pretzeling ourselves to explain why folks think the economy is bad despite all the data, here's the latest update of media coverage of inflation/recession vs unemployment/recovery, thru 12/31/23. The truly astounding imbalances persist even in Q423. https://twitter.com/mcopelov/status/1741822689004707882
This is nonsense. People are covering inflation because inflation is top of mind for people. Even if the "data" shows inflation has slowed, prices are still 20% higher than a couple years ago. That is still a big problem for most household budgets.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
It feels like, on a political betting site, this could be settled with a bet.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
I think the Democrats would have a real problem if Hayley was selected as GOP candidate.
Oh, completely. The WaPo poll had her with a 15 point lead over Biden. A Republican who isn't a threat to democracy who probably walk the election. One who was also intelligent, articulate and clearly not suffering from dementia could probably hop it.
A Republican who isn't a threat to democracy, is intelligent, articulate, and not suffering from dementia?
Next you'll be demanding the Moon on a stick.
Yep. Haley's ceiling is about 25% of Republicans. If Trump died, DeSantis would be the candidate. And he is as awful as Trump.
Happy 2024. Since we're still pretzeling ourselves to explain why folks think the economy is bad despite all the data, here's the latest update of media coverage of inflation/recession vs unemployment/recovery, thru 12/31/23. The truly astounding imbalances persist even in Q423. https://twitter.com/mcopelov/status/1741822689004707882
This is nonsense. People are covering inflation because inflation is top of mind for people. Even if the "data" shows inflation has slowed, prices are still 20% higher than a couple years ago. That is still a big problem for most household budgets.
You’d expect a skew, certainly. But inflation has been falling consistently for some time now, as the economy recovers - and the skew persists.
How do you (for example) explain 94 recession stories versus 18 recovery ones, in the fourth quarter of 2023 ?
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
It feels like, on a political betting site, this could be settled with a bet.
Sure, what odds is kitchencabinet offering on his ‘Joe Biden will be pardoned’ scenario ?
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
If the matter takes the publics attention thanks to this tv show you’d think the Lib Dem’s would be in trouble. Who would benefit?
Read Wallis’s book and none of the parties come out if it well. Labour significantly contributed to creating the mess in the first place and neither Tory nor LibDem ministers showed much independence of mind or willingness to get involved.
Arbuthnot - who in real life is a stiff old Etonian who struggles to connect with ordinary folk - should be sending ITV a fine seasonal gift for portraying him as a genial patrician. He deserves credit for (mostly) being on the right side of this scandal and for having given the campaign, after some initial hesitancy, his backing. I remember him as a diffident, lazy and pretty ineffectual London MP, but it would seem that he matured into a dog with a bone.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
This has vibes of the rabbit hole Plato went down.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
It feels like, on a political betting site, this could be settled with a bet.
Sure, what odds is kitchencabinet offering on his ‘Joe Biden will be pardoned’ scenario ?
He might be offered a pardon by President Trump, but I dont think he would accept it.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault. - Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators. - Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent. - A very senior judge from the Supreme Court. - The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system. - The Law Commission - Some defence counsel. - The Post Office's auditors. - The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero. How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero. How many for Windrush? Zero. How many for Grenfell? Zero. How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
As I said, no one on here knows 100% what has happened with Biden and I have made that clear. There are witnesses who have made statements under oath and allegations but nothing more.
However, the howls of exclamation if you even ask a question - as @NigelB has done who seems to have some sort of pathological obsession with posting anything to do with Trump - is completely irrational. If there is nothing to hide (a think a line that was used with Trump’s investigations), then you have nothing to fear.
As for @kjh, I think - again - all you are doing is proving what Casino said earlier. It is nigh on impossible to have any sort of rational conversation about US politics without accusations being thrown around. I’ve said there is no way any of us knows what has happened yet people on here are jumping to conclusions . As for the betting, I’ll repeat what I have put in previous posts - I’m not betting on next November but I am betting on the Democrat nomination for 2024 and I’ve got Whitmer at 100/1 to 130/1 plus outlying bets on Cooper, Polis and Pritzker
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
If the matter takes the publics attention thanks to this tv show you’d think the Lib Dem’s would be in trouble. Who would benefit?
Read Wallis’s book and none of the parties come out if it well. Labour significantly contributed to creating the mess in the first place and neither Tory nor LibDem ministers showed much independence of mind or willingness to get involved.
Arbuthnot - who in real life is a stiff old Etonian who struggles to connect with ordinary folk - should be sending ITV a fine seasonal gift for portraying him as a genial patrician. He deserves credit for (mostly) being on the right side of this scandal and for having given the campaign, after some initial hesitancy, his backing. I remember him as a diffident, lazy and pretty ineffectual London MP, but it would seem that he matured into a dog with a bone.
But Davey is the only one involved who is leader of their party, and he was seemingly rude to the protagonist of the tv show
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
It feels like, on a political betting site, this could be settled with a bet.
Sure, what odds is kitchencabinet offering on his ‘Joe Biden will be pardoned’ scenario ?
There are a couple of layers there and, as I said, I think it’s not a probability and depends on what the poll ratings are. But I would say 25/1 to 33/1 on the chances.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault. - Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators. - Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent. - A very senior judge from the Supreme Court. - The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system. - The Law Commission - Some defence counsel. - The Post Office's auditors. - The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero. How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero. How many for Windrush? Zero. How many for Grenfell? Zero. How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
I think, without thorough researching, that the victims of all those were regular poor people. I mean, really. Why should anyone important care? Crocodile tears for sure. Performative kneeling - of course.
But change?
As an entirely unrelated aside. I grew up on a council estate. A house 'went on fire' at one point. The police refused entry to the fire brigade on the order of the highers up. Right up until they'd evacuated boxes full of photo's of... 100% not illegal photographs of 100% not children from local care homes.
After the boxes were rescued it was 100% ok to rescue the burning building and the surrounding residents,
If anyone hasn't watched the Red Riding trilogy, it's worth a go.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
This has vibes of the rabbit hole Plato went down.
If you choose to make that assumption, that’s your choice but I’m surprised at you and not in a good way. I’ve stated the reasons why I think there is a route to that plus also what I think about the allegations facing Biden.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault. - Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators. - Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent. - A very senior judge from the Supreme Court. - The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system. - The Law Commission - Some defence counsel. - The Post Office's auditors. - The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero. How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero. How many for Windrush? Zero. How many for Grenfell? Zero. How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
I would agree with you there on fat chance anything gets done on this. Too many people involved. A ‘lessons to be learnt’ outcome no doubt.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
You can say many things about Biden - but he's no Bill Clinton.
PlatoSaid last posted in March 2017 after her previous personas had been banned or malfunctioned. In real life she was a woman in her fifties called Philippa. Some people treat politics as a witty entertainment, but to their credit others give it their full measure and of those some are sadly lost in the giving. She started off with only tangential interest in politics but in her later years became more devoted to the wilder alt-right shores and left by mutual agreement. Nevertheless she was missed and several months later people started to comment on her absence, initially jokingly, then with more concern. Eventually her brother contacted OGH after finding a link and told him that she had died. Her friends and lived ones are not known to us, but even those who disagreed with her on PB will remember her fondly. @Plato / @PlatoSays / @PlatoSaid Last active on PB March 2017. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/Plato https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/PlatoSays https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/PlatoSaid http://plato-says.blogspot.com/ https://twitter.com/PlatoSays [I used to do obituaries for PB members but Mike refused to publish it. It's about a year out of date now - somebody died in 2022 and I missed it - but it contains obits of five PBers]”
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
As I said, no one on here knows 100% what has happened with Biden and I have made that clear. There are witnesses who have made statements under oath and allegations but nothing more.
However, the howls of exclamation if you even ask a question - as @NigelB has done who seems to have some sort of pathological obsession with posting anything to do with Trump - is completely irrational. If there is nothing to hide (a think a line that was used with Trump’s investigations), then you have nothing to fear.
As for @kjh, I think - again - all you are doing is proving what Casino said earlier. It is nigh on impossible to have any sort of rational conversation about US politics without accusations being thrown around. I’ve said there is no way any of us knows what has happened yet people on here are jumping to conclusions . As for the betting, I’ll repeat what I have put in previous posts - I’m not betting on next November but I am betting on the Democrat nomination for 2024 and I’ve got Whitmer at 100/1 to 130/1 plus outlying bets on Cooper, Polis and Pritzker
I don't get it. Trump if he wins might prosecute Biden for something, therefore Biden needs a general pardon - from some Democrat candidate who isn't and won't be in a position to give him one?? Or what do you mean?
I know I posted a week or so ago about speculation on US & allied strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The limits then were Biden's own caution and a lack of detailed on the ground Intelligence on what to strike. Fair to say that the latter is now likely sorted and the options sheet is complete. The question now lies with Biden whether & how much to escalate
The warnings from UK sources circulated to the media could be seen as prepping the ground because the Houthis, egged on by their Iranian sponsors, dont seem to be much interested in backing down but the story in the Times and reported elsewhere is not quite in step with offical US statements so a certain ambiguity remains.
There is, however, an alternative approach on the table than the assumed proactive air strikes against Yemen proper. This is a reactive approach of sinking Houthi vessels/choppers that appear to be acting aggressively/found in a defined area. This pretty much creates a de facto exclusion zone and avoids the possibility of strikes on Yemeni soil. The surface to surface to surface missile issue may be seen as containable via shooting them down but whether that brings any confidence to shipping companies is an open question.
Just a reminder on US general election dates: The rule is the first Tuesday in November -- after the first Monday. So a presidential election can never be held on 1 November.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
Presidents don’t. One president, controversially, did so.
The question is ridiculous. You’ve basically internalised the idea that the justice system is the plaything of the president.
Just a reminder on US general election dates: The rule is the first Tuesday in November -- after the first Monday. So a presidential election can never be held on 1 November.
Oddly enough, this was one of the first things I remember learning about US elections. I don't know whether it's something to do with All Saints' Day being on 1st November.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
Presidents don’t. One president, controversially, did so.
The question is ridiculous. You’ve basically internalised the idea that the justice system is the plaything of the president.
I always thought the pardon power was a ridiculous power.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
Presidents don’t. One president, controversially, did so.
The question is ridiculous. You’ve basically internalised the idea that the justice system is the plaything of the president.
Dear oh Lord, you are showing your naivety here. We are talking about a country where the President appoints the members to the highest court in the land based on their political views and Governors do the same in the states.
The whole US legal system is riddled with political considerations.
I go back to my point. Unless you can say with 100% confidence Biden has done nothing wrong, then it’s a possibility.
And I will ask you the same question I asked @rcs1000 and which he hasn’t (yet) answered. Will you categorically state that Biden has 100% not done any potential wrong doing where he could be prosecuted? Because if you can’t, then you haven’t got the conviction you say you have.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
As I said, no one on here knows 100% what has happened with Biden and I have made that clear. There are witnesses who have made statements under oath and allegations but nothing more.
However, the howls of exclamation if you even ask a question - as @NigelB has done who seems to have some sort of pathological obsession with posting anything to do with Trump - is completely irrational. If there is nothing to hide (a think a line that was used with Trump’s investigations), then you have nothing to fear.
As for @kjh, I think - again - all you are doing is proving what Casino said earlier. It is nigh on impossible to have any sort of rational conversation about US politics without accusations being thrown around. I’ve said there is no way any of us knows what has happened yet people on here are jumping to conclusions . As for the betting, I’ll repeat what I have put in previous posts - I’m not betting on next November but I am betting on the Democrat nomination for 2024 and I’ve got Whitmer at 100/1 to 130/1 plus outlying bets on Cooper, Polis and Pritzker
I don't get it. Trump if he wins might prosecute Biden for something, therefore Biden needs a general pardon - from some Democrat candidate who isn't and won't be in a position to give him one?? Or what do you mean?
No, my scenario was Biden steps down in the next few months if his polling numbers don’t improve, Harris takes over the Presidency, pardons him but also announces she is not running and then a Presidential candidate is selected at the Democratic convention.
It's slightly boring having to wait so long for SKS to enter Downing Street, because I'm looking forward to seeing what he's going to do to solve the country's problems, as opposed to just talking about them.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
This is deranged stuff. Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
No, not in his actions (or what we know at this point). But to reiterate, Presidents pardon their predecessors to cover all eventualities. If you think Trump is a maniac and will prosecute Biden if he is elected, then why wouldn’t Biden want to be protected?
As I said, no one on here knows 100% what has happened with Biden and I have made that clear. There are witnesses who have made statements under oath and allegations but nothing more.
However, the howls of exclamation if you even ask a question - as @NigelB has done who seems to have some sort of pathological obsession with posting anything to do with Trump - is completely irrational. If there is nothing to hide (a think a line that was used with Trump’s investigations), then you have nothing to fear.
As for @kjh, I think - again - all you are doing is proving what Casino said earlier. It is nigh on impossible to have any sort of rational conversation about US politics without accusations being thrown around. I’ve said there is no way any of us knows what has happened yet people on here are jumping to conclusions . As for the betting, I’ll repeat what I have put in previous posts - I’m not betting on next November but I am betting on the Democrat nomination for 2024 and I’ve got Whitmer at 100/1 to 130/1 plus outlying bets on Cooper, Polis and Pritzker
I don't get it. Trump if he wins might prosecute Biden for something, therefore Biden needs a general pardon - from some Democrat candidate who isn't and won't be in a position to give him one?? Or what do you mean?
No, my scenario was Biden steps down in the next few months if his polling numbers don’t improve, Harris takes over the Presidency, pardons him but also announces she is not running and then a Presidential candidate is selected at the Democratic convention.
It's slightly boring having to wait so long for SKS to enter Downing Street, because I'm looking forward to seeing what he's going to do to solve the country's problems, as opposed to just talking about them.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
I'd give Biden the edge, but only by 11/9, in terms of odds. Sean Trende, who I take very seriously, makes Trump the slight favourite.
I think that's broadly right: Biden should be narrow favourite. I think Presidential incumbents tend to get reelected, and that the US economy is doing OK. (And interest rates should start falling next year, which will benefit him slightly.) He's also (probably) facing a candidate with significant issues.
But against that, he's old and infirm and has not been seen as a particularly effective President. He won because people hate Trump, not because they are enthused by him.
He won last time because he isn't Donald Trump.
If Donald Trump, an elderly man showing alarming signs of cognitive decline and a failed and defeated president who has spent most of the last four years trying to explain why he first rigged an election and when that failed launched an abortive coup, is the Republican candidate Biden will likely win again unless the economy tanks or he suffers a major health episode.
If Haley or even De Santis were the candidate the Republicans would be strolling to victory and Biden would likely be the first one-term Democratic president not to seek re-election since James Buchanan.
This is, along with their multiple attempts at voter fraud, one of the more disturbing things about the current Republican Party. They seem to have completely lost touch with reality.
I disagree. They are very much in touch with reality. The issue is a prisoners’ dilemma.
If all republicans cooperated and excluded Trump/ selected another candidate they would likely win the White House
But there enough Trump fanatics among the base that any individual politician who opposes Trump runs the risk of the end of their career.
The fundamental problem is that they have no way to exclude those Trumpists from the party/primaries
The reality is that they need the Trump fire to burn itself out. I don’t see anyone able to sustain it assuming he loses in 2024. (Whether he is the GOP nominee or not - I don’t think he runs as an independent because that costs too much, but he sets himself up as the “voice of the people” that keeps the media spotlight on him and maximises the opportunity to grift at minimum cost).
So think of this as the GOP’s 1983. It’s a long road back but they will get there.
Problem might be Trump handing on the baton to one of his sons. He acts like a mafia boss so this would not be out of character. And the base may very well be happy to be led in that direction.
I’m sure he will try. But I don’t see any of his sons having demonstrated the unique set of attributes that has allowed Trump to dominate in the way he has
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault. - Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators. - Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent. - A very senior judge from the Supreme Court. - The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system. - The Law Commission - Some defence counsel. - The Post Office's auditors. - The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero. How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero. How many for Windrush? Zero. How many for Grenfell? Zero. How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
I would agree with you there on fat chance anything gets done on this. Too many people involved. A ‘lessons to be learnt’ outcome no doubt.
It’s an absolute disgrace.
One hope is that those who dragged it all out when it was quite apparent something was dreadfully wrong will get some kind of comeuppance. The initial errors, lying, and awful treatment was one thing and bad enough. But to drag it out for pretty much a decade after the problems and their human cost were apparent and widely known is beyond evil and goes beyond a normal corporate scandal or institutional failure.
One of the computer experts on this programme, Richard Roll, was struggling to remember a lot of details when he was a witness at the inquiry a few months ago, whereas on the 2015 programme he was still able to recall a lot of information. It shows how regrettable it is that it's taken so long to get to this stage in terms of the inquiry. People naturally find it a lot more difficult to remember things from 20 years ago as opposed to 10 years.
E. J. Dionne provides a partial answer as to why so many Americans don't feel good about the economy: "If you wonder why there is so much political discontent, look no further than a year-end YouGov survey, which found that both liberals and conservatives believe the country is moving the wrong way — meaning away from their own views. Forty-four percent of liberals said U.S. politics had moved further to the right over the past decade; only 16 percent said things had moved leftward. Among conservatives, 55 percent said politics had moved to the left, while only 15 percent saw a move rightward. (Moderates, appropriately, were split about evenly.)
Politicians, including our last three presidents, sometimes profit by dividing us. There's nothing new about that here in the US, or in most other democracies, but.as far as I can tell, the tactic has become more common in recent years.
4. Can I press you on largest party and how many seats?
Of course. It’s a tough one, I actually think both Conservatives and Labour will be in the 280-290 range. My view is that Starmer is getting a very easy ride now but, based on how he answers difficult questions, I think in a campaign his ratings are going to be hit badly quickly. I also think Hunt as PM will also help the Tories in the Blue Wall seats.
I do t think journalists will hold him to account (I may be misremembering, but I don’t think they were that interested in Blair’s agenda in 1997).
They will chase the latest Tory idiot mouthing off and run Tory splits / loons / disasters stories for the entire campaign apart from one obligatory serious piece on Starmer’s plans
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
@rcs1000 if you are going to accuse me of losing the plot, at least pay attention to what I stated. Otherwise, it comes across as lazy on your part and / or trying to play to the audience.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!
I did but why do you think your point is a killer point?
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
"Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence?"
I think it is about the same chance that you or I have committed a Federal crime.*
So, not 100%, but pretty high likelihood. I also think it is almost inconceivable (certainly 1,000+ to 1) that there would be a "Harris pardons Biden moment".
Why?
Because such a pardon would be an implicit acknowledgement of guilt, and that certainly isn't happening this side of a US Presidential election.
I also don't really see why, if Biden announces he isn't running, he stands down anyway? What's the benefit to him, the country or even his party? Putting Kamala up (if she'd even agree to not be a Presidential candidate) doesn't seem to offer anything.
But seriously, I want to come back to the Biden crime thing. Leave aside the question of probabilities and answer "what is the crime that you think he is likeliest to have committed?"
Because all I've seen so far is the fact that Hunter has being paying Joe Biden $1,800 a month for a car loan.
When he was out of office, Joe Biden got $750,000 to give 20 minute "Aw Shucks" speeches.** I mean if he was receiving, I don't know, $50,000 a month from Hunter, it might be vaguely plausible. But $1,800 a month for the multi-millionaire Bidens. He would be 100x more likely to do favours for free for Hunter, than to accept $1,800 to commit a crime.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The site seems pretty evenly split between those who expect a Trump victory and those who think Biden gets it. (For what it's worth, I think more than a few people on here would welcome a Hayley Presidency.)
So, while I think most people on here dread a Trump Presidency because of his complete disregard for democratic norms (like, you know, allowing the person who won the election to become President) I don't think they are in some kind of fugue state where they don't see his appeal.
However, you do appear to have lost the plot regarding Joe Biden regarding Hunter. What crime has Joe Biden committed that requires pardoning?
4. Can I press you on largest party and how many seats?
Of course. It’s a tough one, I actually think both Conservatives and Labour will be in the 280-290 range. My view is that Starmer is getting a very easy ride now but, based on how he answers difficult questions, I think in a campaign his ratings are going to be hit badly quickly. I also think Hunt as PM will also help the Tories in the Blue Wall seats.
I do t think journalists will hold him to account (I may be misremembering, but I don’t think they were that interested in Blair’s agenda in 1997).
They will chase the latest Tory idiot mouthing off and run Tory splits / loons / disasters stories for the entire campaign apart from one obligatory serious piece on Starmer’s plans
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
You have done a great job at highlighting the injustices @Cyclefree
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault. - Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators. - Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent. - A very senior judge from the Supreme Court. - The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system. - The Law Commission - Some defence counsel. - The Post Office's auditors. - The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero. How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero. How many for Windrush? Zero. How many for Grenfell? Zero. How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
I would agree with you there on fat chance anything gets done on this. Too many people involved. A ‘lessons to be learnt’ outcome no doubt.
It’s an absolute disgrace.
One hope is that those who dragged it all out when it was quite apparent something was dreadfully wrong will get some kind of comeuppance. The initial errors, lying, and awful treatment was one thing and bad enough. But to drag it out for pretty much a decade after the problems and their human cost were apparent and widely known is beyond evil and goes beyond a normal corporate scandal or institutional failure.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
I have a little bit of sympathy on refusing a meeting.
If you are the ultimate authority over an entity that is involved in litigation then you don’t want to meet with the other side.
But he should have been asking questions privately
Part 1 You, and many others, are clearly fans of Lincoln. But that’s not the point under discussion at all, the point here is everyone recognising Lincoln as the war causing disruptor he clearly was - disruptor to the ideas of Freedom others felt the formation and existence of the United States, and life in it was all about.
Freedoms and Rights at the centre of American politics back then, as the argument they make America great.
Let me prove my argument the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, but about Freedom and Rights, by using this Black Mirror. Delete and replace the constitutional freedom and right to own slaves, in a state opposed to slavery, with the freedom and right to bear arms in a state opposed to carrying guns. It doesn’t matter if it’s slavery, or gun ownership, or any point of moral or political contention - it’s where that freedom and right in America comes up against a disruptor, saying “can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow {slavery} to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.” Lifted straight from Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address you sent me.
Part 2 The more you send me, the more evidence it gives me that I am right. Let’s be honest in the terms we should use about Lincoln. He’s was a progressive, bringing a sense of duty to be progressive to any situation, into debate on any issue, and this made him the disruptor. I’m not saying you shouldn’t like Abraham Lincoln. But we must accept he is pressing for progressive change that is undoing what people believe are the Freedoms and Rights in America. And so Lincoln is the cause of the civil war.
The more I read up on this, when the secessionists fired the first shot in the war, their right to keep slaves not actually under immediate threat in the slave states, by all means put me right if that’s wrong. However, by this point they have clearly been pushed by their “Nationalist” opponents “clear intentions of redefining” the Freedom and Rights in US as they understood them, into a position to cede from the Union.
Recall “freedom and rights” are the words Haley used as to what the civil war was about in her instinctive answer to the question. And recall while she was, according to me, historically word perfect in her honest answer - that was used against her politically last week. However, rather than taking that answer out of the public sphere to believe it behind closed doors - a view of American history held behind closed doors, best not mentioned in public, which I claim is where it is being hidden, the US needs a more honest debate on this. And here’s the question, can the US have that honest debate on this right now? Or is the USA a place true history of Civil War is kept behind closed doors, because that same actual war hasn’t even been resolved yet?
because, biggest Elephant in the room in the USA is how the Freedom and Rights indoctrinated into Americans, from birth even like the first thing whispered into each baby’s ear after the stork has dropped it off, completely grates against progressive and nationalist politics of Lincoln’s Copper Union address: that the National government, Congress, has both the moral duty and constitutional power to override “everything”, on issues where there cannot be groping for contrivances in the middle ground.
Forget 1860 - instead take a little trip with Lincoln’s Copper Union Address through America today, and see just how many it can wind up into insurrection, even in 2024.
I rest my case here. I’ve explained myself fully, whether you want to agree or not.
The Fire Eaters had pushed the narrative that slavery had to expand or die. They also pushed a narrative that all Republicans were John Brown supporting abolitionists.
They also believed this themselves. They convinced themselves that no matter what assurances were given to them, on slavery, that the election of Lincoln was the beginning of an assault on slavery.
To remain in the USA, when pro slavery politicians were not in control of the government was intolerable to them.
No Malmsy. It was what those progressive politicians with moral duty would do with power, that was intolerable - take away your rights, take away your freedoms, take away your states sovereignty, strip it and you of democracy.
If the USA to you was all about the freedom and right to own slaves if you wanted to, carry guns if you wanted to, and progressive nationalist politicians went about saying central government have the power and moral duty to take those rights off you, then it’s no longer your USA, the one you were born into and celebrate the 4th of July in, is it? What is the 4th of July celebration, if it not celebration of freedom and rights?
And by not letting you break away from the Nation State so you can continue in a land of the free and home of the brave, then they are the ones declaring war on you, for it is you, not they, who own the true spirit of a free America.
So that’s definitely not a conflict about slavery alone, but your own freedom no less, and how to have real and functioning and fair democracy in a union of states.
If the civil war was about slavery, nowt else, then maybe we can call it over - after all, those slaves no longer on census as numbers but names, and they can stand as politicians, and run things. So yeah, let’s call it an argument about slavery, all over and in the past now.
But if it’s an argument over God given Freedoms and Rights in America, and whether those in National government can strip you of those rights, then this is an argument far from over. And history books should reflect that.
You do seem to be overlooking that the greatest right in question is the right of slaves not to be slaves. It is a big important thing.
The penny just hasn’t dropped has it? Over how much of history, over how many slave owners and slave dealers over how many thousand years, are you applying your 21st Century morality that slavery is wrong? But I’m not arguing in favour of slavery, I’m arguing we mustn’t forget why people argued in favour of slavery. Do you think change is ever only resisted out of self interest?
Slavery wasn’t abolished overnight, just like universal suffrage, women’s rights, gay rights etc etc didn’t burst forth in full Amazonian battle gear like Athena from Zeus head, and in a moment there was done - people went all out in battle, faced hardships, deprivations, theatre assassinations, threw themselves in front of horses on Derby Day - change was still resisted. Why? Because when it comes to something like the US civil war we mustn’t lose the historical fact, change is not merely resisted out of self interest, nor proposed merely out of self interest, people of both sides genuinely believe it and feel it to be right, or wrong. It’s genuinely believed the proposed change will upset the natural order of things, prove ruinous; is not as God, or constitution drafters intended, hence reluctance to surrender power and cede control. War does not have to be over anything as tangible as slavery, it’s more abstract in its thinking on an adversaries view of the world and intentions to be wrong and ruinous, to the extent a line has to be drawn in the sand at some point somewhere. Wars are not necesarily fought over specific things or threats, but over fear of others and their views gaining power, and where it might lead.
Comments
Zahawi appears to have played himself, although being unable to recreate his own demeanour at the actual BIS select committee, when the original is recorded on tape, is an acting fail, I suggest. If you can’t play yourself, what hope is there?
2. May 2nd (As I've pushed the theory of Sunak wanting to take on the title fight undercooked rather than risk the pointless risky eliminator)
3. All leaders as now (Sunak, SKS, Davey, Yousaf, Tice)
4. Labour, majority 90
5. Trump, Biden
6. Biden on normalish swing back
7. 4.5%
8. 3.1%
9. 110bn
10. 51
Much more genuine, deep, and less earnest than you'd get from a BBC dispatch.
(Ps I’ve said before I would prefer someone else other than Trump to run - look at my posts in the past)
I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think there is
anywhere near enough evidence to convict Biden on an impeachment. However, I think there is more than enough there to continue questioning - as I have said before, it is on the record that there are whistleblowers who have made multiple claims under oath and / or statements by Biden himself that have had to be rowed back when other information comes out.
As for the pardoning stuff, US Presidents will pardon not just to cover what has been proven but also what else may come out / is within the realms of possibility. Nixon didn’t go to trial, and there were legal debates as of now as to whether he was criminally liable but Ford pardoned him anyway to cover all bases.
But, if you want to show me posts where I have said Biden is guilty of crimes, please post the links. Otherwise, have a think about what you said.
So I'm going to go Con 28 Lab 40.5. That completes the GB vote share predictions, as follows:
Lab 40.5 (+7.5)
Con 28 (-16.7)
LD 12 (n.c.)
ReformUK 10 (+8)
Greens 4.5 (+1.7)
SNP 3 (-1)
PC/Oth 2 (+1)
https://x.com/robfordmancs/status/1741859914849415569?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://youtu.be/IsqqjOxEuAg?si=4cGdZzgY1RmbhP2R
(There might be another current Conservative MP- not a disowned sleazy independent- who would be even less acceptable to the Party In The Country, but I can't think who off the top of my head.)
https://x.com/chicagosmayor/status/1741528869797085218
This morning just after 1 a.m., a private Boeing 777 originating from San Antonio, Texas landed at the Rockford/Chicago airport carrying 350 asylum seekers. There was no communication from Texas, and the City of Chicago was alerted by authorities in Rockford regarding the flight.
Upon landing, asylum seekers were placed on buses chartered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and dropped in various surrounding suburbs, left to find their way to the city.
This is the second recorded instance of the Texas governor transporting asylum seekers via private plane.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I'm not sure that's correct, but can see the argument.
And, since it's seats not votes that matter, that leads to:
Lab: 388 Cons: 156 LD: 64 SNP: 18 Lab majority of 126
1. 11
2. Nov 14 2024
3. Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Forbes, Tice
4. Labour, 45
5. Haley, Biden
6. Haley
7. 4%
8. 3%
9. £70b
10. 64
The GOP has been investigating this for years, and has literally not one single piece of evidence that the President did anything wrong.
But you’re just ‘asking questions’.
10%
2. Date of the next UK General Election.
2nd May
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called
Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousaf, Tice (with Farage as the leader of their electoral candidates)
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).
Labour, 150 seat majority
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems.
Trump and Biden
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner.
Biden
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024.
5%
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 4.2%).
4.0%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn).
£120bn
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64).
60
(Thanks for organising this, gents!)
Have some ordinary, decent respect, man.
Next you'll be demanding the Moon on a stick.
https://x.com/robfordmancs/status/1741815235726495840?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
"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."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
The last possible Thursday is 23 January 2025, so I think that's 56 Thursdays to choose from. But the rules on campaign length rule out the next five, so that's down to 51...
I will try to find a way of presenting them in a summary table over the next few days.
In the meantime for those who haven't entered, you have until 23:59 GMT Saturday 6 January - I will keep a watch out for further entries but once this thread closes please PM me if you want to make an entry.
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1741870536953852356
I said Presidents pardon not just to cover actual crimes but to cover all bases. That was exactly what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon who hadn't been convicted of crimes and where there had been a serious constitutional discussion as to whether he would / could be prosecuted.
It would be the same here. Biden may or may not have committed a crime - and my view is that there is neither evidence to 100% exonerate him or convict him - but he may demand that an incoming President Harris issued a pardon all the same to cover all eventualities - including that a President Trump (or successor) would look to prosecute Biden.
Another way to put this. Do you think 100% that Biden has not - or never had - committed any federal crime in relation to what has gone on and based on the evidence? Or put it another way, are you willing to commit in writing what you infer in your notes?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-67855359
2. 10 October 2024
3. Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousaf, Tice
4. Labour, 100
5. Haley, Buttegieg
6. Haley
7. 4.75%
8. 2.7%
9. £95 bn
10. 42
https://twitter.com/mcopelov/status/1741822689004707882
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-12577139/ANDREW-PIERCE-ex-Post-Office-minister-Ed-Davey-trousered-275k-legal-firm-pursued-hundreds-innocent-sub-postmasters-accused-fraud.html
But not before cycle free had her teeth into it (I checked your X posts @cyclefree, hoping you were first
The question now is how do we punish - and punish us the right word - those who allowed this to happen and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Are you honestly comparing Biden to Nixon ?
2. October 24
3. Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousaf, Farage
4. Labour, 155.
5. Trump, Biden.
6. Biden.
7. 5%.
8. 2.8%.
9. £120bn
10. 58.
That was fun - thanks Ben!
But inflation has been falling consistently for some time now, as the economy recovers - and the skew persists.
How do you (for example) explain 94 recession stories versus 18 recovery ones, in the fourth quarter of 2023 ?
Arbuthnot - who in real life is a stiff old Etonian who struggles to connect with ordinary folk - should be sending ITV a fine seasonal gift for portraying him as a genial patrician. He deserves credit for (mostly) being on the right side of this scandal and for having given the campaign, after some initial hesitancy, his backing. I remember him as a diffident, lazy and pretty ineffectual London MP, but it would seem that he matured into a dog with a bone.
2. 1st Thursday in November
3. Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousef, Tice
4. Labour, 40 seats
5. Trump, Biden
6. Biden
7. 4.25%
8. 3.4%
9. £110 Bn
10. 50
This is not just about Paula Vennells and Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu.
I have a list.
- Lots of Ministers, civil servants and senior managers of the Royal Mail, and the Post Office and Fujitsu were at fault.
- Then there are the various in house lawyers and investigators.
- Quite a few members of the independent Bar, including some KCs, some quite eminent.
- A very senior judge from the Supreme Court.
- The Ministry of Justice which is responsible for the civil and criminal justice system.
- The Law Commission
- Some defence counsel.
- The Post Office's auditors.
- The MPs who voted for all the legal aid cuts which made it impossible for the subpostmasters to defend themselves.
Will any - let alone all - be held to account? Fat chance.
How many people were held to account for Aberfan? Zero.
How many for the blood contamination scandal? Zero.
How many for Windrush? Zero.
How many for Grenfell? Zero.
How many for all the various NHS scandals? And so on.
Forgive the cynicism. But I have seen so many of these, with so many of the same factors happening over and over again. And nothing ever really changes.
As I said, no one on here knows 100% what has happened with Biden and I have made that clear. There are witnesses who have made statements under oath and allegations but nothing more.
However, the howls of exclamation if you even ask a question - as @NigelB has done who seems to have some sort of pathological obsession with posting anything to do with Trump - is completely irrational. If there is nothing to hide (a think a line that was used with Trump’s investigations), then you have nothing to fear.
As for @kjh, I think - again - all you are doing is proving what Casino said earlier. It is nigh on impossible to have any sort of rational conversation about US politics without
accusations being thrown around. I’ve said there is no way any of us knows what has happened yet people on here are jumping to conclusions
.
As for the betting, I’ll repeat what I have put in previous posts - I’m not betting on next November but I am betting on the Democrat nomination for 2024 and I’ve got Whitmer at 100/1 to 130/1 plus outlying bets on Cooper, Polis and Pritzker
But change?
As an entirely unrelated aside. I grew up on a council estate. A house 'went on fire' at one point. The police refused entry to the fire brigade on the order of the highers up. Right up until they'd evacuated boxes full of photo's of... 100% not illegal photographs of 100% not children from local care homes.
After the boxes were rescued it was 100% ok to rescue the burning building and the surrounding residents,
If anyone hasn't watched the Red Riding trilogy, it's worth a go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Riding
It’s an absolute disgrace.
In June a complete nause called @CorrectHorseBat asked the same question you just have, and @viewcode gave this reply
“ @PLATO / PHILLIPA (?-2017?)
PlatoSaid last posted in March 2017 after her previous personas had been banned or malfunctioned. In real life she was a woman in her fifties called Philippa. Some people treat politics as a witty entertainment, but to their credit others give it their full measure and of those some are sadly lost in the giving. She started off with only tangential interest in politics but in her later years became more devoted to the wilder alt-right shores and left by mutual agreement. Nevertheless she was missed and several months later people started to comment on her absence, initially jokingly, then with more concern. Eventually her brother contacted OGH after finding a link and told him that she had died. Her friends and lived ones are not known to us, but even those who disagreed with her on PB will remember her fondly.
@Plato / @PlatoSays / @PlatoSaid
Last active on PB March 2017.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/Plato
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/PlatoSays
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/PlatoSaid
http://plato-says.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays
[I used to do obituaries for PB members but Mike refused to publish it. It's about a year out of date now - somebody died in 2022 and I missed it - but it contains obits of five PBers]”
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/11446/another-tricky-by-election-defence-for-the-tories-politicalbetting-com/p5
The warnings from UK sources circulated to the media could be seen as prepping the ground because the Houthis, egged on by their Iranian sponsors, dont seem to be much interested in backing down but the story in the Times and reported elsewhere is not quite in step with offical US statements so a certain ambiguity remains.
There is, however, an alternative approach on the table than the assumed proactive air strikes against Yemen proper. This is a reactive approach of sinking Houthi vessels/choppers that appear to be acting aggressively/found in a defined area. This pretty much creates a de facto exclusion zone and avoids the possibility of strikes on Yemeni soil. The surface to surface to surface missile issue may be seen as containable via shooting them down but whether that brings any confidence to shipping companies is an open question.
One president, controversially, did so.
The question is ridiculous. You’ve basically internalised the idea that the justice system is the plaything of the president.
The whole US legal system is riddled with political considerations.
I go back to my point. Unless you can say with 100% confidence Biden has done nothing wrong, then it’s a possibility.
And I will ask you the same question I asked @rcs1000 and which he hasn’t (yet) answered. Will you categorically state that Biden has 100% not done any potential wrong doing where he could be prosecuted? Because if you can’t, then you haven’t got the conviction you say you have.
Ps I replied to your betting question before.
"You said that the next Democratic Presidential candidate would promise to pardon Biden!"
Your scenario at least makes more logical sense, but seems very unlikely. I certainly wouldn't back it at 33-1.
Movies will be so realistic that it will be difficult to distinguish them from real life
https://nitter.net/paulisci/status/1741884619182702703#m
Jan 1, 2024 · 6:10 PM UTC
- CGI in Top Gun Maverick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo
- CGI in Chris Nolan films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yPLwJr3xa4
It should have been obvious in Top Gun Maverick that there was CGI because no F14s can still fly and the SU57 is Russian.https://youtu.be/F3by7G0VQ3A?feature=shared
Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux captured the mood. “Everybody thinks they’re losing,” he told me."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/31/politics-economy-vibecession-extremism/
Politicians, including our last three presidents, sometimes profit by dividing us. There's nothing new about that here in the US, or in most other democracies, but.as far as I can tell, the tactic has become more common in recent years.
They will chase the latest Tory idiot mouthing off and run Tory splits / loons / disasters stories for the entire campaign apart from one obligatory serious piece on Starmer’s plans
I think it is about the same chance that you or I have committed a Federal crime.*
So, not 100%, but pretty high likelihood. I also think it is almost inconceivable (certainly 1,000+ to 1) that there would be a "Harris pardons Biden moment".
Why?
Because such a pardon would be an implicit acknowledgement of guilt, and that certainly isn't happening this side of a US Presidential election.
I also don't really see why, if Biden announces he isn't running, he stands down anyway? What's the benefit to him, the country or even his party? Putting Kamala up (if she'd even agree to not be a Presidential candidate) doesn't seem to offer anything.
But seriously, I want to come back to the Biden crime thing. Leave aside the question of probabilities and answer "what is the crime that you think he is likeliest to have committed?"
Because all I've seen so far is the fact that Hunter has being paying Joe Biden $1,800 a month for a car loan.
When he was out of office, Joe Biden got $750,000 to give 20 minute "Aw Shucks" speeches.** I mean if he was receiving, I don't know, $50,000 a month from Hunter, it might be vaguely plausible. But $1,800 a month for the multi-millionaire Bidens. He would be 100x more likely to do favours for free for Hunter, than to accept $1,800 to commit a crime.
* Have you read this: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Basically, it's almost impossible for the average American not to repeatedly commit felonies.
** Al Gore, Tony Blair and Dick Cheney were all big on the conference circuit racket
If you are the ultimate authority over an entity that is involved in litigation then you don’t want to meet with the other side.
But he should have been asking questions privately
Over how much of history, over how many slave owners and slave dealers over how many thousand years, are you applying your 21st Century morality that slavery is wrong?
But I’m not arguing in favour of slavery, I’m arguing we mustn’t forget why people argued in favour of slavery. Do you think change is ever only resisted out of self interest?
Slavery wasn’t abolished overnight, just like universal suffrage, women’s rights, gay rights etc etc didn’t burst forth in full Amazonian battle gear like Athena from Zeus head, and in a moment there was done - people went all out in battle, faced hardships, deprivations, theatre assassinations, threw themselves in front of horses on Derby Day - change was still resisted. Why? Because when it comes to something like the US civil war we mustn’t lose the historical fact, change is not merely resisted out of self interest, nor proposed merely out of self interest, people of both sides genuinely believe it and feel it to be right, or wrong. It’s genuinely believed the proposed change will upset the natural order of things, prove ruinous; is not as God, or constitution drafters intended, hence reluctance to surrender power and cede control. War does not have to be over anything as tangible as slavery, it’s more abstract in its thinking on an adversaries view of the world and intentions to be wrong and ruinous, to the extent a line has to be drawn in the sand at some point somewhere.
Wars are not necesarily fought over specific things or threats, but over fear of others and their views gaining power, and where it might lead.
The film's enemy is not named. Everybody thinks it's North Korea but I think it's Iran because of the geography and the F14.
"Cashless society is killing off the traditional coin-operated public phone box"
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-10952227/Cashless-society-killing-phone-box-one-call-save-yours.html